“The SPLC orchestrating the Charlottesville event and then pivoting to “endorse” the narrative that Trump coddles white supremacists is the definition of a classic Democrat false-flag operation. They manufacture the crisis, weaponize the media to lie about the “fine people” quote, and use it as a political cudgel to demonize heritage Americans. It’s not just hypocrisy; it’s the standard operating procedure for the Democrat junta regime that relies on fabricated morality and lies to maintain power.“
Honestly, I don’t see how any fair, honest, informed American can disagree with that statement. I’ll even employ the “No True Scotsman” approach: any American who does disagree with that statement is, by definition, not fair, honest, or informed, and perhaps all three.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which we now know helped plan, organize, and pay for the Charlottesville demonstration, endorsed Kamala Harris, who a month later accused Donald Trump of enabling white supremacists during their debate.
The public now has sufficient information, even with the desperate attempts by the news media to submerge it all, to understand what a dangerous, Machiavellian, deliberately divisive and unscrupulous party the Democrats have allowed their organization to become. Regardless of one’s ideological preferences, it is unethical not to emphatically reject them.
Ethics Alarms 
This operation is just another chapter in the story and, unfortunately, relatively small stuff. The entire “Russia collusion” construct and investigation, and the “Ukraine phone call” impeachment were the largest, most nefarious political dirty tricks in the history of the United States, vigorously and coordinatedly orchestrated by the Democrat party, its members of Congress, the Deep State and the media. And they were conducted in plain sight with total impunity.
First, my question is when the other shoe will drop, namely on the events of January 6th, 2021. Will this also turn out to be a false flag operation, with heavy involvement of the deep state?
Second, there is fear that after the midterms and the 2028 elections there will be a replay of what transpired during Trump I, with impeachments, subpoena’s, lawfare and political prosecution, provided that the Democrats win (which is not unlikely). In other words, nothing will be learned from the SPLC episode. The Democrats follow a by any means policy of securing political victories.
Third, the political bases will continue to radicalize. Yesterday I saw the following tweet, which is evidence of some hyperbole of MAGA conservatives, who after being demonized as racists by the left are happy to return the favor by tying the Democrat Party to the KKK and the confederates.
The SPLC funded the Klan. They funded the Aryan Nation. They funded Charlottesville. SPLC has to manufacture racism and violence for political power and money. Democrats are very publicly returning to their Confederate roots. The Democrat Party is the party of the Confederacy and the Klan.
The SPLC did not manufacture the various groups that joined the Unite the Right Rally. There were numerous groups, and various theorist-activists that felt inspired to organize such an event. And all these groups and people you would call extreme Right or dissident Right. I seem to remember there were as many as 40 different groups represented, and most were Southern groups that felt offended that monuments were being taken down or destroyed by mobs.
Certainly the FBI had infiltrated some of these groups, and certainly they were aware of the plans being made. But they did not create or direct the “grievances” of those people and groups that came.
Long ago, back in the 60s and 70’s there were two notable paramilitary operations against groups organizing in the US: the Black liberation movement and also the American Indian Movement on the Indian reservations. Wiretapping , infiltration, paid informants and spies, covert operations, assassinations, blackmail. The operations were successful: the Black Liberation moment (many, perhaps most) were Marxian revolutionist. Similar to similar guerrilla groups in Latin America (FARC, ELN in Colombia). It is understandable why the State police would go after such groups and use “all means necessary” to upset their operations.
Similarly, the Patriot Movement (I think this was in the 1980s) was attacked and destroyed by Federal paramilitaries.
The “radical” movements of today (the ones we hear about are Right-tending) such as those that rallied in Charlottesville, and people like Nick Fuentes and a dozen others) are all monitored by the FBI (etc.) and certainly there is infiltration. You are not the brightest bulb in the long American hallway if you think that social engineering of politics and economy will stop anytime soon or if you think it is an affair of “the Democrats”. It is an affair of the Nation and the nation’s police and military power)( para-military, para-governmental).
The US is a major empire with world holdings. It is in the final analysis a huge important business. The operations in Iran are business operations. Same with Venezuela. The wants, desires, needs, objectives of populations (i.e. the American people 🇺🇸) are not relevant to the management of this enterprise. They must be managed — corralled, directed, influenced — to stay in their places.
You people must know this, right? I mean, you are serious people of the professional class, educated, aware …
“The SPLC did not manufacture the various groups that joined the Unite the Right Rally.”
Straw man. So what? The issue is that the SPLC was sending financial aid to the same groups it was condemning.
“The SPLC did not manufacture the various groups that joined the Unite the Right Rally.”
Straw man. So what? The issue is that the SPLC was sending financial aid to the same groups it was condemning.
All I can say is to repeat the larger, more important point: the SPLC operates in collusion with Federal authorities and intelligence and such infiltration and paying informants is normal practice.
You’re missing a major fact: the SPLC is not a law enforcement agency. I has no authority or reason to pay informants. When it pays criminals, it is aiding and abetting crime.
You’re missing a major fact: the SPLC is not a law enforcement agency. I has no authority or reason to pay informants. When it pays criminals, it is aiding and abetting crime.
For Heaven’ sake, it is not myself missing the point here. It has been revealed, investigated at some length, and reported that US federal agents have infiltrated organizations such as the SPLC, developed information exchange with them, in order to disrupt the organizations and networks of people organizing in ways they understand to be negative. I am not so much concerned with what is “legal” (and this is absurd: it part if your narraive, pertaining to international issues, that no “law” exists. Therefore, my point is to speak about how it happens that mass-government power does not care about law or illegality! The US violates “law” routinely, and it definitely did exactly that when Iran was invaded. Once power violates the rules, and it becomes institutionalized, it does not shift strategy.
Presently, there is a movement that defines itself as America First. It is composed (mostly) of Dissident Right theorists. You have expressed ideas and defended policy choices that are not America First. Your views are best defined as classically Neo-Con. This is not a criticism of your position. I only am trying to define things clearly.
The FBI colludes with the SPlC to disrupt associations among those in America today with views contrary to that of the ruling elite. And covert war has been declared against them.
I
Again, not relevant. The feds can infiltrate the SPLC because IT is a hate group. But that’s not the same as an alleged watch dog financially supporting the groups they raise money over opposing.
I think it is because of your training as a lawyer that you take this approach. In the courtroom the question asked is simple and confined to one point: Did the SPLS commit a crime by inciting crime. The answer is very likely yes, they did. So on that level I completely agree.
But there are larger issues, and far more consequential issues, that I have written about.
I am more interested in(if that is the right way to say it) that now one faction of the Deep State is going after its enemy-faction of the Deep State. I have a strong unverified feeling that opening the SPLC case is part of Donald Trump’s efforts to take some actions that appease his base before the time of the mid-terms.
And obviously I am also more interested about the fact that in the corrupt state of the US, the corrupt nation, that no matter what happens to the SPLC that the Federal paramilitaries will continue their operations against renegade people and renegade groups that they do not like. For example: the America First Movement.
The other thing is that, every day that goes by, some other level of American hypocrisy comes to the surface. It is part of the time that we are in that this is happening. Ultimately I do not know what to make of it. You hold Tucker Carlson in contempt, I think I understand why. But in truth, and even though he is defective, is is uncovering hypocrisies on a daily basis. It mimics (or it is genuinely?) moral self-analysis.
It is all very strange and curious and it is all very interesting to think about.
I really wish you would dispense with the smarmy condescension and arrogance. It’s pathetic. You seem to think you have some special knowledge that others here are just not smart enough to have figured out or discovered in their research. If so, you are wrong.
In Jack’s NYT post, you labeled the rest of the EA commentariat…what was it?…yeah, “hyper-indoctrinated Christian Zionists”, who “refuse to take the propaganda lenses from their eyes.” You have some kind of hubris, stereotyping a group of people you don’t know. Do you think that television and propaganda are our primary sources of news (which you have also stated on several occasions as an accusation)? Do you honestly think that? If so, that only confirms how naive you are…and that you have no business labeling any of us with any moniker you deem derogatory as a way of shaming us to either listen to you or subscribe to your views.
As I have said before, you have knowledge to share here…and I’m glad you do. And you’re free to type what you want; you can meander all over the linguistic landscape until even “In Living Color”‘s Oswald Bates looks at you cross-eyed. But while you’re doing that, take the time to stop insulting the people you want to try to persuade.
Alternatively, keep it up and you’ll risk typing to an audience of none.
I don’t have the mental capacity to add anything intelligent to this conversation, but I will say that people should use the word “smarmy” more often. Good work! Nonetheless, Joel, perhaps heed my advice: “Don’t feed the pigeons.” They’ll reproduce. Know what I mean?
I don’t have the mental capacity
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν
Unfortunately “smarmy” is not the right word in Joel’s context. Arrogance, even snottiness are better. Hubris doesn’t work either because hubris (in the classic sense) involves cruelty and sadism (and is for that reason hated by the gods). Maybe “mistaken self-assurance” would be best?
Snotty, Latina bitch is also far more acceptable than smarmy. 🌸
We’ve got to be creative these days. And the proper insult is today like le mot juste.
Please revise …
smarmy (ˈsmaːmi) adjective over-respectful and inclined to use flattery.
