Hate Groups in America Surging

[Microcosmos]

Hate Groups in America Surging: New Southern Poverty Law Center Report
Compiled by the DiversityInc staff. Date Posted: March 10, 2008

The number of hate groups in the United States is surging, up 48 percent since 2000, according to a report released today from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Now there are 888 such groups throughout the country, which marks an increase of 5 percent in one year.

What's fueling the spread of hate across the country? Much of the increase is in response to the harsh, unresolved immigration debate, according to the SPLC. Hate crimes against Latinos increased 35 percent from 2003 to 2006, FBI statistics found, and experts say that many of the individuals who commit crimes against Latinos believe they're attacking undocumented immigrants, reports the SPLC.

Racist, anti-immigrant propaganda makes no distinction between Latino and immigrant, undocumented or documented, the SPLC found. Election-year politics are fueling a new era of hate groups, ones that use money and power to wield influence, according to the SPLC.

Some hate groups also are shifting their rhetoric to a more anti-immigrant approach, including the Ku Klux Klan, which held anti--"illegal alien" rallies in 2007 as opposed to their typical "anti-black crime fare," as the SPLC puts it. Still, the number of national Klan chapters declined from 165 in 2006 to 155 in 2007, which marks the second straight year of decline after five years of explosive growth, reports the SPLC.

The SPLC explores several key hate-group factions in addition to the KKK, including neo-Nazi groups, of which 17 new ones emerged in 2007, now totaling 207 nationwide. This is thanks to a splintering of the party and formation of new chapters and spin-offs; "racist-skinhead" groups, of which there are about 90 active nationwide; and Black-separatist groups, which tend to oppose racial integration and want a separate "Black nation." Read Hate Crimes in America on the Rise--Are You at Risk? to learn more.

Where are most of the hate groups? Here are the top five hot spots:

California: 80
Florida: 49
South Carolina: 45
Georgia: 42
Tennessee: 38

New Jersey and Virginia each have 34 hate groups within their borders, tying for sixth.

The SPLC breaks down national hate groups into several categories. Here are descriptions of them and the national numbers, according to the SPLC:

· General hate groups: 32. These include state charters of the national Jewish Defense League, American Free Press and the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, among others. This group also includes Young Americans for Freedom at Michigan State University, which is the only college campus group to make the SPLC's list of hate organizations. The group was added to the list last year after it sponsored a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day" contest and issued a proposal calling for all-white-male control of the college student government

· Anti-immigrant groups: 14. Five of the 14 groups SPLC lists are in California, which is one of the states most affected by undocumented immigration. These groups typically attack immigrants personally rather than immigration policy and have close relationships with white-supremacist groups or individuals. About 300 anti-immigrant groups not classified as "hate groups" by the SPLC also have emerged in the last three years.

· Anti-gay groups: 9. With a third of the groups listed based in California, the list includes the Family Research Institute and state charters of the Traditional Values Coalition, among other organizations. These groups make campaigns against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people beyond morality issues and personally vilify and abuse them.

· Racist music groups: 14. These groups are generally "white-power music labels" that dispel hateful, racist lyrics in various genres such as White Devil Industries, Free Your Mind Productions, and Diehard Records.

here's the link, but you can only follow it if you have a subscription if I'm not mistaken:

http://diversityinc.com/public/3190.cfm

My (step)mom's friend, who is in her fifties, was dragged from her car and beaten because she has a Spanish accent. Never mind that she is a U.S. citizen who came here legally. Scary what ignorance combined with hate can do!

[Little-Acorn]

The author fails to identify any actual hate in the acts of many of thse groups such as JDL, YAF, LDS etc. And he blithely combines "anti-illegal-alien" sentiment with "anti-immigrant" sentiment, as though the two had anything in common. He also failed to include groups like MECHA, Nation of Islam, and La Raza in his list of "hate groups", though each of those spew out more hate than all the others combined, possibly excepting the Klan.

That's about all I need to know about this author's "accuracy". The article is just another wild-eyed bash-whitey rant with little connection to reality. (yawn)

I have to conclude that a "hate group", in his definition, is any group he disagrees with. In fairness, he didn't explicitly say that these groups are the ones doing the "hating". I guess he is leaving it up to us, to decide which side the "hate" can be found in: Theirs or his own.

[stephanie]

I hate it, when I'm accused of being a hater...

