Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 23      1   2   3   4   Next   »

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #1 
Candace Owens, a popular figure with conservatives on social media, has been the subject of an outrageous slander by a Guardian columnist, for which she is (rightly) considering legal action:


That's right. A black woman who rejects identity politics and victimhood has been called "Far Right" by the Left, and is now accused of being in league with "neo-Nazis".

This comes on top of the hate campaign against Kanye West for doing the same, with one writer claiming he wants "white freedom":

Further asininity, as now meritocracy is dismissed by academics as "white supremacist":

The increasingly irrelevant GQ magazine claims that "free speech warriors" are "mainstreaming white supremacy" and that "Cultural Marxism" and "liberal media" are apparently "white supremacist" terms:

The same GQ mazgazine lauded Colin Kaepernick, a Castro admirer and supporter of Black Lives Matter. GQ is just one of many "mainstream" liberal media outlets to discredit itself through inanity and dishonesty. Vogue and Teen Vogue are similarly awful.

The liberal media makes no attempt to hide its bias. They have now adopted the tactics of the SPLC of defaming legitimate conservatives. They represent as much if not more a danger to peace and freedom than actual terrorists.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #2 
The latest Trump administration appointee, Fred Fleitz, has been the subject of an even more outrageous defamation campaign. He's been accused of being a "neo-Nazi":

The liberal media racket in operation including the ADL, Washington Post, New York Magazine, Washington Monthly and Newsweek:

It is evident that the left-liberal racket is in league with Islamists represented by CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, and apologists for the Iranian regime. They clearly have an interest in defaming and destroying those who are thwarting their goals of controlling the Islamic World and subverting the West.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #3

No surprise that the ADL, SPLC and CAIR all are outraged that Fred Fleitz is appointed. The ADL is at odds with ZOA and Canary Mission.

What is clear from the Iran and Qatar crises and the disputes between ZOA, Canary Mission and the ADL is that there are conflicts not so much between the religious communities as within them, namely the Muslim and Jewish communities.

For Muslims, the struggle is not so much Sunni v Shiite or Sufi vs Salafi as between the religious establishment and radicals, the latter represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and Iranian-backed Shiite equivalents.

For Jews, it is a divide between the political and religious Left and Right of the Jewish spectrum. These divisions among Jews are very old and predate World War I, and shape Israel's political parties and Diaspora organisations.

These things were primarily of relevance to Jews and Muslims respectively, but increasingly are assuming relevance to the wider world.


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #4 
The latest Trump appointee, Ronald Mortensen, is also subject to a smear campaign by the Left network, including the SPLC, ADL and ACLU:

We have no doubt here: Antifa are but the militant arm, or the SPLC et al are merely their "research arm" who defame targets, most of whom are legitimate conservatives and not "white supremacists".

Here I bring you Carol Swain, a law professor defamed by the SPLC:

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #5

As has been widely predicted, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens are the new targets of the SPLC's defamation campaign.

Something has to be done about this. It is posing as big or even bigger a danger to freedom than international terrorism.


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #6 
I'm going to put SPLC-related posts here as it is a developing thread and it's pointless to keep two threads open at once.

The SPLC has been in the business of defaming legitimate conservatives who are critics of Islamist ideology, attacking not only Maajid Nawaz but also Frank Gaffney (Center for Security Policy), Ryan Mauro (Clarion Project), Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others.

It has gone as far as to lump these and other eminent people - some of whom have even worked under Reagan and Bush administrations and have a fine record of service to their country - as "extremist", "far right" and deciding they are as bad as neo-Nazis.

The SPLC also allies itself with Linda Sarsour and CAIR, which as we know is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and has been blacklisted by the UAE for being such.

Here is the link to the page the SPLC have taken down, their defamatory "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists":


The list includes:

Ann Corcoran - Refugee Resettlement Watch

Steven Emerson - Investigative Project on Terrorism

Brigitte Gabriel - ACT for America. Insulted on Twitter by Linda Sarsour

Frank Gaffney - Center for Security Policy, former Reagan Administration official

Pamela Geller - one of the most eminent critics of radical Islam

John Guandolo - ex-Marines and FBI, Understanding the Threat

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - like Geller, an outspoken critic of radical Islam, and also insulted on Twitter by Linda Sarsour

David Horowitz - David Horowitz Freedom Center and Front Page Magazine

Ryan Mauro - Clarion Project

Maajid Nawaz - Quilliam International, prominent reformist Muslim

Robert Muise - American Freedom Law Center

Daniel Pipes - Middle East Forum and

Walid Shoebat - Palestinian-American who is now a critic of Islamism

Robert Spencer - Jihad Watch.

