CDZ Can the KKK, the Black Panther, and Other Similar Groups Be Considered As Terrorists?

[JQPublic1]

The problem with these types of arguments lies in the fact that either side can make up whatever they want, given the inherent nature and cognitive dissonance of wing nuts in general.

Example: Sgt. Glenn Miller of the 'Greensboro Massacre' infamy and recently shootings at a synagogue endorsed Obama for President, and did so in 2008 as well, I think. Therefore, the Nazi support the Democratic Party...

Nazi Killer, Glenn Miller, Endorses Obama/Farrakhan
Nazi Killer Glenn Miller Endorses Obama Farrakhan

There you have it! Concrete evidence Obama supports Nazism and murdering black people!!! ...

As for 'hate groups', most of them exist only in the minds of conspiratards and the imagination of hucksters like Morris Dees and the SPLC staff:

An interview with Laird Wilcox:

The Social Contract - An Expert on Fringe Political Movements Reflects on the SPLC s Political Agenda - An Exclusive Interview with Author and Researcher Laird Wilcox

An Excerpt:


TSC: The SPLC recently issued a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” which asserts that “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office.



Wilcox: They’re suggesting a link between Barack Obama’s election and an alleged behavior that is by no means established. This is the post hoc fallacy where because one event follows another it is alleged to be somehow causally related. There’s nothing to support it. It’s also an example of dishonest framing, where an attempt is made to construct meaning by associating an event with a false cause. Some people will buy into this kind of thinking but it’s not too hard to see through if you think about it.

If the SPLC was actually going after racial violence they would go after the racial and ethnic gangs. Many of the gangs are racially based and the killings often reflect that fact. In southern California, hispanic gangs have been driving blacks out of some neighborhoods for years. Imagine if whites tried to do that. Some months back the SPLC did note one hate crime conviction involving gangs, but these incidents have occurred far more often than white racist groups attacking anyone. The SPLC is very choosy in what it complains about. This kind of selective attention and biased reporting simply illustrates their unscrupulousness.

It’s pretty hard for them to deny that the SPLC is a political operation that is trying to tar right-wingers and conservative Republicans with a racist and extremist smear. Privately, they will admit this and leftist groups cheer them on. I’ve never met the SPLC writer Mark Potok, although he used to interview me when he worked for USA Today. I know people who have interviewed him—including several academics who have written extensively on fringe political movements. In private he concedes that there’s no overwhelming threat from the far right and in public says something altogether different. He may be an OK guy on a personal basis, but professionally he is just a shill. It’s his job. That’s what he’s paid for.

...

Wilcox: This is a long story, but I’ll try to make it brief.

In the process of collecting material for the Wilcox Collection, I compiled and published two main research guides: The Guide to the American Left and The Guide to the American Right. These were published annually from 1979 to 2000. They were intended for researchers, academics, writers, and libraries, which is how they were marketed. They consisted of directories of organizations and serials, and a large annotated bibliography of books and monographs, on the groups and movements represented in each book. I was pretty careful in putting these together. I always had to see something that established that the groups existed and that they had a valid mailing address, for example, and if there was any ambiguity about their political orientation I would inquire about it. I had quite a bit of correspondence with some groups. Even there, I wrote a disclaimer noting that whether they were “left” or “right” was only an opinion and that anyone who cared should check this out for themselves. A lot of the listings were one- or two-person outfits, kind of like hobbies or Mom-and-Pop operations, or just somebody equipped with a post office box. This was particularly true on the right. I pointedly tried to be as fair as I could and I think I largely succeeded. The Southern Poverty Law Center acquired my guides and incorporated many of my listings in theirs, but there was a huge difference: their lists had no addresses so it’s very difficult to actually check them out. The SPLC has listings I had never heard of and I know this area pretty well. Even my own contacts in various movements had never heard of some on SPLC’s list. After 1995, I had calls from police agencies trying to locate some of the SPLCs “hate groups.” They couldn’t find them either. I concluded that a lot of them were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC.

There was another phenomenon I noticed. Several racist groups published large numbers of local post office box listings, as in local chapters. When I tried to check these out I found that many of them were false—the box was closed after one rental or that the mail was forwarded elsewhere. I think a lot of these never existed or were just some guy renting different post office boxes. I also received tip-offs that some of the right-wing groups I had listed were really intelligence-gathering operations with no objective membership, some by federal or state agencies and some by groups like the SPLC, which admits having informants throughout the far right. By the 1990s, these were becoming increasingly common. Even local anti-racist activists will frequently operate bogus groups just to see who responds—a Kansas City activist ran a hoax operation from a post office box in Sugar Creek, Missouri, an area suburb, for several years.

One of the reasons I stopped publishing my research guides, aside from burning out on the whole subject, was that I could no longer vouch for the authenticity of the organizations. The web finished this completely. A single person with web page skills can create a very impressive “hate” operation that exists nowhere except in cyberspace. The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors.

The democrats certainly need hate groups, like the Ferguson rioters, La Raza, and the 'New Black Panthers', while the right wingers don't need them, they already have plenty of mainstreamed racist hate groups on the left to point to, and don't need to make any up these days.

I should have added that outside of their support for infanticide and the Gay Privilege hoax, the Democratic Party is almost entirely dependent on racist hate groups for votes

The Democrat Party consists of all types of people who seek redress from the Draconian grey world of neo-Republicanism. Women, blacks minorities, conservatives and liberal voters come together in significant numbers to counter the Republican American Taliban which consists primarily of older white males. The democrat voters may not agree with another voter's lifestyle but their political union is necessary in a two party system where one,,the GOP, is so top heavy with White male obstructionists and bigots.

If you want to continue to support a President and Party that is aligned with and has support from a Nazi murderer that's up to you.

All based on the words of said Nazi murderer.right! A real credible source!

 

[JQPublic1]

The KKK has a tradition of murder and mayhem and indeed is a terrorist organization. But their exploits were not for change. Their mission is to preserve the tradition of separatism and white supremacy by any means necessary, including murder . On the other hand the Black Panthers have not killed except in self defense ; nor has their violence amounted to anything other than self defense against police brutality as far as I can see. That is the difference between those two organizations and is quite significant in my opinion.

The KKK was formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, the Black Panthers were not.

Yep, they were formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts against blacks and Republicans, and they were created by Democrats. Wanna challenge me on that?

You're talking mid 19th century and early 20th century history. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time. The KKK is now solidly ensconced in the Republican party. Want to challenge me on that?

Yeah. Name some Republicans who support the KKK.

No problem. That's too easy. Ever heard of Geaux4it, Steve McGarette, or Buc90. And let's not forget Shootspeeder and the gay homophobe Tom Sweetnam?

Now, that is really, really, really weak.

The KKK has a tradition of murder and mayhem and indeed is a terrorist organization. But their exploits were not for change. Their mission is to preserve the tradition of separatism and white supremacy by any means necessary, including murder . On the other hand the Black Panthers have not killed except in self defense ; nor has their violence amounted to anything other than self defense against police brutality as far as I can see. That is the difference between those two organizations and is quite significant in my opinion.

The KKK was formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, the Black Panthers were not.

Yep, they were formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts against blacks and Republicans, and they were created by Democrats. Wanna challenge me on that?

You're talking mid 19th century and early 20th century history. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time. The KKK is now solidly ensconced in the Republican party. Want to challenge me on that?

Yeah. Name some Republicans who support the KKK.

No problem. That's too easy. Ever heard of Geaux4it, Steve McGarette, or Buc90. And let's not forget Shootspeeder and the gay homophobe Tom Sweetnam?

Now, that is really, really, really weak.

Well ok forgive me for not adding your name to the list to make it stronger.

 

[Picaro]

The problem with these types of arguments lies in the fact that either side can make up whatever they want, given the inherent nature and cognitive dissonance of wing nuts in general.

Example: Sgt. Glenn Miller of the 'Greensboro Massacre' infamy and recently shootings at a synagogue endorsed Obama for President, and did so in 2008 as well, I think. Therefore, the Nazi support the Democratic Party...

Nazi Killer, Glenn Miller, Endorses Obama/Farrakhan
Nazi Killer Glenn Miller Endorses Obama Farrakhan

There you have it! Concrete evidence Obama supports Nazism and murdering black people!!! ...

As for 'hate groups', most of them exist only in the minds of conspiratards and the imagination of hucksters like Morris Dees and the SPLC staff:

An interview with Laird Wilcox:

The Social Contract - An Expert on Fringe Political Movements Reflects on the SPLC s Political Agenda - An Exclusive Interview with Author and Researcher Laird Wilcox

An Excerpt:


TSC: The SPLC recently issued a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” which asserts that “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office.



