Can a fact be hateful if it is true?

Here is a good definition of a 'hatefact':

"These are empirically established or at least highly credible truths that instigate outrage independent of whether true or false. The fact is “wrong” because it is deemed offensive, not because it is factually false. Hate facts substitute personal emotional reaction for scientific verification; feelings trump science. Critically, the more scientifically true an offending assertion, the greater the fact’s hatefulness. This, of course, contravenes science where the stronger the confirming evidence, the “better” the fact. Making purely factual statements can thus be judged harassment, if not persecution."

Liberalism asserts the righteousness of universalism. Men and women are equal, but don't generalise! You say East-Asians are prone to different diseases to Europeans? You must be racist! Even if that is true, only a racist would know something like that.

If you are a sane and honest individual, then you cannot continue to believe something when it can consistently be shown to be false. That is what being open-minded really means. Open-minded doesn't mean denying proof because it is uncomfortable or wishing that everything could be nice and equal. Open-minded doesn't mean believing that all human differences are the result of ill-defined conspiracies of a nebulous 'system'.

If you accept that IQ is a meaningful measure of intelligence and that intelligence is a useful concept to describe a person's real-life cognitive capacity, then decades of peer-reviewed studies that show vastly different IQ distributions between world populations (read: races) ought to tell you that some groups are smarter than others.

To suggest that this is the case is to invite accusations of 'racism' or even better, 'scientific racism', 'bigotry', 'prejudice', 'ignorance' and even 'small-mindedness'. Facts are evidence of small-mindedness. Facts are ignorance. These are people who head our government, our immigration department, 'our' ABC, the education department, academia, the media, industry and the arts.

When evidence of human difference is presented to purportedly 'open minded' progressives that contradicts their feel-good ideology you will hear denial, ad-hominem and absurd rationalisation. You can expect responses like "it's due to environmental factors" or "systemic injustice".

Much of what was considered common sense has in the last few decades been vindicated by reams of scientific evidence. However confirmation bias creates a lot of statistical noise. There will never be a 'scientific consensus' of any traditional position because the academy will throw money at studies to find counter-evidence to undermine whatever aspect of our social fabric is under fire this week. Social scientists have found all sorts of ways to create surveys showing childless women are happier than mothers for example, and there is no agreed-upon methodology of social study that can prevent gaming to obtain the politically desired results. This is where it is important to maintain a dose of everyday observation, of seeing patterns where they exist across different aspects of your own life.

While scientific conclusions should inform your understanding of the world, the consensus of the 'scientific community' and whatever fashionable celebrity scientist is promoting should not be a source of dogmatic belief. The greatest scientists became so precisely because they defied and disproved the consensus of their times.

Scientism, the replacement of religious Theism with a faith in the revealed truth of science is one of the most ironic and absurd perversions of modern
Liberalism. The promotion of globalist, inclusive and universal agenda is championed - (We are all equal, we are all human), whilst our real diversity and the substantial evidence for it is de-funded, ignored and its proponents ejected from their fields and from what is ironically termed 'polite society'. Richard Lynn and Jason Richwine are two such thought-criminals whose research has resulted in this exact fate.

What is called 'scientific racism' is nothing more than early applications of scientific principles, research that has now become heresy. Believing in evolution whilst simultaneously decrying 'scientific racism' is the double-think required of every ostensibly intelligent person in our society.

While it may seem there are a couple of conflicting threads here, there is a logos that holds them together. The Western academy's commitment to political correctness, the nomos of our age, means that we have to wade through a lot of deliberately misleading and agenda-driven findings to get to the truth.

We're made of star dust, don't you get it?

Fortunately, hate facts still rise to the surface and create troublesome implications for our handlers and their enthusiastic followers.

Hate facts are your friends, but you needn't hand out their obvious conclusions. Stick to the facts themselves for best results. Keep a stash of them with you whenever you get sick of a bleeding-heart leftist blathering on about racism, sexism or homophobia and ask them to elaborate on the conspiracies they conjure up as you fire them off, even if it's just for your own amusement.

Or even better, give them out to actually open-minded friends. Add to the comment section any good sources you have.

Race and IQ
A conversation with Richard Lynn

The Jason Richwine Affair

Average African IQ Estimated at 79:

Prof. Fraser outed as a thought-criminal:

Data on Black test scores:

The percentage of Blacks in a city, not poverty, is the best predictor of crime:

Africans have higher rates of a gene associated with violence:

The average African IQ is estimated at 79.

The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average European IQ of 100:

The Bell Curve:

London Islamic no-go zones:

1% of Sweden's population is responsible for 63% of their crime:

85% of rapists in Sweden were non-Swedish immigrants.

Sweden is the rape capital of the West, likely due to immigration:

Race and Crime in America:

African genes and violence:

1 in eight Muslims worldwide has a favorable view of al Quaeda:

65% of European Muslims believe that Shariah law is more important than the law of the country they reside in.

87% of Egyptians agree with Al Qaeda's goals.

28% of British Muslims would like for Britain to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.

68% of British Muslims support criminalizing criticism of Islam.

The myth of the 'peaceful Muslim':

General data on race, Islam, guns and terrorism:

1 in 4 gay men have had over 1000 sex partners

Historical Hatefacts:

Whites are not wealthy because of Colonialism:
Colonialism did not make Africa poor: