Hate Groups

News Roundup for September 1, 2011

0

An Independence woman allegedly helped others in 2006 to vandalize and set fire to a biracial man’s mobile home because they wanted him out of their neighborhood. A federal grand jury indicted Teresa Witthar, 43, on seven counts Wednesday for allegedly conspiring to violate the man’s civil rights by threatening and intimidating him because of [...]

Court Dismisses Case Involving DHS Extremism Report

0

A federal appeals court last week affirmed a lower court decision throwing out a lawsuit brought by a hard-line anti-abortion group against the Obama Administration over a controversial government report on right-wing extremism.
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, represented by the religious-right Thomas More Law Center, had alleged that the April 2009 report by the Department [...]

Oslo Shooter A Frightening Reminder of Radical Right Terrorist Threat

0

The horrific events that took place in Norway this past Friday— a huge bombing in central Oslo closely followed by a bloody shooting rampage on nearby Utoya island that left 93 dead—are a sobering reminder of what extreme radical-right beliefs can drive some to do. And the threat is not confined to Norway or Europe. [...]

A Skinhead’s Story: Bryon Widner and ‘Erasing Hate’

0

It’s hard enough trying to overcome a history of violence and race hatred for a new life of redemption and purpose. Imagine trying to do so with the evidence of your evil past etched indelibly on your face in the form of tattoos proclaiming racist and violent themes.

After spending 16 years as a vicious brawler [...]

Geographical Analysis of Hate Groups Listed by SPLC Released

0

Today, The Atlantic magazine published an analysis of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups, which hit a high in 2010 of 1,002 groups. The analysis provides a “geography of hatred” in America and looks at what factors correlate with areas that are hotbeds for hate groups.
Written by Senior Editor Richard Florida, the [...]

SPLC Hate Group Count Tops 1,000 as Radical Right Expansion Continues

0

Editor’s Note: The Southern Poverty Law Center is today releasing its annual count of groups on the American radical right and analysis. What follows is the main essay from the new issue of the Intelligence Report, the SPLC’s investigative magazine. In the story, you’ll find links to our new hate group map and additional lists of antigovernment “Patriot” groups and nativist vigilante organizations. The issue also contains my editorial and stories on Cliff Kincaid, a homophobic propagandist at the far-right Accuracy in Media group; the adoption of an Oklahoma law forbidding the use of Shariah law; a racist group’s funding of two Mississippi private academies; a white supremacist’s new novel targeting the SPLC; the National Center for Constitutional Studies and its extremist version of American history; candidates with extreme-right ideas who ran in last year’s elections; an interview with a former “esoteric Nazi,” and more. The new issue’s table of contents is here.

Intelligence ReportFor the second year in a row, the radical right in America expanded explosively in 2010, driven by resentment over the changing racial demographics of the country, frustration over the government’s handling of the economy, and the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories and other demonizing propaganda aimed at various minorities. For many on the radical right, anger is focusing on President Obama, who is seen as embodying everything that’s wrong with the country.

Hate groups topped 1,000 for the first time since the Southern Poverty Law Center began counting such groups in the 1980s. Anti-immigrant vigilante groups, despite having some of the political wind taken out of their sails by the adoption of hard-line anti-immigration laws around the country, continued to rise slowly. But by far the most dramatic growth came in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement ­— conspiracy-minded organizations that see the federal government as their primary enemy — which gained more than 300 new groups, a jump of over 60%.

Taken together, these three strands of the radical right — the hatemongers, the nativists and the antigovernment zealots — increased from 1,753 groups in 2009 to 2,145 in 2010, a 22% rise. That followed a 2008-2009 increase of 40%.

What may be most remarkable is that this growth of right-wing extremism came even as politicians around the country, blown by gusts from the Tea Parties and other conservative formations, tacked hard to the right, co-opting many of the issues important to extremists. Last April, for instance, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1070, the harshest anti-immigrant law in memory, setting off a tsunami of proposals for similar laws across the country. Continuing growth of the radical right could be curtailed as a result of this shift, especially since Republicans, many of them highly conservative, recaptured the U.S. House last fall.

