SPLC — More “Hate Group” Hypocrisy

The Southern Poverty Law Center for decades has been known as the “champion” of poor blacks in the U.S. This past year it has taken on the mantle of Defender of Islam in America.

Both are worthy undertakings, yet, once again, a closer examination of the SPLC’s own data reveal a very, very different story.

This week the SPLC released its annual “Hate Map” designating “hate groups” across the Realm. Guess who leads the pack of evil “hate groups” in America once again?

If you actually look at the SPLC’s spurious data, something NO mainstream media outlet can bother to do, you find that 247 of the the 1,018 “hate groups” designated by the SPLC are homeless. Nobody, not even the SPLC’s $150,000 donor-dollar-a-year public relations guru, Mark Potok, can tell you where those 247 “groups” are located, so why are they even counted?

So let’s do the math, minus the 1 in 4 “mystery” groups, the SPLC’s leading “hate groups” boil down to this:

Neo-Nazis         168-55= 113

Ku Klux Klan    152-70= 82

Skinheads         132-61= 71

Black
Separatists        140-3= 137

And who exactly make up the “Black Separatist” movement, the most populous “hate group” in America? Chapters of the Nation of Islam and its auxiliaries, i.e., Black Muslims.

Far be it from Watching the Watchdogs to point out glaring “inconsistencies” in SPLC logic, but these are their own numbers.

Now do you get it?

If not, cut a check, a very generous check, to the SPLC today. After all, they’re down to their last $223 MILLION.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “SPLC — More “Hate Group” Hypocrisy”

  1. Nautilus Says:

    I haven’t read all that many of your articles, but from the few I did read, it appears you’re as ticked with the SPLC as I am. I’m suspicious that they’re engaging in this type of monkey business: http://cognitiveparfait.wordpress.com/category/ethnic-favoritism-and-the-splc/

    Let me know what you think!

    • rkeefe57 Says:

      I have to disagree with assertion that the SPLC is a “pro-Jewish” organization. The SPLC is a pro-money organization. Nothing more. While the SPLC is demonstrably hostile to conservative Christians, this is purely a result of its pandering to its donor base, which is largely non-conservative, regardless of any religious affiliation, or lack thereof.

      Morris Dees founded the SPLC on George McGovern’s presidential campaign mailing list, which consisted largely of the self-described progressive liberals that are most receptive to SPLC fund-raising propaganda. Over the years, Dees added similar mailing lists from the Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart campaigns. These combined lists, containing millions of donor names, formed the financial foundation for the SPLC’s never-ending, multimillion dollar fundraising apparatus. Thirty years of highly polished public relations campaigns have only swelled the ranks of these largely well-meaning but grossly misinformed donors.

      Morris Dees doesn’t really care much as to who sends him the money, as long as they send it. If conservative Christians ever become major SPLC donors you will find that they drop from the SPLC’s spurious list of “hate groups” overnight. It’s all about the money.

  2. Nautilus Says:

    Just to clarify–

    I never indicated the SPLC was a “pro-Jewish” organization, as if there would be something wrong with being pro-Jewish. I indicated the SPLC shows favoritism toward the Jewish community, and in this sense is exhibiting pro-Jewish bias.

    I suppose you’re right that the reason behind the bias might be strictly about money and not about ethnocentrism on the part of the top management. However, when an organization top-heavy with one ethnic group crafts a policy which helps that very same ethnic group and exhibits hostility toward other religions (associated with other ethnicities–and, of course, let’s not forget that in the past there have been tensions and animosity between Christians and Jews)–that very action raises strong suspicions that favoritism based on ethnicity and not just money is involved. (Of course, even if the bias was based merely on money, the effect of the bias is favoritism toward the ethnic group that pays an out-sized share of the organization’s bills–which in this case would be Jews. –The Montgomery Advertiser even reported that a former SPLC staff indicated that the SPLC donor base was “anchored” by Jews on both coasts.)

    Also, the SPLC has gone out of their way to go “off-topic” when the subject involved defending Jewish issues–even matters taking place outside of the country and many decades ago (an exception to their presumable within-our-shores criticism policy): see the SPLC’s article by Larry Keller on Chodakiewicz’s book on post-Holocaust Poland gentile-Jewish conflict at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/winter/night-at-the-museum.

    (And allow me to add that I have no in-depth knowledge on the subject of post-Holocaust gentile-Jewish conflict in Poland–but, then again, it’s doubtful that anyone at the SPLC did, either–note that the article’s author, Larry Keller, relies on the expertise of Rafal Pankowski. But how did Keller know that Pankowski was the unreliable one and not Chodakiewicz? (Chodakiewicz “describes himself as “a Christian conservative of Polish ancestry,” according to Keller–that’s grounds to not belief him, right there!)