Wilcox: They’re suggesting a link between Barack Obama’s election and an alleged behavior that is by no means established. This is the post hoc fallacy where because one event follows another it is alleged to be somehow causally related. There’s nothing to support it. It’s also an example of dishonest framing, where an attempt is made to construct meaning by associating an event with a false cause. Some people will buy into this kind of thinking but it’s not too hard to see through if you think about it.

If the SPLC was actually going after racial violence they would go after the racial and ethnic gangs. Many of the gangs are racially based and the killings often reflect that fact. In southern California, hispanic gangs have been driving blacks out of some neighborhoods for years. Imagine if whites tried to do that. Some months back the SPLC did note one hate crime conviction involving gangs, but these incidents have occurred far more often than white racist groups attacking anyone. The SPLC is very choosy in what it complains about. This kind of selective attention and biased reporting simply illustrates their unscrupulousness.

It’s pretty hard for them to deny that the SPLC is a political operation that is trying to tar right-wingers and conservative Republicans with a racist and extremist smear. Privately, they will admit this and leftist groups cheer them on. I’ve never met the SPLC writer Mark Potok, although he used to interview me when he worked for USA Today. I know people who have interviewed him—including several academics who have written extensively on fringe political movements. In private he concedes that there’s no overwhelming threat from the far right and in public says something altogether different. He may be an OK guy on a personal basis, but professionally he is just a shill. It’s his job. That’s what he’s paid for.

...

Wilcox: This is a long story, but I’ll try to make it brief.

In the process of collecting material for the Wilcox Collection, I compiled and published two main research guides: The Guide to the American Left and The Guide to the American Right. These were published annually from 1979 to 2000. They were intended for researchers, academics, writers, and libraries, which is how they were marketed. They consisted of directories of organizations and serials, and a large annotated bibliography of books and monographs, on the groups and movements represented in each book. I was pretty careful in putting these together. I always had to see something that established that the groups existed and that they had a valid mailing address, for example, and if there was any ambiguity about their political orientation I would inquire about it. I had quite a bit of correspondence with some groups. Even there, I wrote a disclaimer noting that whether they were “left” or “right” was only an opinion and that anyone who cared should check this out for themselves. A lot of the listings were one- or two-person outfits, kind of like hobbies or Mom-and-Pop operations, or just somebody equipped with a post office box. This was particularly true on the right. I pointedly tried to be as fair as I could and I think I largely succeeded. The Southern Poverty Law Center acquired my guides and incorporated many of my listings in theirs, but there was a huge difference: their lists had no addresses so it’s very difficult to actually check them out. The SPLC has listings I had never heard of and I know this area pretty well. Even my own contacts in various movements had never heard of some on SPLC’s list. After 1995, I had calls from police agencies trying to locate some of the SPLCs “hate groups.” They couldn’t find them either. I concluded that a lot of them were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC.

There was another phenomenon I noticed. Several racist groups published large numbers of local post office box listings, as in local chapters. When I tried to check these out I found that many of them were false—the box was closed after one rental or that the mail was forwarded elsewhere. I think a lot of these never existed or were just some guy renting different post office boxes. I also received tip-offs that some of the right-wing groups I had listed were really intelligence-gathering operations with no objective membership, some by federal or state agencies and some by groups like the SPLC, which admits having informants throughout the far right. By the 1990s, these were becoming increasingly common. Even local anti-racist activists will frequently operate bogus groups just to see who responds—a Kansas City activist ran a hoax operation from a post office box in Sugar Creek, Missouri, an area suburb, for several years.

One of the reasons I stopped publishing my research guides, aside from burning out on the whole subject, was that I could no longer vouch for the authenticity of the organizations. The web finished this completely. A single person with web page skills can create a very impressive “hate” operation that exists nowhere except in cyberspace. The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors.

The democrats certainly need hate groups, like the Ferguson rioters, La Raza, and the 'New Black Panthers', while the right wingers don't need them, they already have plenty of mainstreamed racist hate groups on the left to point to, and don't need to make any up these days.

