RACISM is killing black men, according to a new study. CBS reports:

Accelerated aging and a greater likelihood of suffering from an age-related illness at a younger age are two consequences being linked to African-American men who have experienced high-levels of racism throughout their lives.

A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine finds that African-American men who reported high levels of racial discrimination, or who have internalized anti-black attitudes themselves, have an increased risk of premature death and chronic disease than white people.

Previous research has documented African-Americans’ shorter life expectancy and greater risk of chronic diseases, but this new study is the first to link racism-related experiences to accelerated aging at the biological, cellular level.

By the way, notice the clever use of the passive voice. If the first sentence had said, “High levels of racism are causing accelerated aging and age-related illnesses in African-American men,” the falsity of it would have been much more apparent.

— Comments —

Paul writes:

I see no way out other than separatism as opposed to civil war. Most people, left and right, are not interested in bloodshed. A smart, articulate leader is needed to effect it. Ted Cruz might be that man. He is from Texas, which has always had an independent attitude.

Offhand, I perceive the Southeast (the former Confederacy), the Northeast, the Northwest, the Southwest, and the Midwest joining the Southeast. Once these nations were established, there would be parts of nations joining other nations. Alaska probably would opt to be independent. Hawaii obviously would be independent.

Laura writes:

The number of Americans who have the will or determination to participate in a separatist movement is miniscule. Besides, the kind of America you describe would not be substantially different.

Nancy writes:

“Member of group X” who also has “condition Y” is more likely to exhibit “condition Z” than those members of group X who don’t have “condition Y.” “Condition Y” may or may not cause “condition Z”. Correlation is not causation. I wish that you and others who are ignorant of basic statistics and experimental design would either buckle down and learn a few statistical principles or refrain from commenting on scientific studies.

Laura writes:

I assume you thought I was approving of the study. I consider it too ridiculous to analyze as a work of “science.” However, I will note the most glaringly un-scientific part of it: the victimization of the study participants was based on their own reports.

“The men surveyed were asked about their experiences with racial discrimination from the police, at work, and in daily scenarios in stores and restaurants. The men were also tested using “implicit association” exams that measure their own attitudes toward various racial groups.”

This study does conclusively prove that despite years of abasement and enormous transfers of wealth  and various privileges to nonwhites, whites remains as guilty as ever — -and they will always be guilty until racial differences are acknowledged.

Alex writes:

Ted Cruz???!!!!!

Are you serious, Paul? A big-time politician from the Treason Party, formerly known as the Stupid Party? The party that is looking for a way to flood America with cheap Mexicans so its masters from the Chamber of Commerce can save even more on industrial and service wages, and with cheap Indians so the Democrats’ new masters, the IT billionaires, can save too on coder wages, to hell with Americans?

Read this about Cruz and amnesty.

What will it take for you Americans finally to stop hoping that some or other of these new, improved Treason Party leaders will save America? Do you really believe that a GOP president could “effect separatism”?

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!

Laura writes:

There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. Maybe a nickel’s worth, but not a dime.

Placing any hopes in the Republican Party or its offshoots is a complete waste of time.

Paul writes:

Because I don’t want to seem argumentative, this will be the last I have to say on this topic.  I agree education about and practice of first principles is vital.  This is an excellent site for such an education.

The only way to educate and to practice first principles is to possess the freedom to do so.  Because we don’t want bloodshed to protect our freedom, the only alternative is to engage in politics.  Mitt Romney lost because much of his base failed to show up and vote for someone they suspected is about as liberal as Obama.  They were wrong.  Now, if one of the least liberal justices dies or resigns, Obama will appoint a radical liberal.  In my view, that would be a disaster for traditionalists and the rest of the country.  This is just one example of why people must use politics.

Another example would be local property taxes and spending.  If people don’t show up to oppose excessive taxes and spending, their communities will end up like Detroit.  There is nowhere else to run.  Manifest Destiny is over.  The invasion of foreigners is occurring in every nook and cranny.  The invaders are not staying in the hellholes their predecessors helped to create, which allowed liberals to run for safe lily-white enclaves beginning by at least the 1960s.  The invaders are following the liberals.  Look what George Zimmerman’s community is dealing with.  Over about the last three years, my large condo building (230 units) acquired about three black owners.  More are sure to follow.  Whites have been moving twenty-five miles north for the last twenty years.  Hopefully, I can retire and move away in a few years.  In the meantime, I must watch the property values closely.  They have not increased in ten years.  The only public grammar school nearby (two blocks away) is now an advanced studies school.  I feel bad for the other students who must be bused God knows where.  In an eight-block radius around me there are two Catholic grammar schools, a private advanced studies school, and a couple of private schools.  I expect mothers must be out working to afford them.  People need to vote for vouchers.

