The 1% Rule, The 4% Rule, And The 20% Rule

The 1% Rule was covered here in July in connection with Islamist YouTubers, but briefly, it is the way the media and the extreme left demonise and often ridicule their political enemies – real and imagined. The bottom line is that in any group of people chosen by any criterion or none, around 1% will have ideas that are insane or even evil.

The media focuses on these people in order to tar with the same brush, anyone who shares their ideology or a vaguely similar one. Often, these people are smeared as fans of Adolf Hitler. At one time this tactic was used against opponents of immigration – specifically non-white immigration into Europe. Now it is being used to smear even opponents of mass illegal immigration. People who object to their communities being flooded with young men of at times unknown origin and doubtful antecedents can only be “far right”.

Recently however, this tactic has been exposed for the insanity it is. If you don’t recognise this woman, her name is Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, and she is a leading campaigner against the insane trans movement. Last year, while holding one of her outdoor meetings in Australia, a group of so-called neo-Nazis turned up, and some people claimed in the mainstream media that she was a Nazi. This turned out to be very expensive for them, the Australian politician John Pesutto in particular, who paid the damages and gave her a public apology.

The slanders persist because it is impossible to sue every miscreant for defamation, and most of them are not worth suing, but the insanity of this claim – and it is an insanity – is that one of the more thoroughly documented crimes of the Nazis was unethical medical experiments, and this is something Mrs Keen-Minshull campaigns vociferously AGAINST. Not only that, most of the people behind this hate campaign are supporters of this movement. This short video explains what is really going on. It includes a graphic image of two mentally disturbed young women who were brainwashed into allowing a modern Dr Frankenstein to amputate their healthy breasts.

The 4% Rule is relevant to this gender madness, especially when it comes to men calling themselves women and being allowed to compete against them. Men are larger than women, taller, and physically smaller. This is of course a very broad generalisation, there are many physically superior women, but the distribution of these characteristics follows a bell curve with the male bell curve being further to the right. This means that at the very highest levels of sport, physical fitness, strength and endurance, only around 4% of women can compete against the most superior of men. The one curious exception is the ultra-marathon in which women can sometimes finish ahead of men. There appears to be a scientific reason for this, and no sane reason for anyone wanting to run 200 miles in quick succession.

This 2015 article explains how women fare when it comes to the military, and the price some pay for subjecting their bodies to such intensive training.

Physical fitness is a requisite for many demanding jobs, and that includes strength. Recently, the Department Of Justice forced an insane policy on the Maryland Police. Here is the 56 page consent order which was in effect imposed on the force, and here is the idiot talking head from the DOJ gloating over this force being compelled to employ people of low intelligence and inferior physical condition as state troopers.

Many black applicants failed the mathematics test at an alarming rate, which is hardly surprising considering the garbage they are being fed in the classroom, but listen to what this stupid woman says, setting a high bar for these tests undermines public safety. No! Lowering standards undermines public safety.

Much more could be written on this subject, but we will finish with the 20% rule, sometimes known as the 80/20 rule. This used to be applied to software, in particular it was said that 80% of users would use only 20% of the features of a particular program. Now though, applied to computers this is more like a 99+% rule, because programs are so sophisticated and contain so many features that most people use only a tiny fraction of them. More generally, this is known as the Pareto principle, after the polymath Vilfredo Pareto.

A Pareto distribution is very different from the normal distribution (the aforementioned bell curve), and people who don’t understand it when it applies to human action, often become angry with for example, so-called inequality. No one has explained the Pareto distribution better than Jordan Peterson, a man who has often been called controversial for saying non-controversial things. Here he is, in his element. At the end of the video he says there appears to be no solution to the problem, and it is a problem. There is a solution, but that is the subject for another article.