I should have added that outside of their support for infanticide and the Gay Privilege hoax, the Democratic Party is almost entirely dependent on racist hate groups for votes

The Democrat Party consists of all types of people who seek redress from the Draconian grey world of neo-Republicanism. Women, blacks minorities, conservatives and liberal voters come together in significant numbers to counter the Republican American Taliban which consists primarily of older white males. The democrat voters may not agree with another voter's lifestyle but their political union is necessary in a two party system where one,,the GOP, is so top heavy with White male obstructionists and bigots.

If you want to continue to support a President and Party that is aligned with and has support from a Nazi murderer that's up to you.

All based on the words of said Nazi murderer.right! A real credible source!

It's more credible than your sources; it's straight from Miller himself. There is no record of Obama and the Democrats rejecting Miller's support, and according your own 'standards' of 'proof' re the KKK and the GOP, that means they accept the support.

 

[natstew]

The KKK has a tradition of murder and mayhem and indeed is a terrorist organization. But their exploits were not for change. Their mission is to preserve the tradition of separatism and white supremacy by any means necessary, including murder . On the other hand the Black Panthers have not killed except in self defense ; nor has their violence amounted to anything other than self defense against police brutality as far as I can see. That is the difference between those two organizations and is quite significant in my opinion.

The KKK was formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, the Black Panthers were not.

The Black Panthers, (and new black panthers) were created to terrorize the Republican Party and white people.

 

[whitehall]

If Bill Ayers isn't considered a terrorist after spending a decade bombing government and corporate buildings how can you consider a bunch of yayhoos in coveralls in the KKK and a couple of Black guys in corny uniforms to be terrorists?

 

[S.J.]

Yep, they were formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts against blacks and Republicans, and they were created by Democrats. Wanna challenge me on that?

You're talking mid 19th century and early 20th century history. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time. The KKK is now solidly ensconced in the Republican party. Want to challenge me on that?

Yeah. Name some Republicans who support the KKK.

No problem. That's too easy. Ever heard of Geaux4it, Steve McGarette, or Buc90. And let's not forget Shootspeeder and the gay homophobe Tom Sweetnam?

How about naming someone known outside of this forum? That should be easy since they are "solidly ensconced" in the Republican Party. I'll wait.

Why wait,? Just go up to the first guy you see with a rebel flag displayed on his car, yard or himself and ask if he supports the KKK AND Republicans. You've reached your limit of stupid questions now shaddup!

Here's your quote: "The KKK is now solidly ensconced in the Republican party." I'm still waiting for you to name some elected officials in the Republican Party who support the KKK (as if the KKK were even relevant in this century). All you seem to be able to do is point to a few members on this forum and some general finger pointing at rednecks in pickup trucks with confederate flags in the back window but no real people. We're all still waiting to see those names.

 

[FA_Q2]

The KKK has a tradition of murder and mayhem and indeed is a terrorist organization. But their exploits were not for change. Their mission is to preserve the tradition of separatism and white supremacy by any means necessary, including murder . On the other hand the Black Panthers have not killed except in self defense ; nor has their violence amounted to anything other than self defense against police brutality as far as I can see. That is the difference between those two organizations and is quite significant in my opinion.

The KKK was formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, the Black Panthers were not.

Yep, they were formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts against blacks and Republicans, and they were created by Democrats. Wanna challenge me on that?

You're talking mid 19th century and early 20th century history. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time. The KKK is now solidly ensconced in the Republican party. Want to challenge me on that?

Yeah. Name some Republicans who support the KKK.

Name some current democrats that support the KKK.

Nice try. Now name some Republicans who support them.

No because the republicans do not support them as the democrats do not support them. My point was not that the KKK is a republican entity but that your assertion is asinine as you can not do the same on the other side. the fact of the matter is that no major party in the US identifies and supports the actions of the KKK or they would quickly become a minority party. Hate based on race really is not a popular concept anymore.

To assert the KKK is democrat is just as silly as asserting it is republican.

 

[Nutz]

KKK,Black Panthers, PETA...all terrorists IMO. The Tea Party is more of a threat than all of them combined though. Ever wonder...why does the Tea Party have an army?

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh the irony in those comments and promoting known propaganda over fact..

Want some facts? Try this link:
Educating Republicans Why You Can t Spell KKK Without the Letters G-O-P

Uses a far left blog site as their facts.

Is it? Is that any worse than the far right blogs you link to?