David Yerushalmi - American Freedom Law Center

So you see there are people from all kinds of backgrounds defamed by the SPLC as "far right and anti-Muslim extremists". Each of these is worthy of support because it could be any of us on the target list if we dare speak out.

The SPLC's lists have provided Leftist and Islamist thugs a potential hitlist for violence. There are signs that this has already happened.


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #7 
Here I am going to analyse the SPLC (and to some extent the ADL) "hate list" and examine the veracity of its claims. We know that the SPLC (and ADL) rely on donations based on a grossly inflated "extremist" or "hate" threat. The SPLC does so with a certain recklessness, in lumping legitimate conservatives in with neo-Nazis, while denying the Far Left and Islamist threat which is much greater.

The ADL on the other hand while promoting the broad Leftist agenda seems to grudgingly acknowledge a problem with the Far Left and Islamists, and is somewhat more circumspect in differentiating conservatives from neo-Nazis. For instance, one ADL report distinguishes the "Alt-Rght" (i.e. white nationalists) from the "Alt-Lite" (i.e. conservatives). The ADL has come under attack from elements of the Far Left (including Far Left Jews which it criticises, albeit tepidly) and Islamists like Linda Sarsour and CAIR, who ally themselves with the SPLC.

However, as I mentioned in my other thread on the ADL, both the ADL and SPLC make an attack on the broader Right their mission, including right-wing Jews and non-Jews with an impeccable record of supporting Israel and opposing anti-Semitism. In this regard, the SPLC is certainly worse and a much greater danger to the community. The ADL on the other hand is coming under increasing pressure from within the Jewish community.

The reckless hysteria of the SPLC is evidently parroted by the wider Left in the defamation campaigns being run against such people from very diverse backgrounds - in other words, a truly equal opportunity defamer. We have things like:
- Accusing Dave Rubin (a gay Jewish atheist) of promoting "white supremacy", and Leftist commentators accusing black women like Candace Owens and Carol Swain of doing the same

- claiming that defending Western civilisation, meritocracy and free speech are "white supremacist" concepts

- claiming that a fascination with Asian, especially Japanese, culture is a "far right" phenomenon

- Iceland's Viking heritage has "white supremacist" connotations

- Muslims criticising Islamists are colonial "native informants"

All of this reflects the Communist-inspired language behind the postcolonialism and identity politics of the Left. Awareness of this is key.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #8

Wikipedia's list of groups designated as "hate groups" by the SPLC will suffice and I will scrutinise the list by category. The point here is to demonstrate two things: 1) most will have no issue with the denunciations of neo-Nazis et al, but seriously question the actual size and influence of them. This has been highlighted by the late Alexander Cockburn, a Leftist critic of the SPLC with an impeccably left-wing pedigree of his own. 2) The much greater number of mainstream conservative organisations appearing on the list because of their rejection of PC, their social conservatism and focus on confronting radical Islam.

Ku Klux Klan
The SPLC lists multiple KKK groups, few of which have maintained a consistent level of activity. Even if the number of KKK "members" may be no more than several thousand, it hardly has any influence on the white nationalist Far Right beyond symbolism in this day and age. There is also speculation of the number of informants or provocateurs involved in groups claiming this "tradition". Since the mid 20th Century, it hasn't really been any meaningful force even in its traditional, mostly Southern, strongholds.

The SPLC, like the ADL, publishes extensively about neo-Nazis. Once more, the alleged threat of neo-Nazis is somewhat overblown. However, it is important to make remarks on the subject here. Most groups falling into this category overlap with other White Nationalist categories, and few have any sort of continuity or enduring structure. I will point out that many claim the legacy of George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party. The National Socialist Movement (NSM) of Jeff Schoep, by far the largest, most visible and active of such groups, but has abandoned the use of overt Nazi symbols in the name of "modernisation". Many once prominent neo-Nazi formations such as the National Alliance (Dr William Pierce), Aryan Nations (Richard Butler) and the Creativity Movement were crippled by the deaths or imprisonment of their leaders. Newer groups like Atomwaffen Division and Vanguard America have appeared to further complicate matters.

