Hate Facts

From Metapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Hate Facts

Hate Facts (also referred to as truth bombs) are uncomfortable truths that make people angry. The taboo nature of such facts trigger deep emotions in those who have been culturally conditioned to believe that the facts themselves, and those espousing them, are morally inferior. This self perception of moral superiority is enough to dismiss any and all factual claims through pejorative accusations while never actually addressing the facts themselves.

Hate facts are not to be confused with Hate Speech, although it is often labeled as such by those who wish to ignore the facts presented to them. Whereas hate facts are nothing more than factual information presented as an argument, hate speech is derogatory language used pejoratively with no intention of educating an individual or group. Both forms of speech are legal under the American 1st Amendment, however, many Western countries do not have free speech laws in place. [1] This creates a dangerous scenario since mainstream culture, which drives political discourse, is often in conflict with systematic realities. The suppression of dissidents attempting to spread factual truths to their fellow citizens are then suppressed through false accusations by the government of hate, rendering society less flexible to correct its flaws early enough to avoid widespread harm. This is often easy for a government to do, since many have been enculturated early on to believe that individuals who fit a political label are immoral and should be shunned.



Example A

  • Fact: Women don't earn the same on average as men because they work fewer hours and choose vocations that pay less on average.
  • Dismissal: This is the most sexist thing I have ever heard! Why are you so scared of women in the workplace? I'm filing a report with the HR department.

(Notice how the dismisser does not disprove the claim and show that it is false, but utilizes the ad hominem "sexist." This accusation is the 21st century equivalent of labeling someone a "heretic." Then, intimidation in the form of economic sanctions is used to reinforce the false oppression narrative of women as victims of oppressed)

Example B

  • Fact: Policies that promote mass immigration and multiculturalism don't take into account the long term effects they have on society. Diverse societies have lower social trust, less voluntary social interaction, and higher rates of political polarization and conflict.
  • Dismissal: Why are you so xenophobic John? What is it about foreigners that scares you?

(Again, the argument itself is not actually addressed. No claims are made that John is wrong and that his sources are illegitimate. Instead, the dismisser utilizes an ad hominem and insinuates that John has an irrational fear of foreigners)


The origins of the term have been attributed to a speech by Peter Brimelow at the H. L. Mencken Club in 2008.[2] Multiple sources have claimed this speech to be the origin of the term.[3] [4]

Stifling Inquiry, Propogating Ignorance

Inquiry has long been stifled by political correctness. Academics that espouse facts that don't fall neatly into a culture's socially "acceptable" opinions are attacked with accusations of "hate." As Robert Weissberg, professor emeritus of political science at of the University of Illinois-Urbana has pointed out, "since hatefulness has nothing to do with scientific validity, anyone can pass judgment regardless of expertise."[5] The anti-scientific nature of the accusation therefore allows individuals with no experience in a complex field of research to contest findings that do not fit their worldview and manage to be taken seriously by the general public. While some academics have currently come under fire for discussing the multivariate findings regarding inequality of economic outcome between sexes,[6] discussion about causal factors of racial inequality that don't fit neatly into the oppression narrative is virtually silenced through anti-dialogical tactics.[7]

Numerous academic's, intellectual's, activist's, and other professional's careers have been destroyed by cultural resistance to incorporating new empirical discoveries. In 2014, Nobel Laureate and co-discoverer of DNA James Watson decided to sell his Nobel Peace Prize after losing his job and grant money for sharing his concerns about the future of African people because the data showed that the distribution of IQ was much lower in their population and likely heritable.[8] Google employee, James Damore was fired in 2017 when a memo he had written to combat false equalitarian accusations of sexual discrimination against female employees entitled Google's Ideological Echo Chamber,[9] was released by fellow employees to the general public. Not only was his memo scientifically sound,[10] but it was also worded in an extremely polite way. Furthermore, the labor board agreed internal advice memo with Google's firing of Damore, claiming his memo perpetuated stereotypes about women.[11] In March of 2018, British activist Tommy Robinson was de-platformed from Twitter, and therefore alienated from his supporters, for stating statistical realities regarding grooming gangs in the United Kingdom being overwhelmingly Muslim. [12] Such de-platforming by social media companies, a practice that has become widespread in an attempt to control the mainstream equalitarian narrative, hinders distribution of information to the general public regarding public health and safety.

Psychological View


There are several psychological reasons why individuals may act adversely to someone presenting factual claims. The first is that of conditioning, a psychological phenomenon discovered by Ivan Pavlov in his famous study of dogs. Pavlov discovered that the dogs in his laboratory would salivate when hearing a bell that rang. This bell was rung when the dogs were fed, and they began to associate the external stimuli (the bell) with food. This involuntary response is called a conditioned reflex.