But despite those historic Republican gains, the early signs suggest that even as the more mainstream political right strengthens, the radical right has remained highly energized. In an 11-day period this January, a neo-Nazi was arrested headed for the Arizona border with a dozen homemade grenades; a terrorist bomb attack on a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Wash., was averted after police dismantled a sophisticated anti-personnel weapon; and a man who officials said had a long history of antigovernment activities was arrested outside a packed mosque in Dearborn, Mich., and charged with possessing explosives with unlawful intent. That’s in addition, the same month, to the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, an attack that left six dead and may have had a political dimension.

It’s also clear that other kinds of radical activity are on the rise. Since the murder last May 20 of two West Memphis, Ark., police officers by two members of the so-called “sovereign citizens” movement, police from around the country have contacted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to report what one detective in Kentucky described as a “dramatic increase” in sovereign activity. Sovereign citizens, who, like militias, are part of the larger Patriot movement, believe that the federal government has no right to tax or regulate them and, as a result, often come into conflict with police and tax authorities. Another sign of their increased activity came early this year, when the Treasury Department, in a report assessing what the IRS faces in 2011, said its biggest challenge will be the “attacks and threats against IRS employees and facilities [that] have risen steadily in recent years.”

Extremist ideas have not been limited to the radical right; already this year, state legislators have offered up a raft of proposals influenced by such ideas. In Arizona, the author of the S.B. 1070 law — a man who just became Senate president on the basis of his harshly nativist rhetoric — proposed a law this January that would allow his state to refuse to obey any federal law or regulation it cared to. In Virginia, a state legislator wants to pass a law aimed at creating an alternative currency “in the event of the destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency” — a longstanding fear of right-wing extremists. And in Montana, a state senator is working to pass a statute called the “Sheriffs First Act” that would require federal law enforcement to ask local sheriffs’ permission to act in their counties or face jail. All three laws are almost certainly unconstitutional, legal experts say, and they all originate in ideas that first came from ideologues of the radical right.

There also are new attempts by nativist forces to roll back birthright citizenship, which makes all children born in the U.S. citizens. Such laws have been introduced this year in Congress, and a coalition of state legislators is promising to do the same in their states. And then there’s Oklahoma, where 70% of voters last November approved a measure to forbid judges to consider Islamic law in the state’s courtrooms (see related story) — a completely groundless fear, but one pushed nonetheless by Islamophobes. Since then, lawmakers have promised to pass similar laws in Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah.

After the Giffords assassination attempt, a kind of national dialogue began about the political vitriol that increasingly passes for “mainstream” political debate. But it didn’t seem to get very far. Four days after the shooting, a campaign called the Civility Project — a two-year effort led by an evangelical conservative tied to top Republicans — said it was shutting down because of a lack of interest and furious opposition. “The worst E-mails I received about the Civility Project were from conservatives with just unbelievable language about communists and some words I wouldn’t use in this phone call,” director Mark DeMoss told The New York Times. “This political divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any” opponent.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll this January captured the atmosphere well. It found that 82% of Americans saw their country’s political discourse as “negative.” Even more remarkably, the poll determined that 49% thought that negative tone could or already had encouraged political violence.

Last year’s rise in hate groups (see map) was the latest in a trend stretching all the way back to the year 2000, when the SPLC counted 602 such groups. Since then, they have risen steadily, mainly on the basis of exploiting the issue of undocumented immigration from Mexico and Central America. Last year, the number of hate groups rose to 1,002 from 932, a 7.5% increase over the previous year and a 66% rise since 2000.

At the same time, what the SPLC defines as “nativist extremist” groups — organizations that go beyond mere advocacy of restrictive immigration policy to actually confront or harass suspected immigrants or their employers — rose slightly, despite the fact that most of their key issues had been taken up by mainstream politicians (see story and list). There were 319 such groups in 2010, up 3% from 309 in 2009.

But like the year before, it was the antigovernment Patriot groups that grew most dramatically (see list), at least partly on the basis of furious rhetoric from the right aimed at the nation’s first black president — a man who has come to represent to at least some Americans ongoing changes in the racial makeup of the country. The Patriot groups, which had risen and fallen once before during the militia movement of the 1990s, first came roaring back in 2009, when they rose 244% to 512 from 149 a year earlier. In 2010, they rose again sharply, adding 312 new groups to reach 824, a 61% increase. The highest prior count of Patriot groups came in 1996, when the SPLC found 858.