Laura writes:

I entirely agree with you about voting against local tax increases. That is an area where the traditionalist can be effective. In that case, that’s basically a ‘yes’ or ‘ no’ issue and one doesn’t risk getting drawn into politics at a state and national level, where there is no hope and where any kind of serious involvement will only involve  capitulation and distraction. I don’t say that as someone who disdains politics in general. That is not my point. Right now, I believe it is immoral for a Catholic to be involved in furthering the aims of either party. They are utterly atheistic in their orientations and both believe individual liberty and selfishness are the highest aims of life.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful and I sincerely believe in your good intentions, but I could care less why Mitt Romney lost. If he had won, the Republican Party merely would have continued the Revolution at a slower pace, which in some ways would be more insidious because it would lull many into inattention.

By the way, every single member of the Supreme Court is a radical by virtue of being a member of an institution that recognizes no higher moral authority than itself. And whether it was a Republican or a Democrat appointing new members to the court, it would only be a question of how fast the utter degradation of humanity would proceed and how fast calculated money interests would be able to destroy America. Do you really think the Republican party is ever going to reverse any of the seriously immoral legislation that oppresses us? Forget about it. By what principle would it do so? The U.S. Constitution does not recognize the rights of God. It recognizes the rights of man. The Republican Party stands for libertarianism and big business with a splash of family values thrown in.

Buck writes:

Is there some correlation between Nancy’s muddle of XYZs and my disdain of the interminable, widespread ignorance and denial of fraudulent “scientist’s” use of dishonest modern liberal tactics any proof of its causation? Likely not, I guess. My ignorance of designed statistics won’t be overcome, even if I buckle down to learn. I’m stuck with the “others.”

Notwithstanding that nonsense; the UMD report on the study says:

On the other hand, the data revealed that racial discrimination had little relationship with telomere length among those holding pro-black attitudes. “African American men who have more positive views of their racial group may be buffered from the negative impact of racial discrimination,” explained Chae. “In contrast, those who have internalized an anti-black bias may be less able to cope with racist experiences, which may result in greater stress and shorter telomeres.”

Is that a reference to free will and personal character?

Is it a majority or a minority of black men who hold a positive or “more positive” view of their own race? What are these “racist experiences”?

What happened to the black pride movement that morphed into the black power movement? Is that what they’re talking about? “A rock in the face of expressions of white superiority”? The “knockout game”?

New York City’s police force, at the end of 2010 was 53% white and 47% minority. On patrol, doing stop-and-frisk, they were 53% black, Latino (any race), or Asian, and 47% non-Hispanic white. The population of the city is 44% white, 25% black.

Stop-and-frisk was instituted by Mayor David Dinkins. It continued under Rudy Giuliani.

Did the dramatic, historical transition from crime to safety in NYC, shorten or lengthen the life span or telomeres of blacks living in the city, specifically the high-crime areas? Has it given “African-American” men a more positive view of their racial group and buffered them from the negative impact of racial discrimination, as they learned along with the rest of us, that blacks have been committing the overwhelming majority of crimes in the city, in almost every category? Why are so many whites feeling more guilty now, than they felt before the historical reduction in crime? It’s very confusing for this ignorant white man. I can feel my telomeres shortening.

New York City reports for 2012 that: Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter victims are 60% black, 27% Hispanic and 8.7% white. Known suspects are 54% black, 35% Hispanic and 9% white. The arrest population is: 51% black, 37% Hispanics, and 9% white. The population of the city is 44% white, 25% black.

Should 44% of New York City’s patrolling police force stop and frisk in majority white neighborhoods in order to attack the 9% white murder and mayhem and send 25% of their force into majority black neighborhoods to attack that 60% of murder and mayhem? Should the patrolling force be race controlled?

Partly because it was so remarkable, there is ongoing disagreement as to whether the “broken windows” theory and tactics such as “stop and frisk”, or the police “surge” into high crime areas, which closed down gang-run open drug markets and ended the daily gang murders; was the actual reason. What difference does it make? The demographics are the same.

So, what effect does truth embodied in that recent history have on the length of an individual black man’s telomeres, whether he had or still has a pro-black or an anti-black bias? What is the cause and effect?

Please follow and like us: