The Philosophy Discussion Forum

The Southern Policy Law Center, one of the largest and best-known non-profit anti-racism lobbies in the US has just been indicted for funding pro-racism organizations, including the KKK, and the National Socialist movement, and for having sponsored the famous "Unite the Right" Charlottesville March and riots. Shell companies and the banking system were used to defraud donors by channelling millions of dollars to these racist organizations, so that they would produce higher profile "racist incidents."

Why did the SPLC do that? Apparently, to raise their own importance and to increase their own revenue, by presenting an impression that "white supremacy" was a crisis issue, and to reassure the public and other sponsors that they were more necessary than ever...evidently, because there weren't enough real cases of racism that they could use to do the same thing.

The details can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS0TNiaqU4o

So here's a question. In the name of anti-racism, the public has been trained to develop a high tolerance for unethical activities, so long as those unethical activities are perceived to be "on the right side." Vilifying "privileged" groups, stereotyping, misandry, flag burning, censorship, revisionist 'histories,' canonization of drug dealers, allowing gangs that exploit migrants and traffick women and children, and even violent riots have been countenanced and gone largely unchallenged by both media and the political Left, particularly. Often, these activities have even been valourized and treated as noble civil disobedience or "peaceful protest."

Question: have we lost our way, ethically? Has the belief that we are "on the right side" facillitated our own blindness regarding the ethics of the methods we were employing?

What code should we apply to "right the ship," ethically speaking?

anti hate haters have to have a target...

no right-wing racism? we'll just fund some hicks and say there is...

donate more to the ACLU today

-Imp

Suuuuuuuure.

All that has happened so far is that the DoJ has secured a grand jury indictment. It is often said that Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich

Let us not forget that a similar indictment once accused Donald J Trump of stealing national security documents for his own personal use, and neither Imp nor mister Can believed a word of that charge.


From Politico's report on this story...

The SPLC says it has used informants when tracking and exposing hate groups, including white supremacists. Fair on Tuesday said that the organization “frequently” shared insight from informants with local and federal law enforcement, including the FBI, but that the nonprofit no longer works with paid informants.

“These individuals risked their lives to infiltrate and inform on the activities of our nation’s most radical and violent extremist groups,” Fair said. “When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the civil rights movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system.”

So it seems rather likely that the case against the SPLC is not as advertised.

IC is hardly a reliable reporter, and I see that he's 'accidentally' left out the word 'informants'. So they paid for 'informants' to infiltrate these organisations? Is that really the same as funding those organisations? I think not. Still, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were as corrupt as f***. I've always said that wokies are the biggest phonies and hypocrites on the planet. They take deflection and projection to new heights. Wokism is a scam and a grift. A massive and lucrative industry in itself. The flasher likely benefits from it in some way. Why else would anyone continuously defend the indefensible?

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 1:39 am So they paid for 'informants' to infiltrate these organisations?

They paid them millions, and paid the leaders, not some lesser prole. Those are some expensive "informants."

You'll believe anything.

Y'know what? You'd better get behind Jussie Smollett, too.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:36 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 1:39 am So they paid for 'informants' to infiltrate these organisations?

They paid them millions, and paid the leaders, not some lesser prole. Those are some expensive "informants."

You'll believe anything.

Y'know what? You'd better get behind Jussie Smollett, too.

I go with facts and evidence. All I can find is that they paid informants. If you have more then please share it.

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:36 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 1:39 am So they paid for 'informants' to infiltrate these organisations?

They paid them millions, and paid the leaders, not some lesser prole. Those are some expensive "informants."

You'll believe anything.

Y'know what? You'd better get behind Jussie Smollett, too.

I go with facts and evidence. All I can find is that they paid informants. If you have more then please share it.

3 Million. And to leaders, not proles. All hidden from donors and the eyes of law enforcement by elaborate bank fraud strategies and shell companies. Honest people do not hide what they do, or deny it after the fact.

If you go with facts and evidence, do the math.

And let's ask this: we're talking about the SPLC. We're not talking about the FBI, or the CIA, or any law-enforcement agency at all. We're talking about a "non-profit" organization of loony "racism" hunters, a bunch of private citizens with vigilante ambitions. But what gives a mere "non-profit" alleged information organization the authority or mandate to take over law enforcement functions like paying "informants"? What would their donors say about them paying the perks of a former Grand Dragon of the KKK?

It's clearly bull. But I suppose you won't want to see the obvious, so you won't. However, you can be sure the rest of the story is coming out, now that the indictment has been filed.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:49 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:36 am
They paid them millions, and paid the leaders, not some lesser prole. Those are some expensive "informants."

You'll believe anything.

Y'know what? You'd better get behind Jussie Smollett, too.

I go with facts and evidence. All I can find is that they paid informants. If you have more then please share it.

3 Million. And to leaders, not proles. All hidden from donors and the eyes of law enforcement by elaborate bank fraud strategies and shell companies. Honest people do not hide what they do, or deny it after the fact.

