New research finds faces of five-year-old black boys put whites in a more threat-conscious state of mind.
If the current election cycle hasn’t convinced you that racism has yet to be eradicated, consider this: The mere image of a black man is enough to stimulate an automatic threat response in whites. Research has found faces of African-American males are more likely to beperceived as angry, and can trigger neural activity associated with rapid detection of danger.
While even pre-teens can stimulate this reaction (which helps explain the tragic shooting of a 12 year old holding a pellet gun in Cleveland two years ago), it presumably doesn’t apply to very young black boys. It’s hard to believe they are perceived as dangerous as they emerge from the womb.
So when do they start coming across as threatening? Newly published researchprovides a depressing answer: by the time they enter kindergarten.
Participants misidentified safe words as threatening more often after seeing a black face.
In a series of studies, a University of Iowa research team led by Andrew Todd finds images of the faces of five-year-old black boys are sufficient to trigger whites into heightened-threat mode. “Implicit biases commonly observed for black men appear to generalize even to young black boys,” the researchers write in the journalPsychological Science.
The first of their experiments featured 63 college undergraduates, who “completed a categorization task in which two images flashed on the monitor in quick succession. Participants were instructed to ignore the first time, which was always a face; it merely signaled that the second image was about to appear. Their task was to quickly and accurately categorize the second image (the target object) as a gun or a toy, by pressing one of two response keys.”
In fact, the faces—all of five-year-old boys with neutral facial expressions—were a key component of the experiment. Six of them featured black children, and six white. Researchers wanted to know whether the race of the child would affect the speed and accuracy of the white participants’ responses.
It did. “Participants identified guns more quickly after black-child primes than after white-child primes,” the researchers report, “whereas they identified toys more quickly after the white-child primes than after black-child primes.”
Subsequent experiments found black five-year-old faces produced just as strong an effect as photographs of adult black males. This held true when white participants were labeling images as guns or tools, and when they were shown a list of words (including “criminal” and “peaceful”) and asked to categorize each as “safe” or “threatening.”
In that last experiment, participants misidentified safe words as threatening more often after seeing a black face, and misidentified threatening words as safe more often after seeing a white one—child or adult.
“These racial biases were driven entirely by differences in automatic processing,” Todd and his colleagues write. In other words, no conscious thought was involved; whites simply saw a black male face and reacted in ways that indicated a heightened level of perceived threat.
Even when the face was that of a five-year-old.
I wonder how much money was spent on this study to come up with a conclusion that most people know to be true already. This ‘racist reaction’ is as normal as it gets. The reaction shows that the instinct for self-preservation which is the first law of nature, is what drives the awareness of potential danger. Without this instinct which is innate in all living things then there would be no danger perception seen in nature, there would be no art of hunting or the escape and evade technique of a potential victim of the natural food chain in the wild. Lions would roam freely among their prey picking them off at ease because they would have no threat perception.
This study whilst confirming what we already know to be true, is just another example of the anti-white agenda that lies behind it. It is just another attempt to portray whites as inherently ‘racist’ ignoring the fact that what you they call ‘racist’ is in fact a normal natural and completely healthy survival instinct that is crucial to all living things. If human beings didn’t discriminate then it could very well lead to death or severe injury. It is only natural that young white children would perceive blacks as being more of a threat. They learn to identify potential danger not because of the lefts definition of racism, but because in the real world blacks commit more crime a fact which is born out of the statistics and reality of living in the real world and not the mythical non-existent utopia the left want you to believe in.
What studies like this are designed to do, is to further demonise whites as being uniquely evil, even as children. There have been other reports about propranolol being used a medication to treat ‘implicit racism’. 
What they call ‘racism’ they know to be a natural reaction especially in studies like this, but what they want to do now to move the narrative away from it being natural, is to portray it as being unnatural. They want to present racial bias and racial consiousness as being a treatable medical condition. It would be akin to saying that the survival instinct of the gazelle in the wild is an unnatural medical condition which should be treated as such. So what if the gazelle succumbed to the immutable laws of nature as a result, we can’t discriminate now can we.