It’s hard to predict where this volatile situation will lead. Conservatives last November made great gains and some of them are championing a surprising number of the issues pushed by the radical right — a fact that could help deflate some of the even more extreme political forces. But those GOP electoral advances also left the Congress divided and increasingly lined up against the Democratic president, which is likely to paralyze the country on such key issues as immigration reform.

What seems certain is that President Obama will continue to serve as a lightning rod for many on the political right, a man who represents both the federal government and the fact that the racial make-up of the United States is changing, something that upsets a significant number of white Americans. And that suggests that the polarized politics of this country could get worse before they get better.

Mainstream Media Exposes Anti-Immigrant Movement in America

0

The mainstream media is finally exposing “the man behind the curtain” of America’s anti-immigrant movement. This week, Village Voice Media published a piece entitled, “FAIR-y Tales” by Terry Greene Sterling, an award winning journalist and Writer-in-Residence at Arizona State University. Sterling’s in-depth investigative journalism blows the lid of off the John Tanton network and its anti-immigrant organizations—CIS, FAIR, IRLI (drafters of SB1070), Social Contract Press and Numbers USA. It even includes an interview with John Tanton, the unapologetic architect of the anti-immigrant movement in America.

Sterling writes:

Even today, John Tanton sees nothing wrong with associating with white nationalists. He says he doesn’t necessarily agree with them, but reaching out to them is part of his “coalition building.”

And he’s not ashamed of soliciting $1.5 million in unrestricted donations during FAIR’s early days from the Pioneer Fund, an American foundation that has long financed research in “race science.” FAIR doesn’t take Pioneer money anymore, though the creepy foundation still is going strong.

The Pioneer Fund’s current president, J. Philippe Rushton, is a Canadian college psychology professor who still studies race-intelligence connections.

Not since Rachel Maddow interviewed Dan Stein of FAIR, after passage of SB1070, has a journalist taken on the John Tanton anti-immigrant movement in America so directly.

Sterling also unpacks the fuzzy way these groups produce “data” on immigration and then pass it on to their friends on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures. Using the example of a FAIR report that attempted to enumerate the costs of undocumented immigration in Arizona (a report that buoyed passage of SB1070), Sterling points out that FAIR boosts the cost of illegal immigration in Arizona (by nearly $2.7 billion) by counting the U.S. children of undocumented immigrants.

And upon questioning, the author had a difficult time justifying his methodology:

Longtime FAIR staffer Jack Martin, who is not an economist but rather “a retired U.S. diplomat with consular experience,” put the Arizona report together.

In July, Martin said that he included in his report U.S. children born to undocumented immigrants as a cost of illegal immigration because they “wouldn’t be here” if their parents hadn’t been in the country illegally.

And if Mom and Dad returned to Mexico, they’d take their American children with them, Martin declared.

Asked why these same American kids mysteriously disappear from his report once they become adults and offset the cost of their educations by paying taxes, consuming, and working, Martin offered no rational answer. He posited that once these children reach adulthood, they no longer represent a “cost of illegal immigration” because if their parents were to be deported, the adult children probably would stay in the United States.

In short, Martin could not explain away the accounting trick at the heart of the “report” that helped justify SB 1070.”

Despite these groups’ nefarious associations and outright lies over the years, they have been able to gain incredible traction and harness a strong movement against sensible immigration reform in America. Even Tanton is surprised by his success.

Sterling writes:

Sometimes, when Tanton looks at how FAIR, NumbersUSA, the CIS, and other groups he’s touched have succeeded in turning the immigration debate his way, the old man feels a certain satisfaction about his life’s work.

“It is amazing,” he says, “how well we’ve done.”

Film Review: New Documentary on Hate Revealing

0

White racial extremists are certain that “their” culture is under attack and has to be defended with guns. “If there is going to be any salvation of our culture, white European culture, violence is guaranteed because they’re not listening,” says long-time neo-Nazi and White Aryan Resistance leader Tom Metzger. I am not quite sure what Metzger is talking about — salvation for European culture in the United States? What exactly is “white culture”? But as Mariah Wilson’s new documentary “Revealing Hate” shows, racial extremists are typically better at advocating and committing violence than coherently explaining their irrational views.