Like dogs, humans are also susceptible to conditioned reflexes. From the time we are children, our schools, churches, media and other institutions bombard us with values and belief systems. Such repetition over long periods of time causes crystallization to occur in one's identity and perception of reality. While there is still much to learn about these mechanisms, recent research has discovered that when these views are challenged, increased activity in the default mode network—a set of interconnected structures in the brain, occurs.[13]

Unfortunately, these values and beliefs often conflict with empirical realities. By the time an individual comes into contact with facts that place their worldview in opposition with reality, they are incapable of critical analysis and experience dissonance. Left with no argument to defend one's previously established worldview, accusations of "hate" are far simpler and less cognitively demanding.

Evolutionary Psychology

Why would a person be incapable of incorporating new facts and changing their worldview accordingly? Evolutionary psychology, and our understanding of human history has shed some light on this often asked question. Throughout most of human history, individuals that rejected the established order of their tribe were murdered by their fellow tribesman. While modern societies treat political dissenters drastically differently than older forms of socio-political orders, a recent example of this reality occurred over the last few years, with the establishment of the Islamic State (ISIS). Under this regime homosexuals, Christians, and others were violently murdered for rejecting state dogma. Hundreds of thousands of years of gene-culture coevolution shaped the way the human mind reacted to norms established by authority. Many experience cognitive incapacities, where the brain short circuits, and is unable to comprehend or even analyze the new information critically and unemotionally. Such cognitive illogic was likely evolutionarily advantageous, as those who did not incorporate and share facts or ideas at odds with tribal norms were more likely to survive and have offspring than those who were. Future research in psychology may one day reveal if there is a genetic predisposition to such behavior.

Cognitive Incapacities

Such dissonance in the face of well established scientific fact reveals cognitive incapacities. This is important because there is a consistent and strong correlation between cognitive incapacities and authoritarianism.[14] This can and has lead to dangerous social situations where an emerging body of scientific evidence is at odds with the current social trajectory. It may also be behind the current rise in the popularity of the adoption of post-modernism and rejection of empiricism.

Political View

The will to power may also be a motivating factor for accusing someone of "hate" when presented with empirical arguments. Often times the facts may be at odds with what an individual perceives as being in their interest. Instead of admitting that the claims are true which may be followed by loss of power to themselves, they project hate onto the individual through pejorative accusations to maintain the power dynamic. This effective political strategy is used throughout society; from the office to social media platforms, political campaigns and personal relationships.

The Objections

Usually what are considered hate facts in The West are demographic generalizations based on statistical distributions. The most common objections made in favor of criminalizing or sanctioning individuals who publicly discuss "hate facts" is that they promote stereotypes and perpetuate prejudice. However, this does not mean that the claims are wrong, simply that the information can be used incorrectly as a stereotype instead of a generalization, and may be used by individuals to navigate the social landscape by hedging their decisions based on probability or that institutions may use the information to discriminate against a specific demographic which is seen by equalitarians as immoral.

See Also


  1. http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_xUOeklN8 2008 HL Mencken Club Highlights (1 of 2). MenckenClub. Youtube.
  3. http://archive.is/7uO6Z Cavanaugh, G. (2013). Lefty Strikes Again: Five Historical Hate-facts. Alternative-Right Blogspot.
  4. http://archive.is/bKZ3M
  5. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2013/07/how_hate_facts_kill_scientific/ Weissberg, R. (2013). How Hate Facts Kill Scientific Inquiry. Minding the Campus.
  6. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/ Friedersdorf, C. (2018) Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?. The Atlantic.
  7. https://www.amazon.com/Race-Intelligence-Academe-Roger-Pearson/dp/1878465236 Pearson, R. (1997). Race, intelligence, and bias in academe. Scott-Townsend Publications.
  8. https://www.amren.com/news/2014/12/james-watson-selling-nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-i-exist/ Perry, K. (2014). James Watson Selling Nobel Prize ‘Because No-One Wants to Admit I Exist.’ American Renaissance.
  9. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html Damore, J. (2017). Google's Ideological Echo Chamber.
  10. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ Quillette Magazine (2017). The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond. Quillette.
  11. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/23/the-nlrbs-damore-ruling-doesnt-affect-his-case-but-raises-troubling-questions-about-the-agency/ Bokhari, A. (2018). Source: Google Secretly Lobbied NLRB Over James Damore. Breitbart.
  12. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/01/tommy-robinson-banned-twitter-stating-statistical-fact-muslim-grooming-gangs/ Deacon, L. (2018). Tommy Robinson Suspended from Twitter for Stating Statistical Fact About Muslims in Grooming Gangs. Breitbart London.
  13. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39589 Kaplan, J. T., Gimbel, S. I. and Harris, S. (2016). Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Nature. doi:10.1038/srep39589
  14. https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Dynamic-Cambridge-Political-Psychology/dp/052153478X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520318265&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Authoritarian+Dynamic The Authoritarian Dynamic (Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology) 2005. Cambridge University Press.

External link

Personal tools