Yes I know anything that is not far left is automatically "far right"..

Since you like blogs:

The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Community DAWNING A NEW DAY

You right wing deniers cling to the past and attempt to infuse it into the present regardless of the political changes/ realignments that installed the KKK as a 21st century Republican tenant.

And yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing by ascribing them as 'designed' to murder and create mayhem. Something that the KKK did when they actually were southern democrats but are not so actively engaged in anymore when they are 'republican' as you are claiming.

The reality is that there are racists, racist groups and hate groups all over the political spectrum. That does not mean that they political parties support those views or groups. To claim so shows the partisan blinders that you are wearing.

 

[S.J.]

Yep, they were formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts against blacks and Republicans, and they were created by Democrats. Wanna challenge me on that?

You're talking mid 19th century and early 20th century history. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time. The KKK is now solidly ensconced in the Republican party. Want to challenge me on that?

Yeah. Name some Republicans who support the KKK.

Name some current democrats that support the KKK.

Nice try. Now name some Republicans who support them.

No because the republicans do not support them as the democrats do not support them. My point was not that the KKK is a republican entity but that your assertion is asinine as you can not do the same on the other side. the fact of the matter is that no major party in the US identifies and supports the actions of the KKK or they would quickly become a minority party. Hate based on race really is not a popular concept anymore.

To assert the KKK is democrat is just as silly as asserting it is republican.

No, it isn't, because the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. Not only that, but they held Senator Robert Byrd, a high ranking KKK member in high esteem right up until he died. He was their leader in the Senate and they all supported him and it wasn't that long ago (less than 5 years). The Democratic Party has a long history of racism and the Republican Party does not. You can't get around that.

 

[JQPublic1]

The KKK has a tradition of murder and mayhem and indeed is a terrorist organization. But their exploits were not for change. Their mission is to preserve the tradition of separatism and white supremacy by any means necessary, including murder . On the other hand the Black Panthers have not killed except in self defense ; nor has their violence amounted to anything other than self defense against police brutality as far as I can see. That is the difference between those two organizations and is quite significant in my opinion.

The KKK was formed for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, the Black Panthers were not.

The Black Panthers, (and new black panthers) were created to terrorize the Republican Party and white people.

You don't know what you are talking about. Do some research before posting utter nonsense, puleeeze!

 

[JQPublic1]

Want some facts? Try this link:
Educating Republicans Why You Can t Spell KKK Without the Letters G-O-P

Uses a far left blog site as their facts.

Is it? Is that any worse than the far right blogs you link to?

Yes I know anything that is not far left is automatically "far right"..

Since you like blogs:

The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Community DAWNING A NEW DAY

You right wing deniers cling to the past and attempt to infuse it into the present regardless of the political changes/ realignments that installed the KKK as a 21st century Republican tenant.

Yet as a far left drone you have yet to show any evidence to your claims other than far left propaganda.

Next you will be posting more bunk and expecting others to prove you wrong!

Wrong! I am not a left wing drone nor am I a right wing shill like you . I am an American voter who can vote either way. I claim no party affiliation. Like millions of my contemporaries I am essentially non partisan on many issues... That explains the shift in the balance of power from one party to the other when voters like me decide its time for a change.

 

[JQPublic1]

You're talking mid 19th century and early 20th century history. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time. The KKK is now solidly ensconced in the Republican party. Want to challenge me on that?

Yeah. Name some Republicans who support the KKK.

Name some current democrats that support the KKK.

Nice try. Now name some Republicans who support them.

No because the republicans do not support them as the democrats do not support them. My point was not that the KKK is a republican entity but that your assertion is asinine as you can not do the same on the other side. the fact of the matter is that no major party in the US identifies and supports the actions of the KKK or they would quickly become a minority party. Hate based on race really is not a popular concept anymore.

To assert the KKK is democrat is just as silly as asserting it is republican.

No, it isn't, because the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. Not only that, but they held Senator Robert Byrd, a high ranking KKK member in high esteem right up until he died. He was their leader in the Senate and they all supported him and it wasn't that long ago (less than 5 years). The Democratic Party has a long history of racism and the Republican Party does not. You can't get around that.

Well, no the KKK wasn't started by a democratic party nor was it started by the Democrat Party. It was started by " conservatives" who might have been Democrats back then. As you know, todays "conservatives" still adhere to the Southern Strategy and are now known as Republicans. That long racist history of which you speak makes more sense when we see that "conservatives" were at the core of it in both parties.

