The word "hatefact" seems to have been coined by VDARE's Peter Brimelow back in 2008. Speaking at an H.L. Mencken conference, he said that "hatefacts" are, "things that everybody knows are true but can't be said." They are the truisms behind so called "hate speech."
The concept of a hatefact is quite accurate, and deserves more traction. Gavin McInnes wrote an amusing piece on the matter for Taki's Mag a few months ago, but the hatefacts he listed were mostly focused on statistics and common sense. Although that is well and good, referring back to history should be the modus operandi of all conservatives. History's lessons manage to debunk nearly every theory and utopia the left can dream up and argue for. In that spirit, here are five hatefacts from America's history.
1) On Puerto Ricans and Crime
About two years ago Gabriel Giffords was nearly killed in an assassination attempt - and the media went nuts pretending to be detective-psychologists who would soon answer all questions surrounding it. Naturally no one was interested in discussing the history of congressmen being injured or killed in office. In looking over the facts, it becomes easy to understand why the topic was avoided by the powers that be.
In all of American history exactly nine members of congress have been wounded in office. (Compared to many other nations, this is an admirably low number, but that's an aside.) Puerto Ricans were responsible for 55.55 percent of this total. It is a chapter of history not often discussed, but on March 1st, in 1954, Puerto Rican terrorists stormed America's Congressional building and opened fire. The intent was to achieve independence using Black Hand style tactics. Blessedly, none of their targets were killed, however, five did sustain injuries. As for the four who were injured outside of this attack: one was shot by a wacko, another by some muggers, and the other two were beaten by other congressmen. (Those would be Giffords, Stennis, and Sumner as well as Grinnell, respectively.) Given America's current brouhaha about the supposed white male tendency to shoot up this place or that, now may be the time to remind people of this attack.
2) On Violence and the Left
The more acute readers of fact one are likely questioning its focus on congressmen wounded, rather than killed, in office. However, the list of killings only reveals more discomforting facts about who employs political violence.
Dixiecrat Larry McDonald was the most recent congressman to fall. What happened always sounds so farcical, but it really is true, in 1983 he was on a civilian plane that was shot down by Soviets.
Before him was Leo Ryan in 1978. The Jim Jones groupies in Guyana gunned him down. The People's Temple had been in his California district, and after they picked up stakes and fled the country, many family members of believers had asked Ryan to go down there and figure out what had happened. When Ryan arrived, he was killed. Yes, Jim Jones and his followers were insane, but quite progressive as well - and staunch supporters of Harvey Milk.
Next comes Robert Kennedy in 1968; who isn't familiar with the assassination of RFK? Unfortunately, in this context, "familiar" takes on the narrow definition of "aware that it occurred." Who killed him? Why? It has been forgotten, but the assassination was quite politically motivated. The killer was Sirhan Sirhan, a staunch anti-Zionist, and Bobby had come out in support of Israel during the 1967 war, so Sirhan shot him.
There are a few more, but most of them were brought about by duels or the Civil War, with some strange exceptions such David Brokerick who was killed by his insane son. Saying something like, "In the last half a century only leftists have killed congressmen," would not be "biased," it would be accurate.
3) On Foreign Aid
Antebellum America held great resentment towards Haiti and the 1804 slave revolt that gave her independence. For a long time the United States liked to act as if the nation did not exist or was illegitimate. Haiti's official recognition by the US did not come for while, and its timing does not come off as coincidence - 1862. It was never explicitly said, but it is hard to interpret this move as anything other than a somewhat desperate and somewhat friendly way of asking for aid. As any historian will tell you, 1862 was not a great year for the North in terms of military victories. But Haiti did nothing; apparently the quest to free several million slaves to their north was not considered worthy of a war effort. This did not change even when it was clear that the North was going to win. Autumn of 1864 could easily have seen a successful Haitian expeditionary force sent to New Orleans for a bit of looting and liberating. (To imply that there would have been looting is far from racist, ever heard of "Sherman's March to the Sea"?)
After Haiti's last devastating earthquake, some said that it was, "our moral responsibility to help," but if that is the case, than was it not Haiti's moral responsibility to aid the North a century and a half ago? Why does foreign aid always seem to be a one way street?
4) On Anti-Semitism
As opposed to Europe, America has never suffered from serious bouts of anti-Semitism. There was a bit with the resurgence of the KKK in the 1920s and then into the '30s with Father Coughlin and his followers. But no anti-Semitic federal law has ever been passed, and even our most racist historical figures tend to at least refrain from anti-Semitism. What did Andrew Jackson think of Jews? It does not seem like he did. One of the highest cabinet members of the Confederacy was Jewish. George Wallace and Jesse Helms said countless vicious things about blacks and gays, but not a peep on Judaism and its adherents.
The one group of Americans who do seem to suffer from this ethnic prejudice is blacks, and this has been true throughout our history. W.E.B. Du Bois wrote that, "The Jew is the heir of the slave-baron" in his book, "The Souls of Black Folks." Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam as a whole are certainly guilty of this as well, not to mention Stokely Carmichael. Some say Jesse Jackson would have gotten the Democratic Nomination back in 1984 had he not made those comments about "hymies" and where they live. Have you ever heard of American white gentiles rising up and rioting against the Jews in their neighborhood? (And no, Nazi lone wolfs and marches are not the same as neighborhood-wide riots.) It certainly happened against Catholics and many other groups, but the only anti-Semitic riot in America's history was the 1991 New York Crown Heights riot, committed almost entirely by blacks.
Can you imagine Walter Mondale (eventual winner of the 1984 Democratic nomination) having a single anti-Semitic bone in his body? Or how about Stephen Crane writing something openly anti-Semitic around the time Du Bois did. How about a white 1960s radical, like the much talked about Bill Ayers attacking the Jewish race? The trend continues too, have you ever heard of Congressmen Keith Ellison?
5) On Voter Rights
Many different "Voter ID" proposals were decided on this election season, and with that came countless tales about "voter suppression" and "voter disenfranchisement." This narrative disregards a key voting-block in America - the South. Leftists ignore the topic, but the South as a whole has a long history of being disenfranchised at the polls. Aside from the 2000 election, the three times in American history when a candidate became president despite losing the popular vote have been candidates the South almost uniformly voted against. The first instance was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay kept Andrew Jackson out of office via clever congressional maneuvering. Jackson won all but three Southern states and Quincy won zero. The second instance was in 1876 when Rutherford Hayes was seated instead of Samuel J. Tilden, who like Jackson, won all but three Southern states. Finally we come to 1888 when Benjamin Harrison unseated Grover Cleveland, who won the entirety of the South without exception.
Another example of Southern disenfranchisement is the 1868 election. Three Southern states (Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi) were not allowed to participate in the election despite having been recently forced back in to the Union. The reasoning behind it was that they had not been sufficiently "reconstructed." It would seem as though the South merits the title, "disenfranchised."
These are five mini-history lessons, look into our past more deeply yourself and rest assured that you will find more. Every ounce of history disproves a pound of theory.