Statement on the SPLC indictment

/15 Comments/in , /by

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 that 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 on meth (it calls it “links” so as to avoid triggering memories in the atrophied brains of liberals).

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.

15 replies
  1. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    “The indictment is thin soup.”

    I’m happy to see this article, because I was thinking the same thing, as in, why are some of us doing a happy jig over what is basically not much.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      You beat me to the punch, dear B. It would be impossible for me to agree with both you and Sam Dickson more than I do.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        Grazie, friend. 🙂 PS. I love it when I can beat you to the punch.

        Also, I am thankful to anyone, in this case Dickson, who revives that ol’ term “thin soup” – tho when I was a child the term I used to hear was “thin gruel”.

        Let’s see what becomes of this case, but I suspect it’s just more window dressing.

  2. Bush Meat
    Bush Meat says:

    “In a sane society (not one like ours) the SPLC would be a laughing stock.”

    No, they would be executed.

  3. Tim
    Tim says:

    Even as a top judge, you’re not safe from having your account closed

    A European bank immediately closed the account of ICC Judge Beti Hohler (44) – because the U.S. had imposed sanctions on her.

    Suddenly, no more credit card, no Amazon, no Airbnb, no Apple ID. Even a highly paid civil servant with a minister’s salary is suddenly left out in the cold. This would be the stuff of a crime thriller, but unfortunately, it’s reality.

    High office, high salary—and yet still kicked out

    Beti Hohler from Slovenia is a judge at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. This is the famous world court tasked with prosecuting humanity’s worst crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It is supported by 125 states.

    Nevertheless, a European bank where she had been a customer for decades closed her account with immediate effect. Within 24 hours, her credit cards were gone. Then came the big shutdown: Amazon account blocked, Airbnb canceled, PayPal blocked, Apple ID deactivated. Suddenly, she could no longer access her iCloud—including ten years of photos and memories of her late father.

    Everyday Life in Free Fall

    Without a credit card, normal life becomes a nightmare: Booking hotels? Almost impossible. Renting a car? No longer an option. Many stores and platforms now only accept credit cards, Apple Pay, or PayPal—all U.S. services that suddenly no longer work for her.

    Hohler says herself: “What works today might not work tomorrow.” The blocks came without any warning—overnight. Traveling is now extremely stressful because she could get stranded anywhere at any time.

    Why is it the judge, of all people?

    The U.S. has placed Hohler on its sanctions list because she was involved in the arrest warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

    A famous case at the International Criminal Court

    In the past, former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević stood trial before the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. He was accused of massacres and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. The trial lasted for years—Milošević died in pretrial detention in 2006 before a verdict was reached.

    “While the ICC can issue arrest warrants for defendants from non-member states such as Israel, it cannot practically have them arrested. Major powers like the U.S., China, Russia, and Israel do not recognize the court. As a result, their citizens largely fall through the cracks.”

    European banks go along with it out of fear

    Out of sheer fear of U.S. sanctions, European banks immediately terminate business relationships—even with an EU judge earning a minister’s salary.

    This shows: A high-ranking international office won’t protect you if you take on America’s financial and tech power.

    https://archive.is/UOR8h

    • Bush Meat
      Bush Meat says:

      It really is stunning. The jewish mafia supersedes all world governments. David Duke would be a millionaire if he could sell his book on Amazon. Apparently he can’t even open a bank account.

  5. Anna Cordelia
    Anna Cordelia says:

    Craig Nelsen has posted an article that takes a similar view of this indictment, and provides some very interesting background on the nefarious origins of the SPLC.

    Essentially, alongside its goal of undermining White society, the SPLC was started as, and always has been, a fund-raising operation. Which is why this “non-profit” now has half a billion dollars in off-shore accounts.

    https://craignelsen.substack.com/p/no-one-hates-the-splc-more-than-i

  6. Eric Smith
    Eric Smith says:

    The simple fact that this organization that even I as a former progressive sort thought maybe was a good group (though my gut feeling was always that of suspicion) ever even existed makes me believe that humans are a fatally flawed critter. We are the first living organism that DESERVES extinction for our hateful crimes against life (and thus the universe itself).

  7. Tim
    Tim says:

    https://rumble.com/v794jxq-identity-politics-ep.108-the-new-hungarian-revolution-w-greg-johnson.html

    Germans are considered thorough but unfriendly, while Americans are seen as friendly but superficial. Germans are considered humorless, while Americans are seen as easygoing. Germans wonder why Americans, while hugging everyone warmly right away as if they’ve known each other for ages, remain impersonal and are, in principle, incapable of deep, lasting, loyal, and meaningful friendship. Americans complain that Germans never look at them and never smile. There is some truth to all these “stereotypes.”

    Some attribute the apparent friendliness of Americans to the fact that this code has become a survival strategy in their multiracial, heavily armed society. Yet even Americans, after 9/11, have put their arrogance as the self-evident, haughty, and invulnerable world police to the test and questioned it. Americans have since become much more reflective, quieter, more thoughtful, and less boastful. Yet the basic traits remain.