 

[JQPublic1]

The problem with these types of arguments lies in the fact that either side can make up whatever they want, given the inherent nature and cognitive dissonance of wing nuts in general.

Example: Sgt. Glenn Miller of the 'Greensboro Massacre' infamy and recently shootings at a synagogue endorsed Obama for President, and did so in 2008 as well, I think. Therefore, the Nazi support the Democratic Party...

Nazi Killer, Glenn Miller, Endorses Obama/Farrakhan
Nazi Killer Glenn Miller Endorses Obama Farrakhan

There you have it! Concrete evidence Obama supports Nazism and murdering black people!!! ...

As for 'hate groups', most of them exist only in the minds of conspiratards and the imagination of hucksters like Morris Dees and the SPLC staff:

An interview with Laird Wilcox:

The Social Contract - An Expert on Fringe Political Movements Reflects on the SPLC s Political Agenda - An Exclusive Interview with Author and Researcher Laird Wilcox

An Excerpt:


TSC: The SPLC recently issued a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” which asserts that “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office.



Wilcox: They’re suggesting a link between Barack Obama’s election and an alleged behavior that is by no means established. This is the post hoc fallacy where because one event follows another it is alleged to be somehow causally related. There’s nothing to support it. It’s also an example of dishonest framing, where an attempt is made to construct meaning by associating an event with a false cause. Some people will buy into this kind of thinking but it’s not too hard to see through if you think about it.

If the SPLC was actually going after racial violence they would go after the racial and ethnic gangs. Many of the gangs are racially based and the killings often reflect that fact. In southern California, hispanic gangs have been driving blacks out of some neighborhoods for years. Imagine if whites tried to do that. Some months back the SPLC did note one hate crime conviction involving gangs, but these incidents have occurred far more often than white racist groups attacking anyone. The SPLC is very choosy in what it complains about. This kind of selective attention and biased reporting simply illustrates their unscrupulousness.

It’s pretty hard for them to deny that the SPLC is a political operation that is trying to tar right-wingers and conservative Republicans with a racist and extremist smear. Privately, they will admit this and leftist groups cheer them on. I’ve never met the SPLC writer Mark Potok, although he used to interview me when he worked for USA Today. I know people who have interviewed him—including several academics who have written extensively on fringe political movements. In private he concedes that there’s no overwhelming threat from the far right and in public says something altogether different. He may be an OK guy on a personal basis, but professionally he is just a shill. It’s his job. That’s what he’s paid for.

...

Wilcox: This is a long story, but I’ll try to make it brief.

In the process of collecting material for the Wilcox Collection, I compiled and published two main research guides: The Guide to the American Left and The Guide to the American Right. These were published annually from 1979 to 2000. They were intended for researchers, academics, writers, and libraries, which is how they were marketed. They consisted of directories of organizations and serials, and a large annotated bibliography of books and monographs, on the groups and movements represented in each book. I was pretty careful in putting these together. I always had to see something that established that the groups existed and that they had a valid mailing address, for example, and if there was any ambiguity about their political orientation I would inquire about it. I had quite a bit of correspondence with some groups. Even there, I wrote a disclaimer noting that whether they were “left” or “right” was only an opinion and that anyone who cared should check this out for themselves. A lot of the listings were one- or two-person outfits, kind of like hobbies or Mom-and-Pop operations, or just somebody equipped with a post office box. This was particularly true on the right. I pointedly tried to be as fair as I could and I think I largely succeeded. The Southern Poverty Law Center acquired my guides and incorporated many of my listings in theirs, but there was a huge difference: their lists had no addresses so it’s very difficult to actually check them out. The SPLC has listings I had never heard of and I know this area pretty well. Even my own contacts in various movements had never heard of some on SPLC’s list. After 1995, I had calls from police agencies trying to locate some of the SPLCs “hate groups.” They couldn’t find them either. I concluded that a lot of them were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC.

