SPLC Uses Their Hate Map to Advance a Political Agenda

One example of the SPLC’s tactics is its “Interactive Hate Map.” The SPLC Hate Map is a scam designed to portray political organizations that disagree with the SPLC in a negative light. Pitched as an easy-to-use list of hate groups, it’s really just a mash-up of organizations that hold political views opposed to those pushed by the SPLC. There are a few genuine hate groups tossed in – most of them neo-Nazi organizations. But the presence of a small number of actual hate groups merely seems calculated to lead map users to the conclusion that mainstream political opponents of the SPLC are guilty by association.

Designed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and published on SPLCenter.org, the “Hate Map” only contains information that the SPLC wants you to see. Anything that might accurately portray a group of which the SPLC disapproves is deliberately left out. While the map may have once had noble intentions, it now has a sinister dark side. Overall, the “Hate Map” actually contains very little accurate, useful information.

For example, groups like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform(FAIR) work responsibly – and more importantly, totally transparently – on issues connected with immigration policy, national security, and the economy. These organizations exist to inform the public about the potential negative effects of uncontrolled mass migration. Americans want good information on controversial issues, so they can make responsible decisions when voting and communicating with their political leaders. That’s how political debate in the United States works. However, the SPLC doesn’t agree with the political positions that CIS, CAPS, FAIR, and other organizations focused on political issues believe in, so it intentionally misleads the public in order to squelch open debate. It’s much easier to slander your opponents with emotionally-charged slurs than it is to engage them in logical arguments about questionable policies.