    It’s doubtful that any of the SPLC’s Jewish donors would have stopped funding the organization had they chosen NOT run the above article, so it’s likely that they WANTED to run the article–not from money pressure but simply because they felt it was the right thing to do. Again, I don’t know about this subject matter, so maybe the author of the article comes to the correct conclusion. (I picked up the book in question, there’s nothing in it that is obviously biased–one would have to know quite a bit about the conflict before one could conclude this.)

    I noted in my own article how the SPLC’s “State of Denial” essentially mentions nothing about Jewish pro-Israeli organizations leg work done on behalf of Turkey–which led our government to not recognize the Armenian Genocide. What a missed opportunity, I guess. (But wouldn’t the author have wanted to expose the work of such pro-Israeli groups? That, obviously, would have been an excellent place for the public at large to begin to protest.)

    All I’m saying is this: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If it’s the right thing to do to criticize an American historian for his work on gentile-Jewish relations in the immediate post-Holocaust era in Poland, then it’s the right thing to do to criticize, say, American Jewish leaders who beaver away so that a super huge percentage of our foreign aid goes toward an expansionist Israel.

    Why isn’t the organization taking the “model citizen” approach, by the way (making sure they sufficiently criticize those groups associated with the top management)? That way no one would have any questions about their lack of bias.

    • rkeefe57 Says:

      “I never indicated the SPLC was a “pro-Jewish” organization”

      My bad. I mistakenly thought that you were the author of the link in your original reply.

      For the record, the SPLC has never made any overtly pro-Jewish statements, to my knowledge, despite the fact that five out of six of their top officers are Jewish. Naturally, the SPLC does grandstand over Neo-Nazis and what they call “holocaust deniers” because it plays (pays) well with their liberal donor base. Morris Dees couldn’t give the proverbial rat’s about the holocaust beyond the fact that its a guaranteed money maker.

      The holocaust was a historic event. In a free society you cannot codify an “official version” of a historic event, even though there are people rotting in Canadian and European prisons as we speak for uttering “wrong thoughts” on the holocaust. In a free society, you challenge these people to bring forth their evidence and let it stand or fall on its own merits. In Canada and Europe, you lock people up for expressing their personal opinions. That’s pretty much what Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot did. We’ve come a long way, baby.

      One would expect a “civil rights” organization to defend people’s rights to free speech, but that would offend the donors, including some of the most generous donors. The SPLC claims it fights “anti-gay hate groups,” stating that: “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

      The Boy Scouts of America have stated publicly for decades that gay men “lack the morals” to be Scoutmasters and refuse to hire them as such. Sounds like a cut and dried example of a maligning anti-gay attack to me, as well as some pretty blatant illegal discriminatory hiring practices, but you won’t find word one about the BSA on the SPLC’s web site. Why not?

      Because many of the SPLC’s mostly elderly donors were Scouts or the parents/grandparents of Scouts and linking the almighty donors to a “hate group” is bad for business. “Fighting hate” is all well and good until it cuts into the bottom line.

      This is the same “civil rights” organization that claims that “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.” It seems to have escaped Attorney Dees’ attention that marches, speeches, meetings, publishing, etc., are not “criminal acts” or “hate group activities.” They are fundamental free speech rights protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and the very tools Martin Luther King used to fight institutionalized racism in the 60s and that put Barack Obama (and every other US President) into the White House.

      Shouldn’t the “leading civil rights organization” be PROTECTING civil rights? Not so much. Everyone is entitled to free speech, according to Dees and Co., providing they approve of what you have to say.

      Ironically, if you Google the term “intermarriage” you’ll find some of the most virulent hate speech on the Internet. Site after site of highly educated individuals from well-funded organizations warning their people that marrying outside of their race is cultural suicide. This doesn’t cross the SPLC’s scrupulous “hate group” threshold, naturally, because the rabbis who pen these articles use catchy euphemisms such as “Second Holocaust” in their anti-mixing screeds. If you copy and paste most of these articles and substitute the term “white” for “Jewish,” you end up with a document worthy of the Ku Klux Klan.

      But, no “hate” there.

  3. Nautilus Says:

    From above: “”a Christian conservatiive of Polish ancestry,” according to Keller — that’s grounds to not believe him, right there!)

    –Intended to be taken tongue in cheek!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: