Statement on the SPLC indictment

My personal opinion is that the indictment is greatly overestimated in the minds of our adherents.

The indictment is thin soup.  It charges the SPLC with technical (and shaky, weak) violations of bank regulations.  The “crimes” seem highly improbable.  Since when have donors been entitled to a line-by-line breakdown of the activities of the group getting the donation?

Hasn’t it been pretty much common knowledge that the SPLC plants agents in organizations it targets and bribes officers and members of such organizations to steal information so the SPLC can use it to damage the professional careers of members of such organizations?

The SPLC will probably raise several hundred million dollars to defend itself against flimsy charges that will likely be dismissed by the judge.

The indictment will be a financial bonanza for the SPLC.

The indictment conceals the identity of the sleaze-balls who took the bribes which indicates IMO the desire of the government to pull its punches.

It is highly unlikely that we will ever learn the identities of the plants and the bribed informants.

The indictment also fuels cuckservatives’ misleading narrative by claiming the by bribing members of these organizations to provide the SPLC with information with which to harm the careers of adherents, the SPLC was “financing hate.”

In a sane society (not one like ours) the SPLC would be a laughing stock.  The SPLC is a parody of the liberals’ parody of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  For 3 generations liberals have ridiculed McCarthy for “guilt by association.”

The SPLC practices guilt by association (it calls it “links” so as to avoid triggering memories in the atrophied brains of liberals) on meth.

The “links” used by the SPLC to smear its targets include geographic guilt by association (“Eric Rudolph comes from an area of North Carolina once known for “racism”), audience guilt by association (“Mr. Smith spoke at Berkeley University and a known neo-Nazi sat in the audience”) and even quotation guilt by association (“Jones denies that he is a Nazi but SPLC research proves that something he wrote was quoted in a Nazi publication”).

The SPLC’s mode of thinking mirrors that of schizophrenics.  Normal people’s brains do not hatch screwball ideas that a shared geographic location, the presence of someone in an audience listening to a speaker or something someone wrote being quoted by someone else as establishing any rational connection.

Schizophrenics think and talk that way.  So does the SPLC.

We should focus on exposing the intrinsic silliness of the SPLC and take a more sober view of this indictment.