Scientists have announced that extensive studies have revealed that people “born and raised in a major urban area” have double the incidence of schizophrenia than non-city dwellers — but, in a typical display of cowardice or malicious ignorance, have simply ignored the reality of race in their figures.
According to the study, published in Nature,“previous findings have shown that the risk for anxiety disorders is 21 percent higher for people from the city, who also have a 39 percent increase for mood disorders,” co-author Dr Jens Pruessner, of the Douglas Mental Health University Institute in Quebec, wrote.
“In addition, the incidence for schizophrenia is almost doubled for individuals who are born and brought up in cities. These values are a cause for concern and determining the biology behind this is the first step to remedy the trend,” he added helpfully, as if a “trend” such as schizophrenia can be “remedied.”
This story has now spread across the world’s newswires, and appeared in Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper under the heading “A rural life is better: Living in a concrete jungle is stressful and make [sic] you vulnerable to depression.”
In that paper we are told that the latest study’s findings “help shed light on why those who are born and raised in urban areas are more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and schizophrenia than those brought up in the countryside.”
What about race as a factor in schizophrenia? This is the elephant in the room that the “researchers” under Dr Pruessner have ignored.
According to a 2007 report in the International Journal of Epidemiology, blacks in the US are 200 percent more likely to develop schizophrenia than whites.
The journal also announced that the “data indicate[s] substantially elevated rates of schizophrenia among African Americans in comparison with whites in this birth cohort” and that this “variance” (from what, they do not say, although it is obvious what they mean) has also been noted in Britain.
Actually, that last part is a bit of an understatement. The BBC reported in 2000 that a study by the UK’s Institute of Psychiatry revealed that “African-Caribbean” people are “six times more likely than whites to be diagnosed as schizophrenic.”
In addition, the condition actually gets worse amongst second generation black immigrants, not better.
An official government report on the topic, named Aesop (Aetiology and Ethnicity in Schizophrenia and other Psychoses) conducted by psychiatrists and epidemiologists at the social psychiatry unit of the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley hospital in south London — which serves a heavily black part of the capital city — found that members of the African Caribbean community are nine times more likely to suffer from schizophrenia than people in the white community and described it as an “epidemic.”
A 2008 report in the British Journal of General Practice also stated that the incidence of schizophrenia in black Caribbeans living in the UK was substantially higher than in the white British population, but that it was even higher in second-generation black Caribbeans.
“The largest study to date has demonstrated a ninefold higher risk of schizophrenia in UK-resident black Caribbeans: findings that are of concern to black Caribbean communities, to their GPs, and to health service managers responsible for resource allocation,” that report stated.
The British Journal of General Practice article went on to report that these black schizophrenia patients are “more likely to be unemployed, to have a record of convictions, [and] to be resident in decaying inner-city areas.”(7)
Aha. Note the “inner-city areas” link.
And what of the US city figures? The 2010 US Census figures explains in detail why those living in “urban areas” these days suffer from higher rates of schizophrenia.
The six most populous cities illustrate the point:
– New York City has a non-Hispanic white population of 33 percent;
– Los Angeles has a non-Hispanic white population of 28.7 percent;
– Chicago has a non-Hispanic white population of 31.7 percent;
– Houston has a non-Hispanic white population of 25.6 percent;
– Philadelphia has a non-Hispanic white population of 41 percent;
– Phoenix has a non-Hispanic white population of 46.5 percent.(13)
Simple logic tells any objective observer that if a racial group which has a higher incidence of schizophrenia forms a larger part of the population in any area, the incidence of that affliction will increase.
This is called common sense, something which appears to be increasingly uncommon.
It should be no surprise to learn that exactly the same figures are replicated in black immigrant populations in the rest of Western Europe.
The International Journal of Epidemiology pointed out that immigrant “groups in Western Europe have markedly increased rates of schizophrenia. The highest rates are found in ethnic groups that are predominantly black.”
So what are the symptoms of schizophrenia? According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) symptoms of schizophrenia include “delusions and hallucinations, disorganized behavior and/or speech.”
And what is the cause of schizophrenia? Here we see very clearly the moral cowardice of those scientists and researchers, bar a tiny few brave (or foolhardy) souls.
Almost all of the authors of the reports quoted above fall over themselves to explain that there surely cannot be any racial reason for the scientific facts.
Most commonly they blame “social environment” (to which racial cynics would argue, “well, who creates the environment in which these schizophrenics find themselves?”).
Some also blame whites for their ubiquitous “racism.” Well of course we knew that—whites are, after all, to blame for all nonwhite ills.
Fortunately, there are a few honest scientists and doctors out there. The British Journal of General Practice article referred to above, is one of those notable exceptions.
In the section of that paper which discussed the causes of high schizophrenia amongst black immigrant populations, the authors state quite openly that the primary cause is hereditary — that is, genetic.
“The most powerful risk factor for the development of schizophrenia is having an affected family member,” the authors of that article stated.
Furthermore, the lifetime risk increases with genetic relatedness: 2 percent in third-degree relatives (first cousins); 2 percent (uncle/aunt) to 6 percent (half-siblings) in second-degree relatives; and 6 percent (parents) to 9 percent (siblings) to 13 percent (children) in first-degree relatives of affected individuals. For twins, the risk is higher still: 17 percent for dizygotic twins and 48 percent for monozygotic twins.
Furthermore, the report said, the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia in siblings of second-generation (UK-born) African-Caribbeans is 17 percent; in first-generation African-Caribbeans it is 9 percent, and in white British patients it is just 2 percent.
The figures clearly show that the high schizophrenia rates are therefore clearly linked to genes.
But does this mean that in their home countries these people are all raving schizophrenics? The answer is no. So why not, if it is genetic?
As the British Journal of General Practice points out, if “genetic predisposition is a substantial factor contributing to high incidence rates of schizophrenia in UK black Caribbeans, then high rates in their country of origin would also be expected.”
However, studies conducted in the 1990s in Jamaica, Trinidad, and Barbados all report similar schizophrenia incidence rates to those found in the indigenous (white) UK population.
In other words, the Third Worlders actually get “madder” when they move into white societies – and, as the other data quoted above shows, the longer they stay in white societies, quite literally, the madder they get.
The British Journal of General Practice put it a bit more genteelly: “Based on these studies, it appears that high rates of schizophrenia among black Caribbeans are a feature of the emigrated rather than the native community.”
The logical explanation for this increase in mental health problems amongst nonwhite communities in white society is the one thing that liberalism fears most: genetic incompatibility.
All the data — and by this is meant not just the mental health statistics, but all other indicators, which include crime rates, education levels, “social decay,” social cohesiveness and responsibility, economics and so on — shows very clearly that nonwhites have extreme difficulty adapting to the norms and demands of white, Western society.
This in turn creates huge psychological problems.
Why, they ask themselves, do they simply never seem to do as well as whites on any level?
Why are whites almost always better off, better educated, have a higher standard of living, live in less crime-filled areas, have better schools and neighborhoods?
Once they have worked through all the liberal explanations (which inevitably involve “white racism”), the nonwhites are still left confronted with the reality of their situation.
And this is the cause of their increased mental health issues.
You can see it in their desire to physically change their appearance with hair straighteners and “hair extensions — all indicative of a deep-seated psychological desire to be as “white-looking” as possible.
But nothing they do can change the unalterable genetic reality, and hence the ever-increasing psychological problems.
It has nothing to do with “living in cities,” as Dr Pruessner and others claim.
It has everything to do with race.
As long as the scientists like Dr Pruessner continue to flounder in the make-believe liberal dream world which impels them to ignore the racial elephant in the room, they will continue to produce meaningless reports.