Knockout game knocks out a litany of leftist lies in one fell swoop, er, punch

The knockout game phenomenon really, really makes the Establishment uncomfortable. Although it took several years, the seemingly senseless savagery it displayed finally forced the knockout game from being a subject covered almost exclusively by the alternative right to something the mainstream media found increasingly difficult to ignore. Sure, Fox News still does ten minute segments on it without once mentioning race, but at least they're raising awareness. That counts for something!

Four major reasons why the knockout game causes Establishment pontiffs such anxiety:

1) It validates the Derb's non-black version of "The Talk". Be weary around blacks who are unknown to you, especially when they outnumber your group, especially especially if you're a female or a man aged 40+, and especially especially especially if you're alone.

2) It makes a mockery of the mendacious hate crime Narrative the Establishment perpetually pushes. It's as familiar as it is diametrically opposed to reality--the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman saga being the most recent highly visible illustration, but it's pervasive presence can be detected in virtually every case in which putative irrational -isms are involved.

Instead, the knockout game displays the reality of interracial crime--it is an overwhelmingly black-on-white affair, with blacks nearly 40 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than viceversa. Blacks are even significantly more likely to be convicted of federally designated hate crimes than whites are (and that "white" number includes relatively more criminally prone Hispanics).

3) Relatedly, the knockout game reveals that one of the left's favorite tropes--that crime is an unfortunate but essentially unavoidable consequence of poverty--is bullshit. Correlation isn't causation, heh. The game's perpetrators aren't acting out of desperation, they're not stealing anything, and they're not enjoying any material gain from their vicious assaults--instead, they're acting out of a mix of boredom (poor people have a lot of free time on their hands), social posturing, racial animosity, and animalistic impulsivity.

4) It is about the most effective argument in favor of gun rights imaginable. The police can't protect potential victims from knockouts and contemporary American communities won't organically protect their fellow citizens, either. Only you can prevent knockouts, and the surest way of preventing them (or second surest--see item #1) is by packing heat.

Race and anarcho-tyranny

My knowledge of the world beyond my own front yard being inchoate at best upon Sam Francis' passing, my fellowship with the term "anarcho-tyranny" is superficial, but the contemporary popular portrayal of Racism in America seems like one illustration after another of soft anarcho-tyranny in action. Without delving into the well of mendacity that George Zimmerman has been dunked into head first, held underwater for over a year, consider a couple of other extremely high profile examples:

- Multibillionairess Oprah Winfrey claims, after the fact, that she was denied access to a $37,000 handbag by a store clerk because said clerk, who is white, is racist. There were apparently no other witnesses to the exchange and the putative racism was implicit, as Oprah didn't even accuse the clerk of saying anything explicitly racist. In this she said, she said story, the Establishment took the side of rich and famous media mogul and pointed both barrels at the hapless, powerless prole, operating on the Occident's time-tested rule that the accused must always be presumed guilty until proven innocent. It reacted with an outpouring of sympathy for the hardship Oprah suffered alongside its many lamentations over the fact that, even in places acculturated in cosmopolitanism and even in situations in which world renowned people are involved, irrational bigotry and ugly stereotypes still lurk.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of whites and especially Asians aspiring to be admitted as students at exclusive colleges are denied enrollment at the schools they aspire to because less capable Hispanic and especially black applicants are given preferential treatment at the former groups' expense.

While the latter evinces a blatant disregard for isonomy--which is, perhaps ironically, the foundation upon which our Proposition Nation is built upon--the triviality of the former, even if veracious (which is questionable, as Oprah happens to be promoting an almost too perfectly germane black grievance porn movie at the moment), is well captured in the words of the Derb:

The less blacks have to complain about — and for us working stiffs, it's hard to see that a person with 2.9 billion dollars in the bank has anything to complain about — the more they want to whine and guilt-trip us non-blacks over tiny or imaginary slights.

It would be interesting if an organization like Pew, which is honest enough to conduct this sort of thing, surveyed the public's level of awareness of the perceived snubbing Oprah received and compared it to awareness of widespread favorable admissions sun people receive at the expense of ice people who are denied them. More familiarity with the tyranny than the anarchy, I'd bet.

