Former Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) “staffers have admitted that the hate accusations leveled by the SPLC are a ‘con,’ a deceptive scheme to raise money,” writes PJ Media Senior Editor Tyler O’Neil. In his new book, Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center, O’Neil shreds the SPLC’s claims to be an impartial “hate arbiter” and exposes the SPLC as a corrupt, leftist smear merchant.
Established in 1971, the SPLC has established a powerful presence in media, government, and corporations, to the detriment of mainstream conservative organizations slandered by the SPLC as bigots, as O’Neil documents. News organizations such as ABC, NBC, and CNN have uncritically referenced SPLC materials, while Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified before Congress in 2019 about the SPLC as a Google “trusted flagger” of bigotry. AmazonSmile, which donates a percentage of Amazon product purchases to eligible charities, also relied upon the SPLC in 2017 to exclude groups such as the American Freedom Law Center and D. James Kennedy Ministries.
In the public sector as well, Democratic senators including Dianne Feinstein and Tim Kaine have relied upon the SPLC to oppose judicial nominations and support hate crimes legislation. Similarly, using SPLC materials, Michigan’s attorney general and Department of Civil Rights in 2019 launched a “hate crimes unit.” SPLC ideology additionally has entrée into public schools via the SPLC’s 1991-established Teaching Tolerance program.
The SPLC’s ugly reality belies this veneer of respectability. Revelations in 2019 exposed an SPLC rife with racism and sexual harassment in the organization’s Montgomery, Alabama, headquarters. One former SPLC employee described it as a “virtual buffet of injustices,” while previously, during a 1994 journalistic investigation, black SPLC employees even compared it to a “plantation.”
These scandals, which caused SPLC founder Morris Dees to resign from its leadership, were hardly unpredictable, given his character. “The SPLC’s notoriously handsome founder has married at least five women,” O’Neil notes, while documenting in lurid detail the unconstrained libido of this philanderer. Reflecting white southern racist history, this native Alabamian also initially supported segregationist Democrats in the 1950s, and even once defended a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) member in court who had beaten civil rights activists. “Dees represents the truth that people can change—and the SPLC should remember that when they destroy a person’s reputation for a previous association with a ‘hate group,’” O’Neil trenchantly observes.
The SPLC likewise reflects the business savvy of Dees, who discovered his genius for direct mail operations in mail-order businesses before applying his talents to the SPLC, explains O’Neil. Donations of $500,000 or $1 million from corporations including Apple and JP Morgan Chase, often placed in Cayman islands bank accounts, would make the SPLC “one of the wealthiest charities in the country, if not the world.” “Whether you’re selling cakes or causes, it’s all the same thing,” was Dees’ maxim.
As O’Neil shows, Dees’ junk mail pitches have suckered low-income, would-be do-gooder contributors into imagining the SPLC as a “bare-bones place” and led them to make sacrifices for the SPLC, such as foregoing a new overcoat for the cause. Meanwhile, the SPLC’s Montgomery headquarters features a monument to civil rights heroes by celebrity architect Maya Lin, with the quotation “Until justice rolls down like waters” from Martin Luther King. By contrast, cynical SPLC staffers would mock this “Poverty Palace,” saying “Until justice rolls down like dollars.” Meanwhile, one study revealed that the SPLC in the years 1984-1994 never spent more than 31 percent of revenue on programs, contrary to the 80 percent minimum set by the watchdog Charity Navigator.
The SPLC won its reputation by fighting the KKK, but O’Neil examines how the SPLC has worn out whatever laurels it once thereby deserved, as “by the 1980s, the Klan was largely a spent force.” While nationwide KKK membership dropped below 10,000, the deceptive “SPLC easily raised millions by telling liberal donors up north how dangerous the Klan was.” Yet the SPLC’s legal team in 1986 resigned en masse over Dees’ KKK “obsession,” which “idealistic lawyers saw…as a distraction from the issues they really cared about, like getting innocent people off of death row.”
Today O’Neil reveals many of the SPLC’s “hate group” listings as “hilariously sad,” including Kennesaw, Georgia’s “Wildman’s Civil War Surplus and Herb Shop,” run by an unreconstructed pro-Confederacy southerner. The SPLC also once cited Iowa’s historic town of Amana Colonies because white supremacists claimed to have held a book club in a town restaurant. The SPLC will additionally list as a separate “hate group” each organization chapter; thus the grassroots national security organization ACT for America inflates to 47 “hate groups” in the SPLC’s distorted hate group listings. Moreover, several “hate crimes” denounced by the SPLC have turned out to be hoaxes.
The SPLC’s strident leftist biases are apparent in a 2016 SPLC lawsuit against a Mississippi charter schools program (with many black student beneficiaries) as well as in extreme LGBT advocacy. The SPLC has condemned this author’s esteemed colleague Jennifer Roback Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, for defending the Catholic Church Catechism‘s teaching that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” The SPLC has also blackballed as “anti-LGBT” her fellow Catholic, renowned Princeton University intellectual Robert George; O’Neil accordingly wonders whether the “SPLC should call the Catholic Church a ‘hate group.’”