White Nationalist
This category is much broader and the list is much bigger, although few are consistently active let alone well-organised outside of the Internet. This is a diverse and highly fractious category, and many of its leading personalities such as Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson in fact don't particularly get along well. Veterans of the scene like Alex Linder, Don Black and David Duke are still around. Matthew Heimbach has also fallen from grace recently. Some, such as John De Nugent, have developed unusual theories of their own. There is also a consensus that the Charlottesville incident has produced further divisions and more problems for the movement, especially as the mainstream Right has been more assertive in denouncing them. We have good reason to - as their antics gave the Left and the media precisely what they were craving for.

Divisions among White Nationalists and neo-Nazis are attributed to things such as symbolism and imagery, religion (Christian v neo-Pagan) and the question of identity and paying lip service to Americanism.

Jared Taylor of American Renaissance is lumped into this group but is the hardest to pin down because his rejection of anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial poses a problem for those who otherwise share his views. Like Spencer and Johnson he is seen as presenting the "intellectual" face of the movement.

One of the most outrageous cases of defamation has been to place Charles Murray in the White Nationalist category. Murray has been associated with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), also associated with current National Security Adviser John Bolton. This smear led to violent incidents when he spoke at a university.

Racist Skinheads
This is a pretty enduring category, and one with a history of violence and provocation. Several formations have stayed consistent, and cross over with others in this category.

Christian Identity
Christian Identity is a racialised form of Christianity which has been popular among White Nationalists, but faces competition from other religious strains - some WNs affiliate with Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant (especially Calvinist) churches, while others are violently anti-Christian.

Holocaust Denial
No need for comment here, largely overlapping with the above categories.

Black Nationalist
There is an element of tokenism here. The SPLC places groups like the Nation of Islam, Nuwaubians, New Black Panther Party, and the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ (a radical version of the Black Hebrew movement) on this list for their racism and anti-Semitism. However, this ignores the much wider race-baiting industry around Black Lives Matter with a far more mainstream reach, and the fact the SPLC's allies on the Left seem to have little problem associating with the NOI.

The accusation here is that the Neo-Confederate movement is "extremist". The League of the South undoubtedly is. But Confederate nostalgia can be seen as a legitimate position to take, just as being a neo-Loyalist (like our esteemed moderator) is.

And here's where it gets nastier. The SPLC created "Anti-LGBT", "Anti-Immigrant" and "Anti-Muslim" categories and has used this to defame mainstream conservative individuals and organisations. Many of the individuals defamed are people with an impeccable record in public life, some even serving in the Reagan and both Bush administrations. It is reprehensible that thoroughly decent American men and women could be smeared in this way. They have also done this with the "Anti-government movement" category.

Almost all of these individuals and groups are impeccable mainstream conservatives, and either Christian or Jewish, with the exception of the lunatic Westboro and Faithful Word sects. One historically black church in New York, James Manning's ATLAH World Missionary Church, appears on this list. The Family Research Council is one of the most prominent bodies on this list, and has been targeted by violent Leftists as a result.

None of the groups on the list are "extremist". The Centre for Immigration Studies has been in the spotlight because Harold Mortensen has just been appointed to the Trump Administration.

This is a category which highlights the outrageous defamatory tactics employed by the SPLC. Some, like Pamela Geller and Brigitte Gabriel, are outspoken critics of Islam in all its forms. But many others, while not oblivious to Islam's negative aspects and question its compatibility with Western values, are willing to work with non-extremist Muslims at home and abroad. This is true for groups like the Centre for Security Policy and the Clarion Project, two of the groups named on the list. People like Frank Gaffney, Fred Fleitz and Jerry Boykin, all of whom with a life of public service, have been defamed by the SPLC. A number of these groups - CSP, Understanding the Threat, Family Security Matters and Security Studies group - are formed by people with deep links to foreign policy, security forces and intelligence circles, many of whom had served previous administrations.

Anti-government movement
The category includes mainstream conservative and paleoconservative groups, including Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party, and the John Birch Society - I'm not a huge fan of those, but to place them on a list of "haters" is absurd. It also includes militia-type groups inclined to conspiracy theories. Many are militia groups, including the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, who attracted some attention for their presence at Charlottesville but specifically denounced neo-Nazism. Oddly enough, a faction of the black Moorish Science Temple of America somehow makes this list. So does Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, which actively exposes liberal media fallacies. Special Operations Speaks is another formed by ex-members of security forces and the intelligence community to make the list. A number of conspiracy theory websites such as InfoWars (Alex Jones) and Natural News have also qualified - although I'm obviously not big fans of them, it's hard to place them as "haters". It's also worth noting that one of the groups in this category is run by a lesbian Democrat in California.