There was another phenomenon I noticed. Several racist groups published large numbers of local post office box listings, as in local chapters. When I tried to check these out I found that many of them were false—the box was closed after one rental or that the mail was forwarded elsewhere. I think a lot of these never existed or were just some guy renting different post office boxes. I also received tip-offs that some of the right-wing groups I had listed were really intelligence-gathering operations with no objective membership, some by federal or state agencies and some by groups like the SPLC, which admits having informants throughout the far right. By the 1990s, these were becoming increasingly common. Even local anti-racist activists will frequently operate bogus groups just to see who responds—a Kansas City activist ran a hoax operation from a post office box in Sugar Creek, Missouri, an area suburb, for several years.

One of the reasons I stopped publishing my research guides, aside from burning out on the whole subject, was that I could no longer vouch for the authenticity of the organizations. The web finished this completely. A single person with web page skills can create a very impressive “hate” operation that exists nowhere except in cyberspace. The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors.

The democrats certainly need hate groups, like the Ferguson rioters, La Raza, and the 'New Black Panthers', while the right wingers don't need them, they already have plenty of mainstreamed racist hate groups on the left to point to, and don't need to make any up these days.

I should have added that outside of their support for infanticide and the Gay Privilege hoax, the Democratic Party is almost entirely dependent on racist hate groups for votes

The Democrat Party consists of all types of people who seek redress from the Draconian grey world of neo-Republicanism. Women, blacks minorities, conservatives and liberal voters come together in significant numbers to counter the Republican American Taliban which consists primarily of older white males. The democrat voters may not agree with another voter's lifestyle but their political union is necessary in a two party system where one,,the GOP, is so top heavy with White male obstructionists and bigots.

If you want to continue to support a President and Party that is aligned with and has support from a Nazi murderer that's up to you.

Neither Obama or the Democrat hierarchy is aligned with Glen Miller...as much as you wish it were so! Miller is a nobody and what he says has no bearing on anything...except to desperate Republicans looking for straws to assemble a straw man!

 

[Asclepias]

By looking at a simple definition of 'terror' we see that these groups have and may be currently causing terror for some ethnic groups. This is in no way different to any other group classed as 'terrorists' except that they come from the USA. I think, that it does make sense. What about you?

I know for sure the KKK and other white supremacist groups can be labled as terrorist groups. Not so sure about the NBP. I know the original Black Panthers were formed to protect the Black community from racist white pigs.

 

[Nutz]

By looking at a simple definition of 'terror' we see that these groups have and may be currently causing terror for some ethnic groups. This is in no way different to any other group classed as 'terrorists' except that they come from the USA. I think, that it does make sense. What about you?

I know for sure the KKK and other white supremacist groups can be labled as terrorist groups. Not so sure about the NBP. I know the original Black Panthers were formed to protect the Black community from racist white pigs.

Black people standing up for themselves are terrorists in the minds of the USMB faithful. The good white folks who fire bombed churches, killed black children and lynched black men weren't terrorists, they were American heroes in the minds of the USMB core membership.

 

[S.J.]

Yeah. Name some Republicans who support the KKK.

Name some current democrats that support the KKK.

Nice try. Now name some Republicans who support them.

No because the republicans do not support them as the democrats do not support them. My point was not that the KKK is a republican entity but that your assertion is asinine as you can not do the same on the other side. the fact of the matter is that no major party in the US identifies and supports the actions of the KKK or they would quickly become a minority party. Hate based on race really is not a popular concept anymore.

To assert the KKK is democrat is just as silly as asserting it is republican.

No, it isn't, because the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. Not only that, but they held Senator Robert Byrd, a high ranking KKK member in high esteem right up until he died. He was their leader in the Senate and they all supported him and it wasn't that long ago (less than 5 years). The Democratic Party has a long history of racism and the Republican Party does not. You can't get around that.

Well, no the KKK wasn't started by a democratic party nor was it started by the Democrat Party. It was started by " conservatives" who might have been Democrats back then. As you know, todays "conservatives" still adhere to the Southern Strategy and are now known as Republicans. That long racist history of which you speak makes more sense when we see that "conservatives" were at the core of it in both parties.

I hate to burst your bubble but you've been spoon fed the wrong information.

Who started the ku klux klan

 

[Asclepias]

Name some current democrats that support the KKK.

Nice try. Now name some Republicans who support them.

No because the republicans do not support them as the democrats do not support them. My point was not that the KKK is a republican entity but that your assertion is asinine as you can not do the same on the other side. the fact of the matter is that no major party in the US identifies and supports the actions of the KKK or they would quickly become a minority party. Hate based on race really is not a popular concept anymore.

