Misc. Hate

A Mustiphino has been spotted wandering the halls of Congress.

The deranged babblings of an SPLC apparatchik inspired me to coin the word hatefact. Hatefacts are unquestionable facts about immigrants, blacks, women, homosexualists, et al., that the SPLC and those sharing its ideological inclinations deem “hate” or “hateful” to mention.

UPDATE: It seems I unwittingly stole the idea for the word hatefact from Peter Brimelow, who used the term “hate facts” in a speech last November.


  1. I love this comment from the link about women:

    "I suspect the tests were formulated to play to men's strengths. Perhaps the tests were even set by men. IQ tests have long been recognised as skewed towards white men of European origin, why do we continue to pay attention to them? IQ tests still don't measure the different ways that intelligence can manifest itself, and until they do, they will continue to provide fodder to those who seek to re-establish man's 'superiority' over women."
    Roanne, Derby, UK

    Well yeah, since men, especially Asian and white men, are smarter than other groups, a test that measures intelligence would indeed favor them. Damn those biased tests! Also, yes Roanne, men certainly created every or almost every intelligence test in existence. What this means I couldn't say -- it's probably further proof of the hidden maleocracy.

    She makes a good point though: Why should intelligence tests measure intelligence? I can't think of a single reason why they should. We should apply this idea to other fields -- instead of having people take a driver's test to get a license, they should take a test on 17th century English lit. Some may say that a literature has nothing to do with driving, but I propose that driving ability sometimes "manifests" itself as an extensive knowledge of Paradise Lost. Since this is impossible to disprove absolutely, we should just assume that I'm right.

    Sigh. This all reminds of the great tragedy of life: Stupid people are too stupid to know that they're stupid. Even with this awareness they couldn't say anything useful, but they might have the wisdom to keep their braindead ramblings to themselves.


  2. I believe it all started to go downhill when Women got the Vote.

  3. IQ correlates with all sorts of things, Nick.

    MCB: Was that the start, or a signal how much things had already declined?

  4. MCB, Esq.: I believe it all started to go downhill when Women got the Vote.

    Speaking as a woman, I think you're right. I've often thought that women's suffrage was/is a big mistake, except for one thing -- I like to have a voice on what's going on myself. ;-)

    My suggestion is that voting rights should be based on IQ. Everyone would have a right to vote, but votes would be weighted accd. to IQ.

    Something along the lines of: a person with an average, European IQ of 100 would get one vote -- someone with an IQ of 85, their vote would be the equivalent of 85% of a vote -- someone with a 140, nearly one-and-a-half votes. You get the gist.

  5. While an IQ threshold would be a good idea, giving high IQ people extra influence is not.

    Assuming we can't eliminate voting entirely, one place to look for inspiration is Venice.

  6. CVC, your preceding comment seems so arbitrary that I have to believe that you haven't given the thing enough thought to realize how overtly biased that is. OF COURSE you can come up with a hundred and one reasons to explain why your suggestion should be so but I can similarly come up with a hundred and one reasons for explaining every other possible permutation. If I were to hazard a guess at what made you choose the precise formulation that you noted down it would be that you generally regard your intellectual circle to be among those who decry the equal status of NAMs but who have no great regard for people considered to be 'intellectuals'. "Caucasians should rule the world because Bantus are too unintelligent to have a say" - perhaps then Ashkenazi Jews should run the world? No, because, uh, well, because they regard themselves as outsiders and therefore...or, whatever.

    But really that's all quite arbitrary. I realize that you didn;t tack any thesis to a house of worship here but rather commented backhandedly in a comment but I think that you might find it worthwhile to introspect as to how it came to be that this "just right" view - which coincidentally dovetails perfectly with the growing tide of white tribalism that's been gaining in blogospheric circles lately - came to be your instinctive view on the subject when it clearly demands far more explanation for itself than do any of the more consistent views.


  7. I like the comments on women's suffrage and weighting vote by IQ. I don't exactly agree with either, but I do think that the person who came up with the idea of "one man, one vote" must've been an anarchist. Why do convicted felons still get to vote in so many states? Why do welfare and unemployment recipients get to vote? For that matter, why the hell do we still have birthright citizenship?

    Start by giving each person 3 votes. If you're a welfare recipient you lose one. If you're a conscientious objector (not many of those these days, but I'm thinking long-term) you lose one. If you're a convicted felon you lose them all.

    On the other hand, you get one extra vote each for passing a basic civics test and graduating from high school; and two extra votes each for being a native born citizen and an honorably discharged veteran. People do not all contribute equally to society, and they shouldn't all have the same say.

  8. High IQ doesn't necessarily correlate with being smart... I think it's, to some extent anyway, somewhat similar to other talents: you might be the world's most musically talented person, but if you aren't interested in learning about music it doesn't really mean anything. If you have high IQ you need to learn how to use it before it really counts. And modern school systems don't teach reasoning and logic much, they concentrate on cramming the students' heads with stuff other people have found out (and the student better not question what she is told).

    I have a fairly high one (high enough for Mensa, anyway) and I think I have learned to think a bit, but it took several decades. When I got out of school I was a very well indoctrinated little airhead.

  9. Mnuez: Intelligence is only one quality of a good citizen or a good ruler.

  10. Well what I was personally thinking of was going back before the Reform Acts and making the franchise dependent on a level of Property ownership and/or possibly the payment of a certain amount of taxes.

    Having Property after all shows that you are a relatively level headed Chap and therefore capable of making decisions. IQ would be insufficient because as we all know - there are quite a few high IQ people who are off with the fairies and lack practicality.

  11. CVC, I wasn't the one who said that it was a "good idea" to correlate enfranchisement to IQ.

    Being as the matter isn't actually up for consideration in any forum that counts, I don't personally care to expend to many thought-seconds considering my feelings on what matters voting rights ought to be tied to, I simply felt it worthy to point out to you that your instinctive preference with regard to the IQ matter is inconsistent in such a way that Occam would not be pleased with you.

  12. Smart people have a tendency to do incredibly dumb things. Dumb people - they just bumble along doing benignly dumb things. Obama is smart as a whip - and he is about to send the US down the gurgler.

    I like the property clause.

  13. On a Guy White discussion of the word "hatefact" the following comment was made:

    F. Roger Devlin

    The honor of coining the term “hate fact” appears to belong to Joe Guzzardi, who was using it at VDare back in May 2003:

  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

More Brief Reviews of Movies I haven’t Seen