SPLC aggressively agitating against FRC, despite 2013 terrorist attack

Editor’s Note: Logan Crow explains the sudden increase in the SPLC’s web traffic..

For years and years, the media has continuously given the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] website free publicity online. Despite this, the SPLC always had a relatively poor Alexa score. Alexa is the leading research firm that estimates web traffic. Then one day the SPLC’s Alexa score took off like a rocket for no apparent reason. The primary cause of this increase appears to be that the SPLC is buying traffic.

Alexa says that the SPLC has sponsored over 2,200 keywords or phrases on major search engines in the past six months. This means they pay money to have a link for their website given priority when a web surfer types a certain word or phrase. This is a very expensive way to get traffic. The SPLC, with their $45+ million budget, could easily be spending millions on sponsored keywords.

Now get this. Alexa says “Family Research Council” is the fifth most active keyword/phrase they are sponsoring. Yes THAT Family Research Council [FRC]. The one that Floyd Corkins went to with a gun and attempted to murder everyone. Corkins is on video saying he decided to attack the headquarters of the FRC after reading the SPLC’s outrageous and inflammatory diatribe about the group online. Corkins shot and wounded the security guard, but the victim heroically subdued the shooter before he could do any more damage. Corkins became the first person charged with Washington DC’s new anti-terrorism law and was dubbed “The DC Terrorist.”

The SPLC immediately declared that they shared no responsibility for Corkins and continued to attack the FRC. However, the SPLC has recently declared that Donald Trump is personally to blame for alleged hate crimes. When asked if she believed Trump literally causes hate crimes, SPLC spokesman Heidi Beirich declared “I do not think there’s any question that Trump is the cause.”

By sponsoring the phrase “Family Research Council” on Google, the SPLC is going way beyond just washing their hands of the terrorist attack. It is downright shameless and creepy. This is like Al Sharpton’s National Action Network sponsoring the phrase “Freddies Fashion Mart” on Google even though Sharpton’s protest led to a follower burning the place down, and killing seven people.

Note in the screen shot below. A paid placement link to the SPLC website comes up above the link for the actual FRC website.

According to Alexa, these are the most active paid keywords being used by the SPLC. “Family Research Council” is the fifth most active keyword that the SPLC is “buying clicks” with. However, Alexa says they have also sponsored a half dozen variations, such as “Family Research Council video on transgender.” Alexa says the SPLC has even sponsored the phrase “family values organizations.”

Recently, a mob viciously attacked a speaking engagement by Charles Murray at Middlebury College. A female professor suffered a neck injury. According to Inside Higher Education, the mob explicitly cited SPLC rhetoric to justify their criminal violence.

The SPLC had labeled Charles Murray, a world famous author and academic, as a “white nationalist.” Brit Hume publicly slammed the SPLC over this label and The Washington Post for repeating it.

Hunter Wallace
the authorHunter Wallace
Hunter Wallace is the founder and editor of


  • The $PLC is rapidly losing credibility in the eyes of all but the leftist fringe (which includes the MSM). The real blow seemed to come when they labeled Maajid Nawaz, a leftist Moslem anti-nationalist, a ‘hate figure’. Nawaz is in most every way your typical postmodern leftist, who opposes nationalism, except he speaks out against Islamic extremism. They constantly warn about the threat of ‘right-wing terrorism’ and try to shut nationalists down with the reasoning that nationalist rhetoric leads to terrorism, yet ignore that their own rhetoric has caused terrorism and shamelessly put milquetoast critics of Islam terrorism on their hatelists. Buying web traffic is a desperate rearguard maneuver to try and get the public to listen to them.

  • This is why Facebook and twitter love the social justice economy.
    It has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with profit seeking.

  • The SPLC also considers pickup artists like RooshV to be a hate group as well. They’re a fucking joke. Wanting to pump and dump sluts is now a hate crime apparently.

  • SPLC has held a number of contracts with various US Government agencies for “training” and so forth. President Trump could take numerous steps to prevent them from getting any more.

    Eliminating “special interest” influence over the USG has been a stated priority of President Trump and he’s yet another opportunity to lead by example in eliminating the pernicious influence of the SPLC.

  • On many sites and many, many different times in the past I’ve explained in small detail how the SPLC is violating their tax-exempt status. This one was only a month ago:

    I could be lazy, misinformed and stupid. It all depends on the day of the week and time of day.

    But I also happen to be good with words and stuff.

    501(c)(3) rules are extremely specific about absolutely prohibiting political campaign interventions. The “intervention” portion is essentially saying that tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from directly or indirectly influencing elections that show an obvious bias between the different political campaigns. They give little wiggle room, and make it very, very specific when they say that activities may only be “conducted in a non-partisan manner.”

    Hell, the IRS even goes on to spell it out for you in fairly simple terms, Kevin:

    On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

    I don’t think there are many people in existence that would claim the SPLC is a non-biased, non-partisan entity. And guess what, Kevin. The SPLC even admits to this when it states that it “monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right.” Not just radicals or even the radical Left which is unquestionably more numerous and violent, but specifically the so-called radical right. Often times, you don’t even have to be “radical” at all for the SPLC to slander and libel you, you only have to be somewhere on the Right. That’s the exact opposite of being non-partisan.

    And we’re just talking about political campaigns. There’s also the issue of the SPLC disseminating information and propaganda to federal and local law enforcement agencies and trying to influence legislation. Again, this is strictly prohibited in any capacity, directly or indirectly, except in circumstances where it can be said that sources, material and motivations were the culmination and result of a non-partisan agenda.

    I’ve posted this kind of stuff for years. I’ve sent messages and other correspondence to several different Republican politicians over the years. Nobody does a damn thing about it, because you can rest assured that most of our crooked politicians are culpable in some capacity of the same types of activities.

    Think about a situation where a David Duke or Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer or even Hunter Wallace is found by the media and various politicians to be contributing modestly-sized donations to a specific political campaign. Even though the $$$ is a personal contribution and amounts to just a drop in a bucket, how quickly do people find the closest podium or camera to relay their disgust and contempt for “racists” attempting to subvert and influence the political landscape for their own benefit? Democrats, Republicans and even Libertarians alike will all go through their own little scripted absolution process of Deny-Attack-Renounce & Repudiate.

    Now think about a highly organized entity that has been publicly doing this kind of political subversion for decades, spending millions and millions of dollars to attack anything and everyone on the Right, all while hiding behind a tax-exempt status. They pretty much flaunt their bias and subversion and dare anyone to do something about it. A rational man or woman would see this and think that a Republican President or Congress would have done something about that a long time ago. But that rational man or woman would be dead wrong.

    Enter a little Socratic questioning: If the target is so large and such a detriment to Republicans and non-Marxists, why do so few Republicans hit the target or even attempt to hit the target? It seems to be the case that these Republicans see it as benefitting them more by not attacking the SPLC than by waging war against the SPLC. Why is that?

Leave a Reply