    Ms. Johnson says that Hungarians still like Germans more than Russians. Germans are liked almost everywhere in the world, with the exception of the Netherlands, the UK, France, and Scandinavia. Even the Russians think highly of the Germans. This is true even in countries formerly occupied by Germany, such as Greece or Poland. Germans are considered reliable, straightforward, honest, capable, doers, and above all, technical problem-solvers.

    If you have an old machine that hasn’t worked in decades, call a German—he’ll get it running again. Apparently, this interview was recorded in deAnna’s hotel room in Rome, where he clearly feels right at home in Italy. The only clue to his family connection to the country is his Italian last name. If it were a purely Italian family, they probably wouldn’t have named him Kevin, but Antonio.

    But where did Johnson get the scar on her noble forehead? Was she mugged and attacked, was she treacherously ambushed by Antifa in Portland, did she get into an accident, or did she fall? Does she wear contact lenses, allowing her to go without her smart glasses from time to time? Note also the single, thin, long strand of hair left loose on her high, thoughtful forehead, which is perhaps intended to distract from the scar (though it does exactly the opposite).

    It lends Ms. Johnson the creative courage to embrace her individuality. But it’s not just thin strands of hair on Ms. Johnson; her fingers are also thin and long—they are delicate artist’s hands that abhor dirty, rough, physical labor, as the trained eye recognizes at first glance. One dares not even imagine the athletic, delicate dexterity required in what social contexts these hands and this mouth are typically used!

    Ms. Johnson seems to have lived in Hungary for a long time to have acquired this insider knowledge of Hungarian politics and the local mindset. She even seems to understand Hungarian, since language skills and the colloquial slang of the common people are indispensable, especially in Budapest’s nightlife. Has she already made personal friends, or has her cold, arrogant, narcissistic, aloof West Coast attitude stood in her way?

    Have there even been serious or hopeless romances? Which Hungarian hearts has she broken beyond repair so far? But Ms. Johnson also puts some unpleasant things into her mouth, such as the Hungarian name Balogh, which “is not unknown in our circles.” Both conversation partners agree that Americans do not tolerate being appropriated or even judged by non-Americans. Only they themselves can reliably judge this, thanks to their outstanding foresight and their world-renowned capacity for self-reflection!

    “Their reputation precedes them.” However, that reputation is sometimes better or worse, depending on who we’re talking about. Are Americans better than their reputation, Germans worse? Personally, I believe that reputation is based on past experiences—historically, for the most part, long outdated—that our ancestors had with one another. National reputation is, so to speak, experience stored in the collective unconscious. Even if the Jews deny exactly that.

    We stand on the shoulders of giants. After the war, the Hungarians likely had more dealings with the Central Germans (who are today falsely defamed as “East Germans”), for they, too, were famously prohibited from leaving for the “capitalist-imperialist class enemy abroad.” The Hungarians showed their gratitude to the Germans by opening the “Iron Curtain” (Churchill, brazen as he was, had simply stolen this phrase from Goebbels). I have also been to Hungary, and their language is indeed peculiar.

  8. ThePrisoner
    ThePrisoner says:

    The author seems to deliberately misinform on SPLC. The SPLC was funding hate groups, in some cases sustaining those groups, and was also arranging hate events, to raise money for itself. And, it was using its manipulations to influence officials.

    The author tries to portray the SPLC as a well intentioned group doing intelligence on hate groups.

    Yet I see some readers here fall for this nonsense.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      The author tries to portray the SPLC as a well intentioned group doing intelligence on hate groups.

      Whatever else might be said about your analysis, it is certainly provocative. What follows are several questions it provokes in me.

      … it [has] 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[.]

      Is this a revelation that supporters of the SPLC will welcome? Will it earn Sam Dickson a lifetime free subscription to the SPLC’s books and journals?

      The indictment also fuels cuckservatives’ misleading narrative by claiming that 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.”

      Do you think that people who treat the concept of “hate speech” as legally valid and licit—viz., virtually all government agents and cuckservatives—are in sympathy with the expression of pro-White aims and opinions? If you think they are, does Sam Dickson’s implicit criticism of the DoJ and of cuckservatives reveal him as anti-White?

      The SPLC practices guilt by association on meth (it calls it “links” so as to avoid triggering memories in the atrophied brains of liberals). The “links” used by the SPLC to smear its targets include geographic guilt by association …, audience guilt by association …, and even quotation guilt by association ….

      Can you find any SPLC statements or name any SPLC publications that proudly admit that “linking” is equatable with “alleging guilt by association”? Please explain how Sam Dickson cleverly implies that alleging guilt by association is an admirable thing?

      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.

      Has any SPLC employee or donor ever characterized schizophrenia as a desideratum? If that is what Sam Dickson is doing, what good might such a characterization do the SPLC?

      With reference to your answers to the above questions, please be so good as to elaborate on the specific nonsense that “some readers,” including me, have fallen for.

Comments are closed.