“Snotty, Latina bitch is also far more acceptable than smarmy.”
Howse about Bruja Blanca…?
PWS
Don Señor Paul, I appreciate your contribution!
But I think we must remember that a proper insult, the insult that strikes the target, that wounds the subject, must include some physical attribute. Did you ever read Cyrano de Bergerac? He was unsatisfied with the insults thrown at him by his enemies — so he improved them:
Visconte de Valvert: Monsieur, your nose…your nose is rather large.
CdB: Rather large??
VdV: Oh, well …
CdB: Is that all??
VdV: Well of course…
CdB: Oh, no, young sir. You are too simple. Why, you might have said a great many things. Why waste your opportunity? For example, thus: AGGRESSIVE: I, sir, if that nose were mine, I’d have it amputated on the spot. PRACTICAL: How do you drink with such a nose? You must have had a cup made especially. DESCRIPTIVE: ‘Tis a rock, a crag, a cape! A cape? Say rather, a peninsula! INQUISITIVE: What is that receptacle? A razor case or a portfolio? KINDLY: Ah, do you love the little birds so much that when they come to see you, you give them this to perch on. CAUTIOUS: Take care! A weight like that might make you top-heavy. ELOQUENT: When it blows, the typhoon howls, and the clouds darken! DRAMATIC: When it bleeds, it reds the Red Sea. SIMPLE: When do they unveil the monument? MILITARY: Beware, a secret weapon. ENTERPRISING: What a sign for some perfumer! RESPECTFUL: Sir, I recognize in you a man of parts. A man of… prominence! Or, LITERARY: Was this the nose that launched a thousand ships?
These, my dear sir, are things you might have said, had you some tinge of letters or of wit to color your discourse.
Bruja blanca is a good base. Give me a while. I will ask my sister (a master at quips) to help me come up with an all-inclusive, devastating insult from which I won’t be able to recover … 🎯
“Snotty, Latina bitch is also far more acceptable than smarmy.”
I prefer ‘La Lúcida’
Alas, I guess I should have said that I preferred, “La bruja lúcida” but that has no physical attribute either. Though it must be obvious that I was not searching for an insult!!!
Mil bendisiones sovre tu kaza … 🌻
(I really don’t speak Ladino but my mother’s mother did. I am trying to remember some of the key phrases she used to say)(and spell them as they used to).
You seem to think you have some special knowledge that others here are just not smart enough to have figured out or discovered in their research. If so, you are wrong.
Frankly, in my view, everything important hinges on “special knowledge” when it pertains to interpretation of the world and what is going on. Am I to assume from your statement the opposite? That it takes no skill, no dedication, no study, even intense study, to be able to see and understand the worlds of politics, geo-political power-games, and indeed the psychological dimensions that play so strongly? I assume you believe that a “surface reading” will reveal all one needs?
Do you really think “it” is an issue of “smartness” as in IQ? You know, that question can be examined. We live in a world of predators and predation. And beyond all doubt people, organizations, corporations, governments — very intelligent men — use their power to trick and entrap us into their ganes-of-power. The predator is, evolutionarily, always one step ahead of the pray, or she or he would not have success. So is your question Do I think people are stupid? Absolutely not. “Then what is it that tends to keep them in a position of understanding that corresponds to ‘being prey’?”
“hyper-indoctrinated Christian Zionists”, who “refuse to take the propaganda lenses from their eyes.” You have some kind of hubris, stereotyping a group of people you don’t know.
I only “know” anyone on the basis of what they write, and Christian Zionism is largely the predominant perspective (as far as what I have read) on this blog. (And I define that position, that bizarre and self-deceiving position as one devised by predators for their prey.) I know, I know, you regard it as pathological that I focus (continually) on Zionism (hence on Israel). But it simply must be done, because the philosophy of Zionism is itself a sickness of the mind, and what it has done and is doing now is immensely destructive. So the question I ask is: Do you not understand this because of lack of brain-power? (That cannot be it) Or because you-plural (a hypothetical ‘you’) are captured by narratives constructed by predators that render you prey?
Do you think that television and propaganda are our primary sources of news (which you have also stated on several occasions as an accusation)? Do you honestly think that? If so, that only confirms how naive you are…and that you have no business labeling any of us with any moniker you deem derogatory as a way of shaming us to either listen to you or subscribe to your views.
I hope that you will bother to take the time to tell me what your sources are that provide the base for an accurate assessment of ‘the world’ as it pertains to American politics (which to me seems almost chaotically difficult because so convoluted).
