Gavin McInnes: The Organizer of "United the (Fake) Right" Paid by the SPLC Would Not Stop Beggint Me to Attend His SPLC-Funded Anti-Right Op

So it was all an op from the beginning: The guy paid by the SPLC -- who was also, get this, a CNN "reporter" (!!!) -- tried to draw in as many people on the right as possible so they would all get smeared as racists when the "They Will Not Replace Us!" tik-torch operatives made their surprise, but planned, appearance.

Here's Gavin McInnes confronting this SPLC plant for attempting to recruit Proud Boys.

More drip, drip, drip on this two-in-one Race Communist/White Supremacist organization:

In the early 1990s, I was the opinion pages editor of the Oceanside Blade-Citizen in San Diego County. We were a 30,000 circulation daily serving Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista and Encinitas. At that time, California and a few other states were pioneering new laws that required financial institutions to share with customers the files they kept on us - and to provide a process for challenging inaccurate information.

The editorial board - publisher Tom Missett, managing editor Rusty Harris, and myself - were in favor of this development, and wrote a series of editorials in support of it. Then we went a step further, and in another editorial argued that political and activist organizations that keep files on American citizens should also have to disclose those files on request, and have a process whereby inaccurate information could be challenged.

We had in mind everyone from the National Rifle Association to the ACLU - the sorts of nonprofit advocacy groups that tend to monitor what their perceived opponents write and say in public.

But it was only the Southern Poverty Law Center we heard from.

I have no idea how they knew a mid-size daily in Southern California had written an editorial in favor of transparency and accountability, but they weren't happy. Maybe a reader who disagreed with our position forwarded it to SPLC headquarters halfway across the country, maybe a newspaper near them picked it up off the wire and ran it - it didn't matter.

What mattered was that someone from the SPLC called Rusty and warned that this was a dangerous idea. That this would make it more difficult and expensive for them to track white supremacists and racists.

Rusty, in his quiet Texas drawl, pointed out that being falsely accused of espousing such views could be devastating to the person so accused - and that surely no reasonable person could oppose allowing people to clear their name?

Well, that never happens, they told him.

Rusty then suggested they submit a commentary in response to our editorial, and said he's make sure it ran.

No, he was told. That isn't good enough. They wanted a retraction of our editorial!

Rusty patiently explained that we'd already given this quite a bit of thought, and we stood by our position.

Then things turned ugly. It would be unfortunate, the SPLC rep told Rusty, if the SPLC had to add a newspaper of all things to their hate watch list! That they would name our editorial board members as well, let the world know that we supported hate!

It's a Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization.

Flashback: In 2016, the SPLC partnered with the communist American Federation of Teachers to pay for a survey of teachers to discover hate-crimes.

The SPLC deleted all reports of anti-white racist hate-crimes.

At least 2,000 educators around the country reported racist slurs and other derogatory language leveled against white students in the first days after Donald Trump was elected president. But the group that surveyed the teachers didn't publish the results in its report on Trump-related "hate crimes."

The Southern Poverty Law Center partnered with the American Federation of Teachers, which formally endorsed Hillary Clinton, to circulate the questionnaire among its 1.6 million mostly Democratic members. The survey was sent out to K-12 teachers and administrators who subscribe to its "Teaching Tolerance" newsletter.

The SPLC's widely cited report -- "The Trump Effect: The Impact of the 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation's Schools" -- reported that 40 percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey "have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation."

The takeaway was that Trump-supporting white kids have been harassing minorities at the nation's schools. And SPLC's schools report, along with a broader report on alleged Trump-inspired hate crimes -- "Ten Days After: Harassment and Intimidation in the Aftermath of the Election" -- sparked breathless coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and other major media.

The reports also triggered a statement Friday from the US Commission on Civil Rights, which expressed "deep concern" that "prejudice has reared its ugly head in public elementary and secondary schools." The panel called for more federal funding to prosecute "hate crimes."

But the SPLC didn't present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators -- whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: "I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students."

Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information "from the researchers." Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that "about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question."

Bokenkamp did not provide an explanation for the absence of such a substantial metric -- at least 2,000 bias-related incidents against white students -- from the report, which focuses instead on "anti-immigrant sentiment," "anti-Muslim sentiment" and "slurs about students of color" related to the election.

"They left that result out because it would not fit their ideological narrative," former Education Department civil rights attorney Hans Bader said. "It was deemed an inconvenient truth."

Flashback: Biden partnered with the SPLC to "enforce civil rights law." You know, anyone acting as an agent of the state is restricted by all the laws and rules that cops are bound by, right? Did you remember that, Biden and SPLC? I bet that slipped your mind.

Why do they all look like this? And the call us CHUDs!

As you know, most of the media is lying about what the indictment charges, and then omitting a link to the indictment so that readers can't check up on them:

Robby Soave @robbysoave

I'm always flummoxed when mainstream news sources describe a lawsuit, indictment, or pertinent document without actually linking to it. The SPLC indictment isn't linked in New York Times, AP, BBC, The Guardian, or any of first 10 sources I checked. Just have to take their word for it.

But CBS, at least, delivered an accurate statement of the charges. Though they then did spend much more time airing the spin from the SPLC and a liberal "expert" poo-pooing it.

Baby steps, though.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 05:30 PM

| Access Comments