- A clown in flyover country is figuratively crucified and literally banished for clowning around:

At the rodeo here last Saturday night, a clown wearing an Obama mask stood on the arena’s dirt floor, propped up like a straw man with the appearance that a broom stick was going up his backside. A second clown called him “ya big goober.” Before letting the bull loose to charge at the clown with the Obama mask, the second clown provided live narration over the loudspeakers: 

“Obama, they’re coming for you this time.”

“He’s going to getcha, getcha, getcha.” 

“Yahoo! We’re gonna smoke Obama.”

The president of the Missouri NAACP accused the first clown of committing a hate crime.

Tyranny first, again. Poor form on my part, I know.

Anyway, the anarchy stretches from sea to shining sea, encapsulated in FBI crime statistics showing blacks to be some 40 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than whites are to commit violent crimes against blacks. Blacks are even 220% more likely to commit federally designated hate crimes than whites are. Blacks are more likely to identify racially than are whites, and they are more likely than whites are to be influenced in how they cast their votes by the racial compositions of the political candidates they are voting for. Indeed, ornery rodeo clowns are the nation's most pressing problem!

White privilege overtakes institutional racism

In the standard MG mold, a comprehensive (and bar none for reference purposes) post mocking the spurious explanations for disparities in outcomes among members of different racial and ethnic groups references the phrase "institutional racism", noting that it seems to have been replaced by the (even more) amorphous "white privilege". Perspicacious writer, that MG. The percentage of English language books published in the US containing the phrases in question from 1950 through 2008 (the latest year for which data are available):

Consanguinity and corruption

In the wake of MG's essay on the nature and nurture of corruption, I wondered if a hard correlation between consanguinity rates and graft at the national level had been discovered. Searching for as much, the top returns I received were from MG and HBD Chick. Apparently, it hasn't been an area of academic interest, though HBD Chick is deserving of an academic spot for her intellectual curiosity about and indefatigable efforts researching and relaying consanguinity through history and up to the present to any who happen to be interested in as much.

Why should academics and policy makers take note, though, when they've already identified the culprits? They are, of course, bad laws, bad leaders, and bad institutions! Fix these things and any country is capable of resembling Norway. Any day now we'll get the right laws and enforcement mechanisms in place and use them to throw out the crooks and set things straight in Zimbabwe, Zaire, Syria, Sudan, the Congo, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Burma, Iraq, Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea...

As is often the impetus here, not finding what I was looking for meant needing to figure it out. The data aren't perfect by any stretch, but something is better than nothing. Computing simple, unweighted averages for each country for which studies and surveys have been conducted and subsequently recorded on consang.net and then comparing them to Transparency International's 2011 Corruptions Perception Index yields a correlation of .44 (p = 0). In places where extended families are important and family members are more closely related to one another than they are in the West, outsiders are treated with much less even handedness than kin are and nepotism is, if not the rule, at least perfectly acceptable. In these places, if you're not blood, you're going to have to pay to play.

A correlation of .44 is considered fairly strong in the infinitely varied world of the social sciences, but the true relationship between corruption and consanguinity is almost certainly even more vigorous than that. I'm using imperfect and sporadic data. There is nothing available on inbreeding for about half the countries in the world while for India there are 45 studies for which I must, by necessity, compute a simple average from, because even if I wanted to try and weight the sources for geographic and demographic representativeness within India, I'd be utterly unable to do so competently since I know so little about that extremely complicated country of over 1 billion people.

Further, even to the extent that the data are representative, they leave something to be desired, as the chickadee explains:

what we are talking about here when we discuss inbreeding vs. outbreeding and nepotism and/or corruption are types of altruistic behaviors -- and these behaviors/attitudes have evolved differently in different populations, of course, over time. so you can't just take a population that has been inbreeding for scores of generations, and likely evolved certain altruistic behaviors, and change their behavior patterns via just one or two generations of outbreeding. there is going to be some lag-time.

 why do i say this? because the problem with using the consang.net numbers for the kind of analysis you describe is that there is no time depth to them. if you look at the data @consang.net, it appears as though the chinese have similar inbreeding/outbreeding rates to western europe or canada, but that's only in the last generation or so (and even that is debatable). as i've blogged about, the chinese have been inbreeding for literally millennia. any effects that's had on altruistic behaviors are NOT going to be overturned in one or two generations.

what needs to be done is that the histories of inbreeding/outbreeding in different populations need to be quantified (part of my ongoing, neverending project @hbd chick (~_^) ), and then those numbers need to be compared to transparency international's and/or other figures.