Despite these travesties, the SPLC assumes an aura of authority that others dispute, including former American Civil Liberties Union director Nadine Strossen, who rejected the SPLC “hate group” label for the Alliance Defending Freedom. Facebook spokesperson Ruchika Budhraja likewise told PJ Media that Facebook does not share the SPLC’s “hate group” designations for various groups, including the Family Research Council (FRC). Perhaps if the deranged homosexual Floyd Lee Corkins II had only listened to Facebook, this domestic terrorist might not have relied upon an SPLC “hate list” to target FRC in an attempted 2012 mass shooting.
Yet the SPLC has conveniently cast aside all claims of objectivity in the face of defamation lawsuits by growing numbers of individuals and groups defending against SPLC character assassination. Once cornered in court, the SPLC suddenly claims that its “hate group” judgments are mere free speech expressions of “opinion,” devoid of any legal liability. Nonetheless, British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz won a $3.375 million defamation settlement from the SPLC in 2018.
To paraphrase the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the SPLC can have its own shoddy opinions, but it cannot have its own facts. These “stubborn things,” as John Adams once called them, patently reveal the SPLC’s fraudulence. In ably assembling these facts, O’Neil has done valuable service for all who oppose the SPLC’s baleful influence.
Boromir's Horn says
Probably the most despicable of all the shameful things the Southern Poverty Law Center has done, and the list is long, is the irreparable damage it’s done to the words “civil rights”. One can hardly keep from rolling their eyes when hearing the term used, and that is a damn shame.
libertyORdeath says
They and others are trying to do the same thing to the words “terrorism”, “terrorist” and “terror” in their support for jihad murder and oppression. The day may soon come when many Westerners will roll their eyes when they hear of a terrorist attack. What a shame.
toomanyhobbies says
what kicks me in the rear is the term “HATE CRIME” all crimes are of hateful. to specifically name a specific crime as one is RETARDED and a scam.
Westman says
So, a white guy, Dees, sees an opportunity to get access to the revenue flow of the NAACP and take it to unimagined heights; effectively choking the NAACP into a vestige while expanding operations to cover all social grievances, real or imagined.
Shades of the Ray Kroc method. Take a little operation, make it global, and expand the offerings. The SPLC is a business, not a charity. It has become the dictator of SJW that can so frighten the Media Giants that they stand on their own heads to cause the coins to rain from their pockets.
The influence was so strong that some other “charities” were still touting Dees’ statements after the SPLC had already kicked him out for causing, “me too”. It took a while for new printings of solicitation materials that excluded Dees and the SPLC. It appears that 2017 was the banner year for SPLC income which has been sliding downward as donors began realizing the true nature of the business.
James Lincoln says
Interestingly, when I read the title of this feature article I initially read it. I get a kick out of erroneously, as:
“The Southern Poverty Hoax Center.”
I wonder why that happened…
James Lincoln says
Let me try again, my word processor went bananas…
Interestingly, when I read the title of this feature article I initially read it, erroneously, as:
“The Southern Poverty Hoax Center.”
I wonder why that happened…
Jim Wharry says
The splc is a domestic terrorist organization and should be treated as such.
libertyORdeath says
I don’t know if I would go so far as to call it a terrorist organization for the simple fact that it cheapens the term “terrorist”. I would however wholeheartedly support its designation as a propaganda outlet since it so obviously is.
mortimer says
WHAT WILL SPLC DO ABOUT ISLAM’S CANONICAL TEACHING OF HATRED? “AL BARRA”?
‘AL BARAA’ is translatable into English as Islamic Apartheid, Shunning, Avoidance, Hatred, Cleansing from a Disease, etc. Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be cleansed) from the dirty kufaar and from kufr and shirk (wrong worship). ‘AL BARAA’ is the reverse of ‘COMRADESHIP WITH MUSLIMS’ (AL WALAA).
‘Baraa’ is HATRED directed towards Kafirs ‘for the sake of Allah’…Al Bughoud or Al Mu’adaat (hatred) is the opposite of Al Muwalaat (love towards Muslims). Baraa is:
– To Hate
– To keep distance from
– To be enemy to
– To desert
– To decline to help
– To disrespect
– To put down
– Not to ally with
– Not to support
Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be ‘cleansed’) from the dirty kufaar and from kufr and shirk.
– In 2019, Mufti Muhammad Ibn Muneer of New York said, “The general principle is to love and to HATE for the sake of Allah. Which is simply summed up as, loving the Muslims and HATING THE NON-MUSLIMS.”
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed (Islamic faith) and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen (i.e. wrong worshippers). So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen, then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
– “The Muslim should regard the Kuffaar as ENEMIES and HATE them because of their kufr (wrong belief), just as he hates their kufr (disbelief) itself.” – from Umar Sulayman ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ashqar, “Belief in Allah”
-“The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca. – https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/al-wala-wal-bara-according-to-the-aqeedah-of-the-salaf-parts-123/
-Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Atiq said: “There isn’t in the Book of Allah the Exalted – after the issue concerning the obligation of tawheed and the forbiddance of its opposite (kufr=wrong belief)- any issue which has as so many proofs, nor so clearly explained, than the issue of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’.” (W-B is ‘Islamic apartheid’)
– Dr. Muhammad Saeed Al-Qahtaani said: “Thus, it is clear that Al-Wala’ Wal-Bara calls on Muslims to “love” their fellow Muslims and hate the non-Muslim (or Kafir).”