I really am not a hater, I'm more of a disliker...:poke:

[Little-Acorn]

I hate it, when I'm accused of being a hater...


Such accusations are a standard tactic of the Left, including their fringe pro-illegal-alien and black-supremacy groups. They accuse you of "hating", to put you on the defensive and pretend your opinions are somehow irrational without having to back any of it up.

It's very handy.The fact that it's completely false, is unimportant to them. They don't want truth, they want victory.

[Nukeman]

Scary what ignorance combined with hate can do!
You are soo right take a look at this video that is repeated every day across this country unfortunately it is such a common occurrence it doesn't reach the Main Stream Media!!! Now have it the other way around ant its national news.....


http://video.aol.com/video-detail/2nd-black-on-white-racist-assault-on-baltimore-bus-in-two-weeks/1557863686

[Pale Rider]

The author fails to identify any actual hate in the acts of many of thse groups such as JDL, YAF, LDS etc. And he blithely combines "anti-illegal-alien" sentiment with "anti-immigrant" sentiment, as though the two had anything in common. He also failed to include groups like MECHA, Nation of Islam, and La Raza in his list of "hate groups", though each of those spew out more hate than all the others combined, possibly excepting the Klan.

That's about all I need to know about this author's "accuracy". The article is just another wild-eyed bash-whitey rant with little connection to reality. (yawn)

I have to conclude that a "hate group", in his definition, is any group he disagrees with. In fairness, he didn't explicitly say that these groups are the ones doing the "hating". I guess he is leaving it up to us, to decide which side the "hate" can be found in: Theirs or his own.


Such accusations are a standard tactic of the Left, including their fringe pro-illegal-alien and black-supremacy groups. They accuse you of "hating", to put you on the defensive and pretend your opinions are somehow irrational without having to back any of it up.

It's very handy.The fact that it's completely false, is unimportant to them. They don't want truth, they want victory.

You see it's very hip to the liberal moonbats to bash whitey, especially if you're a Christian. Just ask them... any one of these bat shit crazy fucks will tell you... "only whites can be racist."

[5stringJeff]

Here are some of the "hate groups" they list. What a joke.

Family Research Institute
Traditional Values Coalition
Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (a splinter group from the main LDS church)
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (a Christian-based cult)
Young Americans for Freedom--MI State University

[Little-Acorn]

Here are some of the "hate groups" they list. What a joke.

Family Research Institute
Traditional Values Coalition
Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (a splinter group from the main LDS church)
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (a Christian-based cult)
Young Americans for Freedom--MI State University

As I said, any group this bunch (SPLC) disagrees with or otherwise doesn't like, gets labelled as a "hate group". Apparently the "hate" is more on the SPLC's side than the group's.

Just another bash-whitey rant, business as usual.

[stephanie]

And another GLARING revelation in this article...

Is that the haters have gotten to more haten since....tada.......2000

I guess that haters weren't a haten so bad before that year....

[Kathianne]

Here are some of the "hate groups" they list. What a joke.

Family Research Institute
Traditional Values Coalition
Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (a splinter group from the main LDS church)
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (a Christian-based cult)
Young Americans for Freedom--MI State University

Agreed, what I thought from the get go with this, 'the democratic party is picking up votes right and left.', the message is 'get the black guy' and 'the women is a she devil'. The party of righteousness. :rolleyes:

Then the 'report' comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which incidentally has some awesome materials for teachers, though nevertheless, is quite biased in how they report hate for some reason. Again :rolleyes:

[Microcosmos]

The one post that wasn't defensive was Nukeman's link to black on white violence. The article points to groups that preach intolerance regularly (or sing about it). It wasn't an attempt to call anyone out as belonging to a specific group, only an attempt to point out what happens when intolerance is accepted as the rule, rather than the exception. Innocent people get hurt.

[stephanie]

MY post were more of the mocking kind....


the article was so scientific, I'm SURE....:coffee:

[Microcosmos]

I'll take that. It probably was a little biased towards the whites-against-everybody-else outlook. But it brings up a valid point: why are hate groups increasing in number? Whether they be white, black or orange?

[stephanie]

I'll take that. It probably was a little biased towards the whites-against-everybody-else outlook. But it brings up a valid point: why are hate groups increasing in number? Whether they be white, black or orange?

You answered your own question with the article you posted...