If you go with facts and evidence, do the math.

And let's ask this: we're talking about the SPLC. We're not talking about the FBI, or the CIA, or any law-enforcement agency at all. We're talking about a "non-profit" organization of loony "racism" hunters, a bunch of private citizens with vigilante ambitions. But what gives a mere "non-profit" alleged information organization the authority or mandate to take over law enforcement functions like paying "informants"? What would their donors say about them paying the perks of a former Grand Dragon of the KKK?

It's clearly bull. But I suppose you won't want to see the obvious, so you won't. However, you can be sure the rest of the story is coming out, now that the indictment has been filed.

Perhaps you should come back when the facts have come out then. I will look forward to that.

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 5:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:49 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:38 am

I go with facts and evidence. All I can find is that they paid informants. If you have more then please share it.

3 Million. And to leaders, not proles. All hidden from donors and the eyes of law enforcement by elaborate bank fraud strategies and shell companies. Honest people do not hide what they do, or deny it after the fact.

If you go with facts and evidence, do the math.

And let's ask this: we're talking about the SPLC. We're not talking about the FBI, or the CIA, or any law-enforcement agency at all. We're talking about a "non-profit" organization of loony "racism" hunters, a bunch of private citizens with vigilante ambitions. But what gives a mere "non-profit" alleged information organization the authority or mandate to take over law enforcement functions like paying "informants"? What would their donors say about them paying the perks of a former Grand Dragon of the KKK?

It's clearly bull. But I suppose you won't want to see the obvious, so you won't. However, you can be sure the rest of the story is coming out, now that the indictment has been filed.

Perhaps you should come back when the facts have come out then. I will look forward to that.

As will I.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:49 am And let's ask this: we're talking about the SPLC. We're not talking about the FBI, or the CIA, or any law-enforcement agency at all. We're talking about a "non-profit" organization of loony "racism" hunters, a bunch of private citizens with vigilante ambitions. But what gives a mere "non-profit" alleged information organization the authority or mandate to take over law enforcement functions like paying "informants"? What would their donors say about them paying the perks of a former Grand Dragon of the KKK?

Huh? It might come as a shock to you, but in criminal cases the defense side (as a private, non-governmental agency) is paying for investigation, informants,etc. In civil cases, unless a governmental agency is on one side of the action, both sides, as private entities, are paying those costs. I am not a "vigilante" because I legally investigate you for possible wrongdoing.

And yes, it will be up to the membership of the SPLC to decide if money properly spent, whether their BOD acted within their authority. Whether or not they approve spending money on paid informants. Somehow I have my doubts that you are a member of the SPLC entitled to an opinion on the matter.

Any citizen or group of citizens is allowed to initiate a civil acti. on (and so pay for preliminary evidence gathering). Only after the initial filing of a suit willa court decide on whether or not the plaintiff has "standing"

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 2:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:49 am And let's ask this: we're talking about the SPLC. We're not talking about the FBI, or the CIA, or any law-enforcement agency at all. We're talking about a "non-profit" organization of loony "racism" hunters, a bunch of private citizens with vigilante ambitions. But what gives a mere "non-profit" alleged information organization the authority or mandate to take over law enforcement functions like paying "informants"? What would their donors say about them paying the perks of a former Grand Dragon of the KKK?

Huh? It might come as a shock to you, but in criminal cases the defense side (as a private, non-governmental agency) is paying for investigation, informants,etc.

It doesn't suprise me. They are part of the legal system, and have the right to do such things in their proper role as such. In their role of providing a formal legal defense, the courts have determined they are approved to do that.

When was the SPLC approved to do it?

Now, what if I started to run an investigation on you? What if I started paying your friends to inform on you, so that I could hand information over to a political party, and they could persecute you, or present fake news associating you with some sort of evil? And what if I started funding some of the most evil people on the planet to perform acts of "domestic terrorism," so my agency could get millions of dollars from donors I was misleading as to what I was actually funding?

Where would be my right, my authority, to come after you in this sort of way? Should I be funding my own opposition, and then using their actions for publicity? And why would I be funding people who are doing evil, and then lying to my donors? And if what I was doing was within my rights, and I knew it, why would I need to invent a shell company to hide from the banking system who I was, and what I was doing?

You're making excuses for absolutely unconscionable behaviour -- lying to donors, defrauding them, fraudulent banking, vigilantism, and political favouritism of a most overt kind, in an agency that self-presents as impartial and public-serving. And this doesn't even touch on what else will be uncovered shortly, you can be sure. For those thousands and millions of dollars surely did not go to a mere "informant" or two. We know who they were, and how much they got. Those were big, big payoffs to individuals -- much too much for mere "information": much more probably the bribes included significant funds for those who were being expected to do specific things themselves, or to induce others to. The "informant" excuse doesn't add up to the numbers, obviously.

