new

[From "If Vitamin N was a thing they'd be fine"]

Why is it that niggers are so much more likely to die of the Wuhan Flu?†

Left-wing media asks "could it be racism"? Of course. No, not of course that's the reason but of course they asked. They have a little cottage industry entirely devoted to asking that question constantly whether it makes sense to or not. Zoe Carpenter at The Nation writes "What We Know About the Covid-19 Race Gap" with the hilariously ironic sub-title "The CDC is finally releasing more data that show just how unequal the toll of the pandemic is. But we can’t stop there". One of the things we don't know about the "race gap" is whether or not it's even unequal. To know that, you have to surmise that the death toll is related to the medical care and not the virus itself. Zoe/Zoë Carpenter doesn't have a clue about that: she pretends to but she's lying.

Covid-19 is retracing patterns of disease and death long documented by public health experts, who have found that black Americans are more likely than whites to suffer from a variety of illnesses and chronic conditions—such as diabetes and hypertension, common comorbidities in Covid-19 hospitalizations—and to die prematurely. While some treat these disparities as a mystery (“Why is it that the African American community is so much, you know, numerous times more [likely to die] than everybody else?… It doesn’t make sense,” President Trump said recently), there’s a robust body of research indicating that systemic racism and its related stress exact a physical toll that compounds over a lifetime.

Robust body of evidence, eh? The dumb little witch can't even point to a robust body of evidence that "systemic racism" even exists outside the fervent delusions of biased social scientists, let alone that it has some sort of physical aspect.

† Maybe that sentence already answers itself: the Red Chinese manufactured the virus and they don't like niggers, a problem which has flared up in Wuhan before...

If you think The Nation and their ilk are ridiculous on this topic consider that MedPage Today went one further:

Comorbidities like hypertension and diabetes, which are tied to COVID-19 complications, disproportionately affect the black community. But the alarming rates at which COVID-19 is killing black Americans extends beyond these comorbidities and can be attributed to decades of spatial segregation, inequitable access to testing and treatment, and withholding racial/ethnicity data from reports on virus outcomes.
"There is nothing different biologically about race. It is the conditions of our lives," said Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, PhD, former president of the American Public Health Association. "We have to acknowledge that now and always."
Predominantly black U.S. counties are experiencing a three-fold higher infection rate and a six-fold higher death rate than predominantly white counties.
Many of these communities are located in poor areas with high housing density, limited access to education, and high unemployment rates. Low socioeconomic status is independently a risk factor for poorer health outcomes and is forcing some individuals residing in these communities out of their homes and into the workforce.

"There is nothing different biological about race". That's literally what a medical doctor wrote. Does Jones think that white doctors are just randomly painting nigger babies black so they match the parents (who were previously painted by a white doctor a generation earlier)? No biological differences whatsoever eh? Is that why Summer Olympic land-based events look like a President Monkey family reunion while aquatic events look like a Bernie Sanders volunteer bank? A massive selection effect not motivated at all by different biological factors? It's even more circumspect when you compare the previous paragraph acknowledging that COVID comorbidities are more common among American blacks than American whites. It's said (though not backed up by any data or indeed the quoted ravings of any so-called experts) that comorbidities (or maybe just these two?) have already been factored in. [is it fair to ask if the same people acknowledge it makes sense to factor in likelihood of committing a crime when looking at incarceration rates? -ed]. All comorbidities? How can that be when, as we noted when The Nation was making stuff up for their article, we don't yet have a full understanding of all the comorbidities. Maybe there will be an obvious genetic flag or six when 23andMe finishes stealing your most personal of personal information, maybe it'll take more time than that. Maybe we'll only be able to answer this question in 2025. It might turn out that particular diets (*cough* *cough*friedchicken*cough* *cough*) exasperate the disease, or some environmental factors that aren't yet well understood. It might be that the supposed link between "low socioeconomic status"‡ and Coronavirus is weak and inverse and only because other factors swamp it that we were lead down the wrong track.

‡ Speaking of low socioeconomic status, do you want to know what likely will not make American negroes less poor? Refusing to go to work when other (white) people do and gain more income and experience and gratitude of their bosses. CBC won't tell you that...

One little tidbit that's worth noting is there seems to be a link between Vitamin D and the Wuhan Flu. While it may be simply correlation without causality (author Divya Ramaswamy seems to have simply assumed so without the literature motivating it), there's a "there" there. In other words either because of Vitamin D levels or for the same reasons as Vitamin D levels, there's an impact on your ability to survive the Wuhan Flu. Separate research is also looking into (in general, not for Vitamin D) a link between suspectibility to the virus and the likelihood of transmission: to wit, if you're more likely to die from it you're more likely to get and/or give it. This means that the death rate and the incidence rate aren't as linearly independent as you might expect. So what does this mean to niggers? Well it means that the "Vitamin D paradox" might not be a paradox, and that the claim that doctors are "overdiagnosing" Vitamin D deficiency in negroes may in fact be false, and they actually [B]do[/B] have lower levels. It might not align with their bone density (like the swimming joke I made earlier) but still exist, and show itself in the increased likelihood of getting and/or dying from COVID-19.

Seeing as how the only "discrimination" they find for niggers and Vitamin D is a claim that white doctors are "exaggerating" their low levels, maybe idiots from The Nation can shut up trying to blame the Wuhan Flu's tear through black communities as "racism".