· Anti-immigrant groups: 14. Five of the 14 groups SPLC lists are in California, which is one of the states most affected by undocumented immigration. These groups typically attack immigrants personally rather than immigration policy and have close relationships with white-supremacist groups or individuals. About 300 anti-immigrant groups not classified as "hate groups" by the SPLC also have emerged in the last three years.
Nobody I know is anit-immigtration..they are for stopping the free for all of ILLEGIAL immagration, yet we are lumped in as a HATE GROUP...

Then they wonder why people are becoming more and more frustrated with things..

Pitting group of people against groups of people...Then they say...ooooooh, hate is up..idiots..

[Pale Rider]

Sometimes hate is unavoidable.

Do I hate cold coffee? Yes.

Do I hate it when I get sick? Yes.

Do I hate it when a cop stops me? Yes.

Do I hate illegal immigration? Yes.

Do I hate mexicans? No.

One of my best friends here in Reno is half mexican. I actually like the Spanish language and would like to learn it. It's the illegal act of entering this country that I have the serious problem with. The fact that the majority are mexican has absolutely nothing to do with it. They could have been chinese, or dutch, or eskimo, it wouldn't make any difference. I think this is how most people feel, but we still get labeled as haters. It's a joke.

[Hobbit]

I'll take that. It probably was a little biased towards the whites-against-everybody-else outlook. But it brings up a valid point: why are hate groups increasing in number? Whether they be white, black or orange?

This question makes assumptions that are either untested, untestable, or patently false.

First is that there are groups devoted to 'hate.' This seems as more of a rhetorical device than an actual classification. No group claims to have 'hate' as a stated goal or purpose, and the word 'hate' isn't quantifiable, nor is it used consistently. More scientific, quantifiable definitions would be counting groups that specifically listed race as a motivator or had endorsed violence or other negative actions against people primarily or solely because of their race.

Second is that they are on the rise. With such an ambiguous classification as 'hate,' the idea that they're somehow increasing is unprovable. A number of churches and church-related organizations have taken a stance against homosexuality or abortion or both because they feel it is biblically correct and have taken a stance due to the increasing prominence of those issues. Under some definitions, this is the creation of a new 'hate' group, although no new group or philosophy has emerged. What about groups opposed to immigration. With enforcement falling, many have taken to being a sort of 'border patrol militia,' but this author calls that a 'hate group' if they don't specifically outline all over the place that there's a difference between a Hispanic and an illegal.

The third is that the question needs to even be asked. It's unscientific to try to find a cause behind a trend that is so poorly defined. It would be like trying to find a cause behind a trend in 'more colorful' clothing. You might find a trend if you narrowed it a bit and specified, like spotting an increase in the popularity of the color red, but just saying 'more colorful,' and worse, failing to define it, makes the study junk.

All in all, the article's trash, and the author is less scientific than a bag of rocks.

[Hugh Lincoln]

First is that there are groups devoted to 'hate.' This seems as more of a rhetorical device than an actual classification. No group claims to have 'hate' as a stated goal or purpose, and the word 'hate' isn't quantifiable, nor is it used consistently. More scientific, quantifiable definitions would be counting groups that specifically listed race as a motivator or had endorsed violence or other negative actions against people primarily or solely because of their race.

Second is that they are on the rise. With such an ambiguous classification as 'hate,' the idea that they're somehow increasing is unprovable. A number of churches and church-related organizations have taken a stance against homosexuality or abortion or both because they feel it is biblically correct and have taken a stance due to the increasing prominence of those issues. Under some definitions, this is the creation of a new 'hate' group, although no new group or philosophy has emerged. What about groups opposed to immigration. With enforcement falling, many have taken to being a sort of 'border patrol militia,' but this author calls that a 'hate group' if they don't specifically outline all over the place that there's a difference between a Hispanic and an illegal.

The third is that the question needs to even be asked. It's unscientific to try to find a cause behind a trend that is so poorly defined. It would be like trying to find a cause behind a trend in 'more colorful' clothing. You might find a trend if you narrowed it a bit and specified, like spotting an increase in the popularity of the color red, but just saying 'more colorful,' and worse, failing to define it, makes the study junk.

I think you pretty much destroyed the "study" as well as I've ever seen anyone do that.

