Hate group

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization." Scholars find it difficult to define the term hate group and "whether a particular group is to be classified as a hate group is sometimes in the eye of the beholder." Typically, the term "hate group" is only applied to right-wing and far-right organizations, particularly pro-white groups, by politically correct sources.

In the US, two private organizations that monitor intolerance and hate groups are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). They maintain lists of what they deem to be hate groups, supremacist groups and anti-Semitic, anti-government or extremist groups that have committed hate crimes. The SPLC's definition of a "hate group" includes any group with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people - particularly when the characteristics being maligned are immutable. However, at least for the SPLC, inclusion of a group in the list "does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." According to the SPLC, from 2000 to 2008, hate group activity saw a 50 percent increase in the US, with a total of 926 active groups.

The FBI does not publish a list of hate groups, and "[I]nvestigations are conducted only when a threat or advocacy of force is made; when the group has the apparent ability to carry out the proclaimed act; and when the act would constitute a potential violation of federal law." The organization maintains statistics on hate crimes.

Violence and hate crimes

Further information: Hate crime

Four categories associated with hate groups' propensity for violence are: organizational capacity, organizational constituency, strategic connectivity, and structural arrangement. The larger an extremist group is and the longer it has existed, the more prone the group is to engage in violence. Regionally, hate groups based in the West and Northeast are more likely to engage in violence than those based in the South. If a group has a charismatic leader, it is more likely to be violent. Groups that share a conflict-based relationship with another group are more likely to engage in extreme violence. The amount of ideological literature a group publishes is linked to significant decreases in a group's violent behavior, with more literature linked to lower levels of violence.

Violent hate groups tend to commit "downward crimes," which involve the persecution of a minority group by a more powerful majority. By contrast, acts of terrorism are typically "upward crimes," with a low-power minority perpetrator targeting a more prominent majority group. There is no evidence suggesting that hate crimes precede terrorism; in fact, hate crimes tend to take place as retaliation following terrorist attacks, especially when the attack was on a core piece of American identity or ideology.

The California Association for Human Relations Organizations (CAHRO) asserts that hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and White Aryan Resistance (WAR) preach violence against racial, religious, sexual and other minorities in the United States. Joseph E. Agne argues that hate-motivated violence is a result of the successes of the civil rights movement, and he asserts that the KKK has resurfaced and that new hate groups have formed. Agne argues that it is a mistake to underestimate the strength of the hate-violence movement, its apologists and its silent partners.

In the US, crimes that "manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including the crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery; aggravated assault; burglary; larceny-theft; motor vehicle theft; arson; simple assault; intimidation; and destruction, damage or vandalism of property", directed at the government, an individual, a business, or institution, involving hate groups and hate crimes, may be investigated as acts of domestic terrorism.

Hate speech

Further information: Hate speech

Counter-terrorism expert Ehud Sprinzak argues that verbal violence is "the use of extreme language against an individual or a group that either implies a direct threat that physical force will be used against them, or is seen as an indirect call for others to use it." Sprinzak argues that verbal violence is often a substitute for real violence, and that the verbalization of hate has the potential to incite people who are incapable of distinguishing between real and verbal violence to engage in actual violence.

People tend to judge the offensiveness of hate speech on a gradient depending on how public the speech is and what group it targets. Although people's opinions of hate speech are complex, they typically consider public speech targeting ethnic minorities to be the most offensive.

Historian Daniel Goldhagen, discussing antisemitic hate groups, argues that we should view verbal violence as "an assault in its own right, having been intended to produce profound damage—emotional, psychological, and social—to the dignity and honor of the Jews. The wounds that people suffer by ... such vituperation ... can be as bad as ... [a] beating."

In the mid-1990s, the popularity of the Internet brought new international exposure to many organizations, including groups with beliefs such as white supremacy, neo-Nazism, homophobia, Holocaust denial and Islamophobia. Several white supremacist groups have founded websites dedicated to attacking their perceived enemies. In 1996, the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles asked Internet access providers to adopt a code of ethics that would prevent extremists from publishing their ideas online. In 1996, the European Commission formed the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia (CRAX), a pan-European group which was tasked to "investigate and, using legal means, stamp out the current wave of racism on the Internet."