– from Sufi scholar Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): “The honour of Islam lies in INSULTING kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to HUMILIATE them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain TERRIFIED and TREMBLING. It is intended to hold them under CONTEMPT and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
– from ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan”: “… true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and NEVER support them.”
– K. 28:86 says: “Lend not thou support in any way to those who reject Allah’s Message.”
– In the matter of relations with kafirs, a Muslim should “…act like you are his friend. Then kill him.” – Sheikh Muburak Gilani
– “The Muslim should regard the Kuffaar as ENEMIES and HATE them because of their kufr (wrong belief), just as he hates their kufr (disbelief) itself.” – from Umar Sulayman ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ashqar, “Belief in Allah”
libertyORdeath says
“WHAT WILL SPLC DO ABOUT ISLAM’S CANONICAL TEACHING OF HATRED? “AL BARRA”?”
Come on now mortimer, we both know the answer to this question – NOT A DAMN THING!
Well, they might defend and deflect in support of Islam but that would be about it.
RonaldB says
I have no objection to taking the money of stupid leftists devoted to destroying Western culture as we know it. The problem is, the SPLC suppresses freedom of speech and discussion in two ways, directly and indirectly. The direct way is always the threat of lawfare: with unlimited numbers of lawyers on the payroll, the SPLC can decide to sue you for whatever reason, and wear out your resources even with an obviously bogus claim.
Indirectly, they can defame you and pressure organizations, social platforms, and advertisers to blackball you. Again, if you’re not supported by a deep-pocket organization to sue them for defamation, you haven’t a prayer.
The use of tax-exempt contributions is very heavily abused. Donations should not be tax-exempt to any organizations, unless used disbursed for charitable purposes. I don’t understand why donations to religions should be tax-deductible. The first amendment clearly states “no law contributing to the establishment of religion”. If exempting religious contributions isn’t contributing to the establishment of religion, I don’t know what does.
James Lincoln says
RonaldB says,
“If exempting religious contributions isn’t contributing to the establishment of religion, I don’t know what does.”
Good point, I never considered it…
Brian Hunter says
I believe taxing religious contributions would be tantamount to the government preventing the free exercise of religion, forbidden by the 1st ammendment.
James Lincoln says
Brian Hunter,
Thank you for your reply. I think that I am correct, but I am not 100% sure.
I’m not an attorney, so maybe one of our Jihad Watch attorney readers can weigh in on this.
This is the way that I understand tax deductions:
The IRS allows tax deductions to encourage spending in certain areas. For instance, it currently allows tax deductions – and even tax credits – for electric cars, solar panels, etc., in order to encourage US citizens to buy/invest in these products.
Tax deductions on mortgage interest on your primary residence helps encourage homeownership where the government allows you to keep more money in your own pocket.
By the same token, tax deductions on monies given to churches, etc., encourages spending for this purpose – in effect encouraging spending money on a religion of your choice. These church donations are, in effect, subsidized by the US government.
Thoughts?
Giacomo Latta says
Yes, religions are subsidized by government, not just donations but religious sites as well through exemption of paying certain taxes. Sports organizations and others have to haul their own load so why should fairy-tale promotion organizations be exempt? Books by Mother Goose and the Brothers Grimm should be tax-free just as much.
Catherine Christiansen says
The IRS effectively bought the Church’s silence by allowing donations to be exempt. The Church can loose it’s exempt status if the government declares it is expousing political views. Many of our founding Fathers were in the pulpit and took up arms against England. So effectively, the government is not supporting religious institutions but silencing them from speaking.
RonaldB says
When I say religious organizations should not enjoy tax exemption status, I am not being hostile to religion. Ultimately, if religions enjoy a tax-exempt status, they will conform to government requirements to keep that status. I would think a self-respecting religious sect (using sect in a descriptive and not a pejorative sense) would not want any sort of government interference in its actions or creed.
Just on a Constitutional level, there is the First Amendment, which on the face of it, prevents religious exemptions from taxation. In the early years of the Republic, individual taxation was light to non-existent; most government revenue came from tariffs. It is the very worst of all worlds to have heavily intrusive government taxation, and selective exemptions, giving the government the power to shape and control private, tax-exempt institutions.
I prefer an environment of low taxation and no targeted exemptions. I’m not in favor of government encouraging favored institutions or businesses with exemptions or deductions.
kaosktrl says
What does the first amendment says about violent street gangs ?
Seeking Deliverance says
S.P.L.C., U.S. Democratic Party, W.H.O., European Union, United Nations, A.C.L.U., antifa, BLM, SJW, Islam/Nation of Islam, and the list of entities which SHOULD BE deemed enemies of The Republic grows evermore.