The SPLC is a mega-rich left-wing goon squad of thought police who get millions in donations from the Upper West Side and Hollywood and destroy the lives and careers of smart, patriotic white folks who've made the mistake of pointing out things like, you know, the black crime rate. They have a "researcher" named Heidi Beirich who gets people fired with a single phone call. All they need do is call you a 'white supremacist' and you're done. Nobody in the media asks if it's true. The SPLC "studies" go straight to print as if they are the word of God.

In the 1950's, we had McCarthyism.

Today, we have the SPLC.

The only difference is that McCarthy did actually care about America. The SPLC would see it handed over to the UN.

SPLC gets a taste of its own medicine here (see bar on right, I think they're free reports):

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/

[April15]

What strikes me is California is leading the way again! Man I love it here! Summer of love state of hate! Anyway you go we got ya covered!

[Hugh Lincoln]

Sometimes hate is unavoidable.

Do I hate cold coffee? Yes.

Do I hate it when I get sick? Yes.

Do I hate it when a cop stops me? Yes.

Ha!

Great points.

But I came to a realization back when I worked in the Bronx. It wasn't that I hated "rap culture." It wasn't that I hated the area of New York known as the Bronx. It wasn't that I hated the noise, the mess, the trash, the graffiti, the crime...

It was that I hated the people.

Shitty, squat, ugly, jungle-fit brown Hispanics and gangly, loud, hooting big-lipped blacks. All trouble, all the time. Worthless and dangerous at the same time. Garbage humanity, on display. These people belonged in zoos, not walking around spending welfare money. There's a reason why the "inner city" sucks: it's because these people live there.

[avatar4321]

well it's easy to claim hate groups are surging in America when you label any group you dont like a hate group.

[stephanie]

Me personally have decided on my own that Obambams pastor is a preacher of hate...

there is a scientific analogy...:clap:

[Pale Rider]

Me personally have decided on my own that Obambams pastor is a preacher of hate...

there is a scientific analogy...:clap:

And I will scientifically concur with your findings...

[stephanie]

And I will scientifically concur with your findings...

thanks Tom...

Now...anyone else want to join in this study...if so we can make it scientifically............ fer sure....:cheers2:

[Gaffer]

thanks Tom...

Now...anyone else want to join in this study...if so we can make it scientifically............ fer sure....:cheers2:

If we get enough people we can declare that most scientists agree he's a hate monger. I'm in.

[Classact]

here's the link, but you can only follow it if you have a subscription if I'm not mistaken:

http://diversityinc.com/public/3190.cfm

My (step)mom's friend, who is in her fifties, was dragged from her car and beaten because she has a Spanish accent. Never mind that she is a U.S. citizen who came here legally. Scary what ignorance combined with hate can do!Everyone desires an "expected norm" to raise their family in... They don't like it when someone tells them that illegals should be welcomed and if you disagree you are hateful.

I suggest that the expected norm is that the majority of Americans don't like being labeled as haters when they don't want to see homosexual acts in front of their families... they don't want blood thrown on them for wearing a fur piece or for eating meat... they don't want their large SUV's or homes burned by environmentalists... they don't want rappers bragging about hurting women or selling drugs...

Sadly the source of hate left a couple haters off their list... PETA for example must be a non hate group... normal people want and expect a norm and hoards of illegals upsetting their norm is abnormal as is a gay couple giving head in front of your child... abnormality will result in dislike groups... count me in as a person that dislikes of anything that upsets my expected norm...

[mundame]

IF there is an increase of groups angry at blacks, I think it's because of the 40-year anniversary of the Great Society.

The Great Society failed. It was Martin Luther King's memorial, passed by Lyndon Johnson, supposed to do all kinds of affirmative action to bring blacks into the mainstream norms.

It failed. The cities are now trashed and schools are a catastrophe that whites flee as far as they have to. Crime and drugs and HIV abound in the black ghettos. Gangs proliferate and kill simply as an initiation rite. Black male parenting hardly exists; children are raised by single mothers and grandmothers.

Despite all the quotas, all the affirmative action in hiring and higher education admission, which was code for simply preferring blacks over whites, they DIDN'T achieve white societal norms. Indeed, they became much worse as a group than they were in the '50s.

So no wonder a lot of whites are angry that blacks like Wright blame all their own bad behavior on whites -- like his saying that whites invented HIV to infect blacks! If they didn't screw around with so many people outside marriage and share contaminated drug-injection equipment, they wouldn't get infected with HIV. They do all these bad things themselves and then they blame us --- the heck with that.