Religious hate groups

See also: List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has designated several Christian groups as hate groups, including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, Abiding Truth Ministries, American Vision, the Chalcedon Foundation, the Dove World Outreach Center, the Traditional Values Coalition and Westboro Baptist Church. Some conservatives have criticized the SPLC for its inclusion of certain Christian groups, such as the Family Research Council, on its list.

The SPLC classes the Nation of Islam (NOI) as a hate group under the category "black separatist". The NOI, which is unique in the sense that it is one of the few pro-black organizations labelled as a hate group by sources such as the SPLC and ADL, preaches that a black scientist named Yakub created the white race, a "race of devils", on the Greek island of Patmos. The NOI, unlike traditional Muslim groups, does not accept white members and it is not regarded as a legitimate branch of Islam by mainstream Muslims.

The white supremacist Creativity Movement (formerly the World Church of the Creator), led by Matthew F. Hale, is associated with violence and bigotry. Aryan Nations is another religiously-based white supremacist hate group.

Westboro Baptist Church is considered a hate group because of its provocative stance against homosexuality and the United States, and it has been condemned by many mainstream gay rights opponents as well as by gay rights supporters.

Internet hate groups

Traditionally, hate groups recruited members and spread extremist messages by word of mouth, or through the distribution of flyers and pamphlets. In contrast, the Internet allows hate group members from all over the world to engage in real-time conversations. The Internet has been a boon for hate groups in terms of promotion, recruitment and expanding their base to include younger audiences. An Internet hate group does not have to be part of a traditional faction such as the Ku Klux Klan.

While many hate sites are explicitly antagonistic or violent, others may appear patriotic or benign, and this façade may contribute to the appeal of the group. Hate group websites work towards the following goals: to educate group members and the public, to encourage participation, to claim a divine calling and privilege, and to accuse out-groups (e.g. the government or media). Groups that work effectively towards these goals via an online presence tend to strengthen their sense of identity, decrease threat levels from out-groups, and recruit more new members.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC), in its 2009 iReport, identified more than 10,000 problematic hate and terrorist websites and other Internet postings. The report includes hate websites, social networks, blogs, newsgroups, YouTube and other video sites. The findings illustrate that as the Internet continues to grow, extremists find new ways to seek validation for their hateful agendas and to recruit members.

Creators of hate pages and groups on Facebook choose their target, set up their page or group, and then recruit members. Anyone can create a Facebook group and invite followers to post comments, add pictures and participate in discussion boards. A Facebook page is similar, with the exception that one must "like" the page in order to become a member. Because of the ease of creating and joining such groups, many so-called hate groups exist only in cyberspace. United Patriots Front, an internet-based Australian far-right anti-immigration and neo-nazi organisation formed in 2015 has been described as a hate group.

Psychology of hate groups

Hateful intergroup conflict may be motivated by "in-group love," a desire to positively contribute to the group to which one belongs, or "out-group hate," a desire to injure a foreign group. Both individuals and groups are more motivated by "in-group love" than "out-group hate," even though both motivations might advance a group's status. This preference is especially salient when a group is not situated in a competitive position against another. This partiality towards cooperative behavior suggests that intergroup conflict might decline if group members devoted more energy to positive in-group improvements than to out-group competition. Groups formed around a set of moral codes are more likely than non-morality-based groups to exhibit "out-group hate" as a response to their especially strong sense of "in-group love."

Intergroup threat occurs when one group's interests threaten another group's goals and well-being. Intergroup threat theories provide a framework for intergroup biases and aggression.

One type of intergroup threat theory, realistic group conflict theory, addresses competition between groups by positing that when two groups are competing for limited resources, one group's potential success is at odds with the other's interests, which leads to negative out-group attitudes. If groups have the same goal, their interactions will be positive, but opposing goals will worsen intergroup relations. Intergroup conflict may increase in-group unity, leading to a larger disparity and more conflict between groups.

Symbolic threat theory proposes that intergroup bias and conflict result from conflicting ideals, not from perceived competition or opposing goals. Biases based on symbolic threat tend to be stronger predictors of practical behavior towards out-groups than biases based on realistic threat.

Realistic group conflict theory and symbolic threat theory are, in some cases, compatible. Integrated-threat theory recognizes that conflict can arise from a combination of intergroup dynamics and classifies threats into four types: realistic threat, symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. Intergroup threat theories provide a framework for intergroup biases and aggression. Intergroup anxiety refers to a felt uneasiness around members of other groups, which is predictive of biased attitudes and behaviors. Negative stereotypes are also correlated with these behaviors, causing threat based on negative expectations about an out-group.