Since you mention “propaganda” am I to assume that you regard it as being real and significant? Or (as is often my impression here) does “propaganda” only cone from those evil evil Democrats? My general impression? Most who write here really and truly regard The Democrats as the source of evil and mis-direction today. (And I regard that as a really really stupid view, but one that even a genius with 160 IQ might fall into).
My view? There is almost nothing BUT propaganda circulating around. And TeleScreen is a gloss term for everything that comes electronically to us. That’s the ocean we swim in.
…and that you have no business labeling any of us with any moniker you deem derogatory as a way of shaming us to either listen to you or subscribe to your views.
My stance is: 1) Take nothing personally. I will benefit much more from your criticism than your praise. 2) Speaking ‘generally’ (to a plurality) is a sort of defect of our language. It is easier to use a generality than to carefully qualify every statement made. 3) Polemics suffers if one is not hasty and generalizing! 😳
See here
CVB
That’s is not necessarily hyperbole when one claims that the Democrats are returning to confederate roots. The evolution of the Democrat party began with the notion of whites were the intellectual superiors to others. This is not to say that other political factions thought otherwise but only the Democrats did everything in their power to maximize racial animus. The period of the mid 1950’s to 1970 was a time that forced Democrats to abandon segregation by laws passed. Few Democrats actually voted for the civil rights act of 64. Lyndon Johnson carried the idea that blacks were too stupid to think for themselves when he signed the civil rights act in 64 saying that by signing this act the “niggers” will vote for Democrats for a hundred years. The 70’s saw the development of the rise of militant black groups and the Democrats used them to maintain fear in the white community. The 80’s through 2008 was relatively racially neutral because other economic issues were at their zenith. Obama promoted racial discord and the Democrat party has been using Blacks as useful idiots ever since. Given the vast amount of resources provided to elevate the Black demographic since 1965 one has to wonder why Black achievement in academic and economic status has fallen below that of the Black family that predates 1964.
I would say that the Democrats fully deserve the reactions as in the tweet linked at the bottom, as turnabout is fair play. However I would like to question whether such a reaction does full justice to history, and all the players involved. The idea that the Democrats are as racist today as during Jim Crow or the Antebellum is ethically comparable to the the idea that Republicans are the true heir of Jim Crow and the Antebellum South. Both ideas reflect the desire to demonize the political opponents as morally beyond the pale.
Lyndon Johnson carried the idea that blacks were too stupid to think for themselves when he signed the civil rights act in 64 saying that by signing this act the “niggers” will vote for Democrats for a hundred years.
I did some research on this using Google’s AI and the LBJ quote above is not fully attested by historians. Here is what AI Overview has to say:
The quote “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years,” attributed to President Lyndon B. Johnson, is widely reported in historical and political discussions regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Source: The quote is typically attributed to an anecdote from a 1960 Air Force One flight reported by author and journalist Ronald Kessler in his book Inside the White House (1995), citing a white flight attendant.
Context: It is often cited to illustrate a transactional view of politics, suggesting that by enacting civil rights legislation, Johnson aimed to solidify black voters’ support for the Democratic Party for generations.
Controversy: While the quote aligns with known accounts of Johnson’s coarse language and usage of racial slurs in private, it has been a subject of debate among historians, with some questioning the reliability of the single source.
Broader Behavior: Records from biographer Robert Caro indicate that Johnson, while pushing for civil rights, often used racist terminology in private conversations to manage Southern white Democrats (segregationists).
Despite the reported private comment, Johnson’s actions—specifically signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965—are credited with empowering Black citizens and fundamentally changing American democracy.
Let’s acknowledge that LBJ is a complex political figure, including his racial attitudes. He is still deserves credit for passing the Civil Rights Act. Tweets like the one below simplify and distort history, and are just like much of the Democrat’s rhetoric cheap and below the belt.
Eugene Volokh wrote this thought-experiment.
https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/25/thought-experiment-its-2030-and-the-newsom-justice-department-indicts-a-conservative-group-for-paying-antifa-leaders/
I think Eugene Volokh is missing a couple of points. His whole argument hinges on “What if the shoe is on the other foot?” This misses the point that we have already seen that the left is willing to engage in lawfare against conservatives. J6 prosecutions, disbarments of lawyers arguing on behalf of Trump, arrests of pro-life activists based on the FACE acts, etc.
I also think that Eugene Volokh puts to much weight on the prosecution of SPLC itself. My expectations on seeing convictions is very low. But I do not think that is the point of this scandal. The point is to expose SPLC for what it is, a venal organization that smears any organization that opposes the left for profit, by any means possible, with any falsehood possible, but that in the meantime has become thoroughly corrupt and greedy. We want the SPLC go the way of the KKK, a ridiculous clown show that nobody takes serious anymore.