To assert the KKK is democrat is just as silly as asserting it is republican.

No, it isn't, because the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. Not only that, but they held Senator Robert Byrd, a high ranking KKK member in high esteem right up until he died. He was their leader in the Senate and they all supported him and it wasn't that long ago (less than 5 years). The Democratic Party has a long history of racism and the Republican Party does not. You can't get around that.

Well, no the KKK wasn't started by a democratic party nor was it started by the Democrat Party. It was started by " conservatives" who might have been Democrats back then. As you know, todays "conservatives" still adhere to the Southern Strategy and are now known as Republicans. That long racist history of which you speak makes more sense when we see that "conservatives" were at the core of it in both parties.

I hate to burst your bubble but you've been spoon fed the wrong information.

Who started the ku klux klan

Hate to burst your bubble but John Torres is not a credible source.

 

[S.J.]

Nice try. Now name some Republicans who support them.

No because the republicans do not support them as the democrats do not support them. My point was not that the KKK is a republican entity but that your assertion is asinine as you can not do the same on the other side. the fact of the matter is that no major party in the US identifies and supports the actions of the KKK or they would quickly become a minority party. Hate based on race really is not a popular concept anymore.

To assert the KKK is democrat is just as silly as asserting it is republican.

No, it isn't, because the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. Not only that, but they held Senator Robert Byrd, a high ranking KKK member in high esteem right up until he died. He was their leader in the Senate and they all supported him and it wasn't that long ago (less than 5 years). The Democratic Party has a long history of racism and the Republican Party does not. You can't get around that.

Well, no the KKK wasn't started by a democratic party nor was it started by the Democrat Party. It was started by " conservatives" who might have been Democrats back then. As you know, todays "conservatives" still adhere to the Southern Strategy and are now known as Republicans. That long racist history of which you speak makes more sense when we see that "conservatives" were at the core of it in both parties.

I hate to burst your bubble but you've been spoon fed the wrong information.

Who started the ku klux klan

Hate to burst your bubble but John Torres is not a credible source.

Which of these facts do you dispute, and why?

The Democrats:

• Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
• Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
• Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
• Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
• Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
• Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
• Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a "Kleagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
• Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
• Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
• Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
• Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
• Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
• Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
• Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
• Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
• Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox "brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
• Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
• Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
• Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton's mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

Democrats opposed:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. the Freedmen s Bureau Information from Answers.com
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

The Republicans:

• Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950's and 1960's, over the objection of Democrats.
• Republicans founded the HBCU's (Historical Black College's and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
• Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
• Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
• Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
• Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
• Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960's.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
• Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.

 

[Asclepias]

No because the republicans do not support them as the democrats do not support them. My point was not that the KKK is a republican entity but that your assertion is asinine as you can not do the same on the other side. the fact of the matter is that no major party in the US identifies and supports the actions of the KKK or they would quickly become a minority party. Hate based on race really is not a popular concept anymore.

To assert the KKK is democrat is just as silly as asserting it is republican.

No, it isn't, because the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. Not only that, but they held Senator Robert Byrd, a high ranking KKK member in high esteem right up until he died. He was their leader in the Senate and they all supported him and it wasn't that long ago (less than 5 years). The Democratic Party has a long history of racism and the Republican Party does not. You can't get around that.

Well, no the KKK wasn't started by a democratic party nor was it started by the Democrat Party. It was started by " conservatives" who might have been Democrats back then. As you know, todays "conservatives" still adhere to the Southern Strategy and are now known as Republicans. That long racist history of which you speak makes more sense when we see that "conservatives" were at the core of it in both parties.

I hate to burst your bubble but you've been spoon fed the wrong information.

Who started the ku klux klan

Hate to burst your bubble but John Torres is not a credible source.

Which of these facts do you dispute, and why?

The Democrats:

• Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
• Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
• Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
• Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
• Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
• Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
• Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a "Kleagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
• Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
• Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
• Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
• Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
• Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
• Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
• Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
• Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
• Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox "brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
• Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
• Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
• Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton's mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

Democrats opposed:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. the Freedmen s Bureau Information from Answers.com
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

The Republicans:

• Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950's and 1960's, over the objection of Democrats.
• Republicans founded the HBCU's (Historical Black College's and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
• Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
• Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
• Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
• Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
• Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960's.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
• Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.

The ones that say conservatives were not the people that formed the KKK. The same people that make up the Republican party of today.