Wilson’s well-constructed film provides a comprehensive introduction to the American white supremacist movement, examining its roots, its current state and a number of its individual voices. Broken into eight chapters, Metzger and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project Director Mark Potok (who edits this blog) supply the bulk of the commentary. (Full disclosure: One of the chapters focuses on the work of the Intelligence Project.) Metzger offers analysis from the point of view of a racial extremist on the various incidents and people in the film, and Potok is his counterpoint, providing his expertise on hate groups.

Metzger is the most intriguing of Wilson’s interview subjects. While his motivations behind wanting to stop the supposed dilution of the white race are hard to understand — he claims that he became a white supremacist not because of any incident with a minority, but because he “observed” African Americans while in the Army — he is capable of remarkable insight. He is dismissive of the rabblerousing rallies and marches that neo-Nazis like to hold, noting the irony of how reliant these supposed revolutionaries are on the government for the protection of their First Amendment rights — they have to be bused to their rallies from a secret location, escorted by police, placed behind chain fences, and so on. The rallies, as seen in the documentary, are a strange circus of swastikas, 1940s Nazi paraphernalia, sieg-heiling young men, American flags and speeches about being “willing to kill to get back my white America.” Are these American flag-waving neo-Nazis unaware that the United States went to war against the Third Reich?

It’s easy to discount the threat of racial extremists after watching groups like these make a mockery of themselves, so Wilson smartly confronts viewers with the full savagery these people are capable of by focusing on one of the more infamous incidents of extremist violence in America. In 1979, a group of Communist Workers Party members held a “Death to the Klan” rally in Greensboro, N.C. As the rally began, Klan members rolled up in their cars, removed guns from the trunks and opened fire on the protesters, killing five of them. Four local news stations were present to tape the rally and captured the massacre in shocking detail. The first time I watched it I thought it might be a reenactment because the images were so vivid (no shaky, out-of-focus camera work here). Wilson could have chosen to interview people about a more recent crime perpetrated by extremists, such as the 2009 murder of a guard at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., but there is no footage of that attack and a verbal description of what happened beggars the impact of actually seeing Klan members engage in murder.

The white supremacists Wilson examines all have the same broad goal: saving white culture. That goal may be abstract, but the supremacists are action-oriented. Metzger tells racist skinheads to grow their hair out and “get a good education. Get into army, police, anywhere you can get power. … Wait for the big war — like Timothy McVeigh, multiplied by 10,000.” Naturally, he realizes that if you are serious about promoting violence, it is best to keep your head down. (Metzger probably learned that lesson after the SPLC won a $12.5 million civil judgment against him for having helped incite a racially motivated murder). The supremacists all seem to agree that violence will be a component of the white restoration and that people like McVeigh are heroes. But Metzger thinks in more insidious and practical terms.

As Potok notes, the Klan once had tremendous influence among politicians and other authorities. In the film, the famous retired Klan investigator Stetson Kennedy recounts how a Klan official gave him a deathbed account of inducting President Warren Harding into the Klan in a ceremony inside the White House. Today, Metzger and others like him may be having more success than we think at influencing young white supremacists to go underground and seize power. In recent years, for example, fairly large numbers of neo-Nazis and so-called “ghost skins” (skinheads who have grown their hair and, essentially, gone undercover) have entered the military to gain military skills for later action. (The SPLC produced major reports on this phenomenon, ultimately resulting in a change of Pentagon policy meant to keep such extremists out.)  The threat is no longer just lone wolves like Timothy McVeigh committing domestic terrorism, but Manchurian candidates who can influence public policy and upend our laws without having to fire a shot.

“Revealing Hate” is well worth watching, as the couple of film festival awards it’s already landed suggest. It has not been shown as of yet on national television, but it continues to receive film festival and local TV screenings and is likely to get more — upcoming dates and locations are available at the film’s site. A DVD of the film, available here, also goes on sale beginning Tuesday.