There is a mumbo-jumbo of moderate and extreme groups in this category. They range from the Kahanist JDL to the anti-Catholic conspiracy group Vatican Assassins. Some Traditionalist Catholic groups were mentioned - it is true that some engage in conspiracy theories and Holocaust Denial, but nowhere near most of them. Likewise, not all neo-pagan movements fall into this category.

You can see what's been done here. People whose concern is national security and traditional values are being targeted by a racket with no limits.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #9 
To keep this going, I am going to make further comment on the above information as this is of vital importance for our causes.

Firstly, about the language of the Left and the increasingly deranged behaviour attendant with it. The screeching use of "racist", "fascist" and now "white supremacist" which has rapidly become one of their most popular smear terms. Their use of "far right" without quantifying objectively. All of this is evident in the campaigns against popular figures such as Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson and Candace Owens. All of which show a striking consistency of sources on the Far Left and Islamists.

The Left defames people without any solid evidence to support their claims. When we on the Right, on the other hand, state that a movement like Black Lives Matter is a Communist-driven front and that Islamists are also using it to achieve their own goals, it's backed by rock solid evidence:

Secondly, much of this appears to parrot the methodology of the SPLC and this should be no coincidence. The SPLC is, if anything, one of the temples of Cultural Marxism and if you look at its history, membership and connections you will see that, and explains much about how it operates. It's not even a case of a good cause or a good organisation gone bad, because as you will see, it always was bad from the start.

The links to Liberty Counsel (one of many groups smeared by them) are a good start:

The Scam
The SPLC is universally acknowledged by critics as little more than a money-making scam for people like Morris Dees. Now let's not forget his famous legal victories, which came over reprehensible but ultimately moribund organisations. They weren't satisfied with that. Their whole goal has always been to push a radical Left agenda. One of its co-founders, the late Julian Bond, was a lifelong radical with Communist links. Philanthropy watchers have highlighted the SPLC's questionable practices, outrageous even for leftists NFPs. It's well known that the SPLC has amassed nearly half a billion in assets, and attracts generous donations, making it one of the wealthiest NFPs around. What is most disturbing is that media, businesses and politicians all take its claims and lists seriously.

Equal Opportunity Defamer
The SPLC is an equal opportunity defamer, as shown from the above evidence. Anyone regardless of race, religion or sex is defamed, even Muslims and LGBT people. This is largely because they hate anyone who doesn't fall into line with its radical Left dogma. That's the one consistency in its targets, and highlighted by its most recent targets like Murray, Rubin and Owens. And then you have its Hate Map and list of "hate groups" which is sloppy even by the standards of Left activism, owing to the questionable methodology and quantification of a) what makes a "hate group" and b) whether such groups are of any influence or threat.

In fairness, movements like neo-Nazis and white nationalism are notoriously fluid, with a lack of consistency in structure but a consistency in disseminating ideology through generations - enough literature is out there to keep a movement alive. Many of the non-extremist right-wing groups defamed by the SPLC are more serious and respectable organisations, with far more prominent people among them.

The SPLC makes no attempt to hid its bias and double standards. It defamed Christina Hoff Sommers for promoting "male supremacy" but embraces Linda Sarsour as an ally. Linda Sarsour has directed actually misogynistic obscenities towards Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel but got away with it. She can get away with it not because she's female and Muslim, but because she's promoted and protected by the Left.

Likewise, its inclusion of black nationalist and a small number of Islamist groups is the purest form of tokenism. The SPLC is in effect an ally of race-hustling, Marxist and Islamist radicals who have far more power and influence, and use the same methods to defame opponents. In fact, the SPLC's alliance with CAIR should be enough to see it on many blacklists at home and abroad. The common thread is that they hide behind promoting "civil rights" and "social justice" to advance radical agendas.