So what was the SPLC "funding'? Their donors weren't told. The police weren't told. The banking system wasn't told. I'm certain that most of their members weren't told, either. What were they ashamed of? What did they know was illegal? They were lying to everybody, it seems. So they knew that what they were doing was mega-shady.

So yeah, let's see where this goes: I'm quite certain the worst is yet to come out. Given the clues, you should be, too.

And for your further edification as to what the REAL charges are, here is the indictment itself: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437146/dl

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 4:53 pm
Now, what if I started to run an investigation on you? What if I started paying your friends to inform on you, so that I could hand information over to a political party, and they could persecute you, or present fake news associating you with some sort of evil? And what if I started funding some of the most evil people on the planet to perform acts of "domestic terrorism," so my agency could get millions of dollars from donors I was misleading as to what I was actually funding?

Where would be my right, my authority, to come after you in this sort of way?

You are allowed to do some of that. Not all of that.

For example FAKE news published against me would be actionable. The standard fake vs real (how careful you need to be (burden of proof in a liable action) depends on my status as a private person vs a public figure. Funding "domestic terrorism" against me not only actionable (civil) but criminal. But if you wanted to fund demonstrations against me for my political views, social views, etc. perfectly within your rights.

I rather think you misjudge WHAT the donors to SPLC think they are funding. Do you imagine they disapprove of investigations of what the SPLC is organized to fight? I rather think you might mean METHODS used, and whether ULTIMATELY secret. And please note, common in situations like these for there actually to be TWO entangled organizations. The organization proper and an associated "action fund" to do things a 501(c)3 is not allowed to do or the reverse where a PAC has an associated 501(c)3 partner to take on the portion of the job a 501(c)3 is allowed to do.

IC -- I sit on three boards of directors and serve on three committees (when you are retired, they know you don't have the "too busy" excuse). Know all about this sort of stuff. If I am donating to an organization I will always ask (if to a 501(c)3 ) "do you have an associated political action partner?" or if to a PAC, "do you have an associated 501(c)3 partner?". Amazingly, with THIS story I have not yet seen the details about whether talking about the SPLC itself or the SPLC Action Fund.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 5:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 4:53 pm
Now, what if I started to run an investigation on you? What if I started paying your friends to inform on you, so that I could hand information over to a political party, and they could persecute you, or present fake news associating you with some sort of evil? And what if I started funding some of the most evil people on the planet to perform acts of "domestic terrorism," so my agency could get millions of dollars from donors I was misleading as to what I was actually funding?

Where would be my right, my authority, to come after you in this sort of way?

You are allowed to do some of that. Not all of that.

It's actually immoral for me to do ANY of that.

I rather think you misjudge WHAT the donors to SPLC think they are funding.

So you think that donors knew that the SPLC was paying the KKK? The National Socialists? The Aryan Nation? Or are you trying to tell me that you know what they'd think, if the SPLC hadn't prevented them from finding out? (I wonder what is your basis for that.) And you're trying to convice me that you really think the SPLC shell corporations, and their use of indirect and illegal payment strategies, doesn't indicate that the SPLC knew what they were doing was fraud? So now you're saying the SPLC was clueless?

And Charlottesville...it's in the indictment -- did you even read it? Or do you think that the donors were deliberately contributing to a psy-op operation to undermine the Republican Party, right before an election? If so, you don't think much of the ethics of SPLC donors. You're arguing that the donors are a threat to the democratic process. They fake psy-ops, for the advantage of one party over the other.

Is that what you're suggesting? It's not much of a defense. It's more of an indictment. And we already have one of those.

I'll repeat --- SPLC or the SPLC Action Fund. I you don't know, find out.

In many cases the same donors BUT separate donation checks (have to be).

If I donate to an organization and also to its associated PAC I expect the donations to be used appropriately . I would not also be donating to a PAC/Action Fund if I did not want that donation used for action. Look, this situation, a 5019(c)3 PLUS a PAC/Action Fund, is not unusual for an environmental organization which is both doing things legal for a 501(c)3 and things that are not because "political". LEGALLY separate entities, though they might be closely connected, like overlap of persons serving on the BODs

What I suggest, if you are really interested in what those donating to SPLC and SPLC Action Fund are thinking about this, got to the websites, look for discussion. Look at fights over BOD seats and other leadership positions.

Do you imagine that fights within such organizations over "what should we be doing" do not occur? For a recent example, look at what happened with Sea Shepherd the last couple years or so.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 8:55 pm If I donate to an organization and also to its associated PAC I expect the donations to be used appropriately .

Absolutely. So do I.

Do you expect them to be used to fund the very racism they're supposed to prevent? Do you expect them to be used to create manipulative psy-ops? Do you expect them to evade the financial system and create fraud? Do you expect them to be used to subvert the democratic process in favour of one party?

What exactly DO you expect as an "appropriate" use?