Strangely enough, the link between Vitamin D and sodomy is much less documented...

[From "Democracy Dies In "Darkness""]

We learned back in the President Monkey days that negroes appear awfully tribal in their voting practices. After all, you don't hit 100% support in Detroit without a few dudes shutting off the civilized parts of their brains and getting no further than "LOOK LIKES ME=GOOD". I was more than willing to assert these motives to them.

I was mildly surprised to see the Washington Post agree with me though: negroes vote as part of social groupthink without any sort of intelligent independent thought whatsoever.

Okay they didn't quite say it like that. But not that far off, frankly.

As we show in our new book, “Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior,” the generally unified preference among black Americans for Democratic candidates (in 2016, according to exit polls, the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, won 88 percent of the black vote, compared with 8 percent for Republican Donald Trump) reflects not unified political preferences, but a social process by which black Americans hold one another accountable for voting in favor of the party that is understood to best represent the group as whole.

Um...wow. So this book by Ismail K. White and Chryl N. Laird (aren't you missing a vowel in there, Cheryl?) is essentially saying that when niggers vote, they all are expected to share their vote with each other and therefore all express their vote as a block.

That's such anathemia to the entire concept of liberal democracy that WaPo (as noted in the clever pun for the post title) is supposedly so committed to. To have their pages be used to say "well, for civilized white people maybe. niggers would prefer to club anybody over the head for supporting it" is hilarious.

This isn’t to suggest the absence of some fairly wide policy agreements among African Americans, but rather that without this social process, the degree of partisan unity at the polls would not hold.

Oh, that's much better than isn't it? Wait, no. It would be bad enough if negroes were a massive voting block like Wahabbi Muslims who all fervently support all the exact same policy goals. For them to all have different ideals and principles and priorities and interests and then to still mass ignore or abandon them as part of their tribal loyalty is really sickening. I've written before that letting [I]women[/I] vote was generally a bad idea but who knew that extending it to other races would be such a disaster? Well, the Washington Post, presumably.

The lesson to take from what we know about why black voting is steadfastly Democratic in general elections, and to apply to the primaries, is that candidates seeking to consolidate bloc-like support from black voters have a twofold job. First, without party identification as a shortcut for political decision-making, the candidates have to prove to black voters that they have unique claim to the likelihood that they will represent the interests of the black community

Without a "LOOK LIKES ME=GOOD" and it's close cousin "HAS 'D' IN THEIR PARTY NAME=GOOD" shorthands, heaven forbid, negro voters will have to forego the mental shortcuts they maintain to replace rational decision making and instead resort to...

...um, too...?

Second, they need to show that they can deliver on the black community’s understood interest in beating the Republican, particularly President Trump, in the general election. These two criteria can consolidate the impression that a particular candidate is clearly best for the group

So replace "HAS 'D' IN THEIR PARTY NAME=GOOD" with "ORANGE MAN=BAD", I suppose. In the meanwhile, remember that part I quoted at the start about 88% voting for Hillary and "only" 8% of blacks voting for Trump? Halfway through their article, White/Laird revisit this point by mentioning that 85% of black voters recently said they would vote for Warren/Sanders head-to-head against The Donald. Still tribal, but less so apparently. Is the legendary "shy Tory" effect at play even when it comes to the primitivized negro vote? Apparently! (WaPo, incidently, dismisses talk of a surge of Trump voters just because he's polling almost double what he got in 2016. Black voters aren't the only tribal ones around here...)

Meanwhile the discussion about the since-vanquished Mini-Mike is even more illuminating:

Bloomberg’s recent rise is perhaps most revealing about the trade-offs black voters face in the Democratic primary. As a mayor who, for years, embraced and perpetuated a stop-and-frisk policy that targeted African Americans and Latinos, Bloomberg is not well liked among black Americans. The January Post-Ipsos poll found Bloomberg had only a 29 percent net favorability rating among African Americans (with the caveat that many of those polled had either never heard of him or had no opinion) — compared with 69 percent for Biden, 63 percent for Sanders and 51 percent for Warren. In the same poll, among registered black voters, nearly 14 percent reported they wouldn’t vote in the general election if Bloomberg were the Democratic nominee — compared with 6 percent for Biden, 8 percent for Sanders and 10 percent for Warren. Lastly, when asked who would be the best candidate at addressing issues that are important to the black community, only 3 percent of black Democrats identified Bloomberg as the best, compared with 32 percent who selected Biden and 19 percent who chose Sanders.

Ignoring the fact that the biggest beneficiaries of stock-and-frisk are the poor negro communities that have most violent and thuggish of their citizenry suffering instead of them (the Professional Niggers® don't understand this: as this article makes it clear, rational thought continues to elude them), apparently their opinion of how a Bloomberg Presidency would improve their lives has little to do with what his policy goals actually are and instead is completely dependent on whether or not he would win. Better the guy who would (apparently) cause them harm than somebody they are trained like apes to dislike that would implement policy goals they approve of.

That this speaks ill of negro voters apparently occurs to White/Laird, who finish their article off by trying to mischaracterize negro voters as being better than they really are.

Many of Bloomberg’s priorities remain at odds with more policy-grounded group interests of black Americans.

Leftists always lie. niggers don't have policy-grounded group interests. They remain petty, tribal, and uncivilized.