[gabosaurus]

They should read this board and complete their list. :lmao:

[theHawk]

IF there is an increase of groups angry at blacks, I think it's because of the 40-year anniversary of the Great Society.

The Great Society failed. It was Martin Luther King's memorial, passed by Lyndon Johnson, supposed to do all kinds of affirmative action to bring blacks into the mainstream norms.

It failed. The cities are now trashed and schools are a catastrophe that whites flee as far as they have to. Crime and drugs and HIV abound in the black ghettos. Gangs proliferate and kill simply as an initiation rite. Black male parenting hardly exists; children are raised by single mothers and grandmothers.

Despite all the quotas, all the affirmative action in hiring and higher education admission, which was code for simply preferring blacks over whites, they DIDN'T achieve white societal norms. Indeed, they became much worse as a group than they were in the '50s.

So no wonder a lot of whites are angry that blacks like Wright blame all their own bad behavior on whites -- like his saying that whites invented HIV to infect blacks! If they didn't screw around with so many people outside marriage and share contaminated drug-injection equipment, they wouldn't get infected with HIV. They do all these bad things themselves and then they blame us --- the heck with that.


Yup, liberal inner-city policies have done wonders for the black community over the last 50 years. But hey, lets elect a black President to enforce liberal policies once and for all across the entire country. That'll fix everything!

[Hugh Lincoln]

IF there is an increase of groups angry at blacks, I think it's because of the 40-year anniversary of the Great Society.

The Great Society failed. It was Martin Luther King's memorial, passed by Lyndon Johnson, supposed to do all kinds of affirmative action to bring blacks into the mainstream norms.

It failed. The cities are now trashed and schools are a catastrophe that whites flee as far as they have to. Crime and drugs and HIV abound in the black ghettos. Gangs proliferate and kill simply as an initiation rite. Black male parenting hardly exists; children are raised by single mothers and grandmothers.

Despite all the quotas, all the affirmative action in hiring and higher education admission, which was code for simply preferring blacks over whites, they DIDN'T achieve white societal norms. Indeed, they became much worse as a group than they were in the '50s.

So no wonder a lot of whites are angry that blacks like Wright blame all their own bad behavior on whites -- like his saying that whites invented HIV to infect blacks! If they didn't screw around with so many people outside marriage and share contaminated drug-injection equipment, they wouldn't get infected with HIV. They do all these bad things themselves and then they blame us --- the heck with that.

This points up how, in reality, whites have ALREADY PAID REPARATIONS to blacks. To the tune of more than a trillion. And what has come of it?

Nothing.

Blacks are worse off today than during the "evil" 1950's, before AA, welfare, etc.

And they are angrier at whites.

Rev. Wright is up there screaming his head off about how we need to kill whitey... but no black preacher ever did that back when. So that's the thanks we get for dying by the thousands on the Union side in the civil war? The thanks we get for forking over our taxes for black welfare? The thanks we get for stepping aside in schools, jobs, etc. so unskilled blacks can have the jobs? To damn us to hell?

Well.

I think the only rational reaction to that is to concede that whatever we're doing on race is wrong. However we're thinking of it is incorrect.

In my view, blacks and whites will never get along well under an assumption that they're equal, because they AREN'T EQUAL.

[mundame]

So that's the thanks we get for dying by the thousands on the Union side in the civil war? The thanks we get for forking over our taxes for black welfare? The thanks we get for stepping aside in schools, jobs, etc. so unskilled blacks can have the jobs? To damn us to hell?

Well.

I think the only rational reaction to that is to concede that whatever we're doing on race is wrong. However we're thinking of it is incorrect.

In my view, blacks and whites will never get along well under an assumption that they're equal, because they AREN'T EQUAL.


No, they aren't equal.

--Much higher crime

--Much higher drug use

--Few marriages; single parenting

--Much more gangs and violence

--Much lower levels of education

It seems to me that blacks SHOULD be equal in behaviors they can, after all, control, before they make all these claims on us. They don't have to commit all these crimes, after all; they don't have to do what it takes to get HIV and drug-addicted. They could marry; they could be good parents; they could encourage education. These are voluntary behaviors and whether they do them or not has nothing at all to do with "whitey."

It seems to me that being "equal" is a social duty, and blacks have failed to make themselves equal with social norms of behavior.


So why don't they be equal to white norms of behavior?