New Reports Describe the “Green-Washing” of Nativist Hate

0

In a new report, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes the rejuvenated efforts of anti-immigrant groups to repackage themselves as environmentalists who are trying to save the United States from the supposed ecological ills of “over-population.” According to the report, entitled Greenwash: Nativists, Environmentalism & the Hypocrisy of Hate, the two-faced nature of these efforts is “astounding” given the dismal environmental records of the organizations and political candidates to whom nativist groups tend to contribute funds. Moreover, this “green-washing” of the nativist agenda also amounts to a white-washing of the anti-immigrant movement’s white-nationalist roots.

As the SPLC report describes:

In the last few years, right-wing groups have paid to run expensive advertisements in liberal publications that explicitly call on environmentalists and other ‘progressives’ to join their anti-immigration cause. They’ve created an organization called Progressives for Immigration Reform that purports to represent liberals who believe immigration must be radically curtailed in order to preserve the American environment. They’ve constructed websites accusing immigrants of being responsible for urban sprawl, traffic congestion, overconsumption and a host of other environmental evils.

Yet these sorts of arguments, the SPLC report notes, “have in the last 15 years been
rejected by the mainstream of the environmental movement as far too simplistic … most conservationists have come to believe that many of the world’s most intractable environmental problems, including global warming, can only be solved by dealing with them on a worldwide, not a nation-by-nation, basis.” Furthermore, the anti-immigrant groups engaged in the green-washing of their ideologies belong to the national network created by John Tanton, who has long been “far more concerned with the impact of Latino and other non-white immigration on a ‘European-American’ culture than on conservation.”

The SPLC report echoes the findings of another recent report from the Center for New Community (CNC), which explores “how anti-immigrant forces have corrupted the dialogue on population and the environment.” In that report, Apply the Brakes: A Report on Anti-immigrant Co-optation and the Environmental Movement, CNC points out that “anti-immigrant activists belonging to the neo-Malthusian tradition claim that populations are constrained by the carrying capacity of the environment, and that population growth causes environmental degradation.” Within this narrow and inaccurate worldview, “people become pollutants, with all the racial overtones of such a social construction.”

Both the SPLC and CNC reports lay bear the ugly historical roots and flawed intellectual underpinnings of these faux environmentalists. The environmental rhetoric being spouted by anti-immigrant activists is nothing more than window dressing designed to lend a green tinge to an anti-immigrant ideology. As the SPLC report points out, “the greenwashers are wolves in sheep’s clothing, right-wing nativists who are doing their best to seduce the mainstream environmental movement in a bid for legitimacy and more followers.” This is a siren’s call that serious environmentalists should resist.

Photo by mugley.

UPDATE: Utah Attorney General Condemns Immigration Knock List

0

Utah officials and community leaders reacted swiftly and with revulsion to the announcement this week that confidential state records had been breached to compile a list of more than 1,300 supposedly undocumented people living in Utah, including pregnant women and children. At a press conference this afternoon, State Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff condemned the list, noting that “some call it a blacklist, but I call it a hit list.” Speaking for himself and on behalf of the governor of Utah, Gary R. Herbert Shurtleff made it clear that the release of confidential information was “not the way we do things in Utah” or in this country. He noted that the state government of Utah is trying to speak with one voice to condemn the release of information, will not be using the list to initiate actions against anyone on it, and roundly criticized those who would use lists, hate mongering and political rhetoric to stir up racism in Utah. Instead, he called on the federal government to continue to work for a truly comprehensive solution to immigration reform. He noted that the governor has called a meeting next week to produce Utah’s recommendations for immigration reform that will help to keep Utah from going down the road of S.B. 1070. Schurtleff is also awaiting results of an internal investigation before determining how many laws at the federal and state level may have been broken and who is subject to prosecution.

Other speakers included Paul Mero, head of the conservative think tank, the Sutherland Institute, who also condemned the list, calling it “reprehensible.” He noted that the “good people of Utah won’t stand for this” and predicted that the list itself may backfire, given the controversy it has created, and serve as a tipping point for a more rational discussion on immigration reform. Mero also noted that he believed support for comprehensive immigration reform represented a tenet of an “authentic conservative position” as fixing the immigration system went directly to what kind of people we are and what kind of world we want to live in.

  • Email Updates

    Contact us with your name and your interest in getting involved and we'll add you to our email updates list!
  • Post Archives

  • Categories

Go to Top