According to the 7-stage hate model, a hate group, if unimpeded, passes through seven successive stages. In the first four stages, hate groups vocalize their beliefs and in the last three stages, they act on their beliefs. Factors that contribute to a group's likelihood to act include the vulnerability of its members as well as its reliance on symbols and mythologies. This model points to a transition period that exists between verbal violence and acting out that violence, separating hardcore haters from rhetorical haters. Thus, hate speech is seen as a prerequisite of hate crimes, and as a condition of their possibility.

Hate group intervention is most possible if a group has not yet passed from the speech to the action stage, and interventions on immature hate groups are more effective than those that are firmly established. Intervention and rehabilitation is most effective when the one investigating a hate group can identify and deconstruct personal insecurities of group members, which in turn contribute to the weakness of the group. Perhaps most critical to combating group hate is to prevent the recruitment of new members by supporting those who are most susceptible, especially children and youth, in developing a positive self-esteem and a humanized understanding of out-groups.

Criticism of the hate group concept

The hate group concept has come under fire in recent years from academics and intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum, but especially the political right. Like hate speech, hate group is a concept not traditionally recognized by American courts and the American legal system. Nevertheless, outside of the American legal context, the concept is widely accepted and employed.

Many critics of the term argue that the demographic divisions (racial groups, whole religions) the term attempts to insulate from group criticism are arbitrarily or ideologically selected. For example, why aren’t lesser political groups (atheist organizations, for example) or smaller religious denominations (scientologists, for example) equally protected by the label and the stigma surrounding it? In other words, instead of protecting the powerless, the term seems to insulate from criticism those populations with the most political power and capital of all. After all, any number of randomly selected demographic categories could be deemed above group criticism or political opposition, yet few are. Why do certain groups seem to be so much more worthy of the term's protections? In sum, the term appears to place arbitrary or ideology-laden restrictions on speech and activism, in defiance of the liberal democratic tradition, which asserts that all ideologies, movements, groups, and religions are fair game for philosophical critique and peaceful opposition.

Other critics of the term argue that the label is not only arbitrary, but selectively applied. Some well-known champions of the term are even on record admitting as such. Mark Potok, former senior fellow at the SPLC, the organization that basically invented the term “hate group”, conceded this years ago. In a 2009 interview, he stated that the “hate group” label is not uniformly applied, because the SPLC is by no means apolitical, but is instead a fundamentally leftist organization that does battle with radical groups on the political right in an effort to “destroy them” (his words), and that it is sometimes very much guilty of focusing on the political right, while roundly ignoring bad actors on the political left which engage in the self-same tactics and employ the self-same incendiary language as supposed “hate groups”. Some believe this political bias is driven partly by perverse economic incentives, that the SPLC chooses to focus its ire and its activism on right-wing groups and activities because that is how it appeals to its donor base and funds its massive war chest, which totaled upwards of half a billion dollars in 2018. Nevertheless, many believe that an anti-right bias is not something unique to the SPLC’s hate monitoring and classification system, but instead something that inheres in the term itself, which is to say the very concept of “hate group” is rooted in, steeped in, and defined by the ideals of the political left, and is thus partisan by nature and design.

Other critics of the term argue that virtually any political organization could potentially meet the standard definition of the term, given its breadth. For example, a cadre of left-leaning academics that regularly publishes papers criticizing “white privilege” or “white fragility”, could easily be understood to be expressing hatred toward, exhibiting animus toward, or even dehumanizing whites, as a race. Likewise, a feminist activist organization which regularly criticizes the putative prevailing culture of the male sex or the toxicity of masculinity, might also be said to be a “hate group”, according to the accepted definition of the term, given its willingness to insult an entire sex. Occupy Wall Street might also have been labeled a “hate group” on account of its open disdain for financial executives and oligarchs, who its members so endearingly labeled “banksters”. Unsurprisingly, however, Occupy Wall Street was never labeled a “hate group” by the pundit class or society at large, and none of the hypothetical groups would be labeled as such, because groups like these, that is those with the “right” values, residing on the "correct" side of the political spectrum, are rarely, if ever, described this way by the press or the powers that be.