Yet despite this, we still see a rigorous, statistically significant correlation between corruption and consanguinity. Randomly generated numbers don't correlate with one another. If (when?) much of the remaining randomness in the consanguinity numbers is removed and the appropriate adjustments for time depth are made, the observed correlation will prove to be stronger still.

White knights or a celestial purge at recent US Open?

OneSTDV points to an incident in the stands during the US Open last Thursday. Here are the two relevant videos:





OneSTDV's take on the thing:

The fat daughter and father are completely ignored by everyone in the crowd as even more men start berating blue shirt guy. Throughout all this, the fat woman
points at her fallen father as if he's an innocent victim in this whole affair.

The crowd's reaction is a wonderful illustration of white knight beta syndrome and female entitlement. Of course, such displays accomplish little in a society where chivalry brands one a boring beta provider. Men can no longer rely on the societal gender hierarchy to assert their relative social dominance and thus any hint at supplicating husband status (like this one) devalues them in the post-60s, feminist-tinged sexual marketplace.

That's not my perception of what went down. He insinuates that this is illustrative of how American men have become increasingly 'beta' over time, but I wonder at what point in time would it have been more acceptable for a healthy young guy, in self defense, to force an unknown woman or elderly man into physical submission than it is today? The gender egalitarianism of modern feminism promotes an absurd image of women as equally as capable as men in terms of physical prowess, with the consequence being that men are discouraged from treating women in a different way than they treat other men (ie, women should be able to drive racecars and step into the ring to compete against men).

Context is important, too. This was a tennis event, with a fanbase that is more upscale than that of just about any other major sport save for golf. Most of the people at the Open, even the cheap seats where the scuffle took place, are dressed in summer business casual. The young guy who was assaulted looks pretty proleish by comparison (and his inept friend, whose jeans have holes in the knees, appears even more proleish) like he should be at an NFL game instead of a tennis tournament, and is clearly acting in a way that disrespects the customs of tennis spectating. He's cussing profusely, claiming that he is free to say whatever and act as he pleases since he paid for his ticket ("I don't give a fuck what anyone wants!"). The woman is apparently trying to censure him for trouncing on tennis fan etiquette.

As for the putatively despicable white knights, it is possible that they didn't see (or weren't paying close attention to) the initial spat and only took notice when the geezer and the young guy started going at it (the videos clearly show that virtually everyone in the area was rubbernecking once the two men locked horns; before that point, however, some were watching but many others were not). If this was the case, their reaction is understandable--they see a young guy hurl grandpa down a row of seats and then push a flabby bag onto the ground when she starts slapping at him for owning her father (or wife?).

But they may have just been looking for an excuse to do what they'd been wanting to do since for awhile--kick the crap out of an unruly jackass who was souring the experience for everybody around him. Regarding the zeitgeist being such that most people take the side of the old man and woman who took turns assaulting the young guy before he physically responded, the video from afar is full of comments about how the young guy was attacked and consequently is the victim in the incident. Youtube commenters are overwhelmingly of the same mind*. Those nearby the confrontation, however, have much greater hostility for the young guy and sympathy for the older couple, almost certainly because they shared the couple's sentiments--the uncouth loudmouth was ruining the matches for everyone around him and needed to STFU or be thrown out.

I'm more receptive to the argument that the fact that a pudgy hag had to confront the young guy when a man more physically imposing than the prole should've done so indicates enervation of the masculine culture in the West than I am to the argument that the subsequent subduing of the prole does.

Parenthetically, the sympathy for the young guy's right to impinge on the experience of everyone else at the Open illustrates what I see as another unfortunate shift in Western culture over time--the increasing promotion of positive rights at the expense of negative ones, a theme that underlies a host of assaults against the wishes of the majority of the American public (same-sex marriage, the Cordoba Initiative, mandatory diversity training, quota hiring, etc).

* I love how the highest rated comment is from a hardass who uses the "white knight" phrase and then proceeds to use a Starcraft analogy about how the young guy was assaulted! It is so something I can relate to (the post's title makes an M:TG analogy).