As has been put, the SPLC's sloppy standards for "extremism" and "hate" would cover the following:
- "Anti-gay" - the majority of organised religion and traditional culture worldwide
- "Anti-immigrant" - the majority of conservatives in the West, Japan, et al
- "Anti-Muslim" - even sloppier because they seem to quantify it as opposition to Political Islam and its agenda, which would cover many practising Muslims, Muslim royalty and other leaders, and religious authorities.
- "Anti-government movement" - interesting that many of those on the list are supporters of Donald Trump, especially during his 2016 campaign.

Critics, Left and Right
The SPLC's critics are primarily but not exclusively from the Right. Besides all mainstream conservative groups and publications, criticism has also come from liberal journalist Dana Milbank, Ken Silverstein and extremism researcher Laird Wilcox. Even the late Alexander Cockburn, whose radical Left credentials were impeccable, criticised SPLC methods. Astonishingly, even one ADL official in 2015 questioned the inflated numbers of "hate groups" - the ADL is a little more careful with its methods, even if they're still awful. Even Stephen Bright, a human rights lawyer who can fairly be described as a Social Justice Warrior, described Morris Dees as a conman.

Above all else, the Israeli ambassador to the US Ron Dermer denounced the SPLC in a speech to the Center for Security Policy:

The opposite effect
The SPLC's defamation campaigns have had a positive effect in one way. It's made conservatives more determined than ever to support those who have been on the receiving end of its smear campaigns. Groups that deal with morality, immigration and terrorism have all been attacked. They are all worthy of our support as a result. I am a strong supporter of the Clarion Project, CSP, IPT, UTT and Middle East Forum, and my support has strengthened directly as a result of the SPLC's defamation campaign. In effect, being placed on the list of targets is increasingly seen as a badge of honour and we can turn the list against the SPLC by giving support to groups and individuals under attack.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #10 
Meanwhile, new Ontario Premier Doug Ford is also being accused of representing "whiteness". Yet again:

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #11

An interview with Laird Wilcox on the SPLC. Laird Wilcox is a 60s era radical who became a credible expert on radical Left and Right politics, his research is serious and widely respected. He is a staunch critic of the SPLC and its dangerous agenda.

Meanwhile, Ayaan Hirsi Ali states the SPLC is a scam:

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #12

The SPLC acknowledges it smeared Nawaz and will pay out millions in damages.

Acknowledging that they defamed one person doesn't undo the damage they've done with their disgusting smear campaigns (ditto Hope Not Hate), and they have so much money they can afford to pay, unlike most of those they smear with "hate" labels.

Their definition of "anti-Muslim extremist" is so sloppy it might even include large numbers of conservative/orthodox/traditional Muslims, including establishment Sufi and Salafi clerics, who reject Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS ideology.

Their defamation list becomes a potential gift for leftists, anarchists and Islamists as a result. It's actually managed to unite a very diverse group of people (Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, LGBT) against their smear tactics.


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #13 
And here the latest update of Left lunacy...

Saying an ICE officer has a "Nazi" tattoo:

The claims that Doug Ford's electoral victory is down to "racism":

How disgusting are the Left globally? They are now using "racist" so casually (like the "casual racism" they're so fond of claiming) that anyone who doesn't fit their image symbolises "racism". So Donald Trump, Tony Abbott, Doug Ford, even Taylor Swift (!!). They're doing this on purpose. This "whiteness" obsession is also part of why many of us are uncomfortable with some of the rhetoric some have used surrounding the most recent Royal Wedding.

Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips and Ed West have all discussed this in detail in their respective books. The root of this "Diversity" ideology lies in the aftermath of World War II and the West's collective revulsion at the Holocaust. This was followed by decolonisation, the Civil Rights Movement, and Apartheid, all to fuel the feelings of "White Guilt" that is now standard in the political and cultural elite in Western Europe, North America and Australia.


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #14 
And an update. Some 60 conservative organisations are considering legal action against the SPLC in wake of Maajid Nawaz's compensation win:

Good. There's definitely more than 60 based on my estimation, and a host of individuals as well. They lack the resources to fight back against a well-funded SPLC, and must spend more on security as a result of these smears.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #15 
Today's updates:

Evidence that conservative organisations have to spend more on security due to threats after being placed on the SPLC "hate map":

An alliance between the SPLC and CAIR, which is a Muslim Brotherhood front organisation, manifested itself in smear campaigns against alleged "anti-Muslim extremists":

The backlash is not going to stop. The masses of defamed people and groups are very likely to sue, leading to serious trouble for the SPLC:

Meanwhile, the ACLU confirms it is part of the war on free speech:
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.