There is therefore concern in many circles that the label is being surreptitiously employed as an illiberal and antidemocratic backdoor contrivance by various powerful entities in the West to sideline political viewpoints and movements which powerful oligarchs and interest groups do not approve of. A wide array of rightist commentators have pointed out that those organizations which share the leftist views and values of the United States Federal Government and its corporate accessories, especially on hot button issues like race, sex, and sexual orientation, are essentially completely insulated from the pejorative appellation, “hate group”.

We find a curious analogue to this structural bias for “hate group” designations in the “terror” designation process by the United States Department of State. For example, “state sponsors of terrorism” are almost invariably nations which stand in the way of United States geopolitical dominance, or which have poor diplomatic or economic relations with the United States Federal Government. After all, a vast amount of terrorism is committed by the United States Federal Government and her allies. Moreover, a vast amount of resources and weapons which find their way into the hands of terrorist groups worldwide originate in the United States and nations allied with the United States, and are built by weapons manufacturers intimately connected to the United States Federal Government and the governments of its allies. Alas, however, those allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) are basically never deemed state sponsors of terror, and the press never accuses entities deep in our own government of sponsoring terror either. Thus, being an actual state sponsor of terror seems to be an insufficient condition to land a nation on the Department of State’s list. It seems that a nation must also have the wrong politics, values, leaders, or foreign policy to earn such a designation. Similarly, only those domestic political groups which possess the “wrong” values, worldviews, or politics seem to be worthy of the "hate group" label, despite the fact that many other political groups, if not most political groups, could be fairly or accurately described as such. In some cases, as with Syria and Iran today, and Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, a strong argument could be made that being an actual sponsor of terror is not even necessary to land one on the "state sponsor of terror" list, and that the process is wholly political/geopolitical in character, having nothing whatsoever to do with the actual policies of such governments regarding terrorism. Ergo, the process of designating nations state sponsors of terror, is, in fact, subordinated entirely to the political aims and interests of the United States power structure, and is thus perfectly divorced from anything resembling reality. Likewise, a cynic might argue that the very purpose of the “hate group” label is to delegitimize perfectly legitimate dissident political organizations in the eyes of ordinary people, thus rendering “hate groups” not so much a major source of state-sponsored repression, as many in the United States power structure are fond of alleging, but instead a major target of state-sponsored and quasi-state-sponsored (read: corporate and NGO) repression.

Other problems exist with the standard definition as well. How much organization is required for a a group of people to constitute a “group” in the first place? Are largely disorganized, right-wing dissident networks on the internet (men’s rights activists, for example) “hate groups”, or even “groups” at all, in any meaningful sense? Moreover, at what point does a comedy troupe that mocks and degrades conservatives, christians, or “podunk” middle Americans constitute a “hate group”? What if its members don’t really even consider the troupe a political organization? Furthermore, at what point do persistent attacks on a nation or an ethnic group constitute “hate”? At what point does a baseless conspiracy theory about Russian meddling in a United States presidential election constitute bigoted, anti-Russian hysteria or anti-Russian “hate speech”? Indeed, in the run-up to armed conflict, governments the world over almost always spearhead massive propaganda campaigns against the enemy (Jihadists in the War on Terror, Germans in World War 1). Is it proper to understand all war propaganda efforts then as state-orchestrated "campaigns of hate"?

Furthermore, how does one measure the amount of “hate” within a group or within the hearts of its members? How much vitriol must be spewed by a person for his/her speech to be “hate speech”? How much coarse or degrading language must a group employ for it to be a “hate group”? How much extralegal violence must a group engage in to earn the title? What if a group has never engaged in or so much as advocated for extralegal violence of any sort, like Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance? Taylor’s principled unwillingness to endorse extralegal violence, no matter the circumstances, did not spare American Renaissance from being placed on the SPLC’s 2014 list of “active hate groups”.

A lack of any clear or quantifiable criteria for classifying groups as “hate groups” makes the concept particularly problematic. When a concept is sufficiently amorphous it can be slapped on most anyone with ease. Moreover, once such a label has been attached to you or your organization by someone with apparent expertise or authority, such a designation can be hard to shed, as claims of vague, highly inexact content are virtually impossible to prove or refute. Indeed, this is one of the hallmarks of political concepts, as distinguished from intellectual ones. Such concepts are fuzzy by design, because if they weren’t, they would have very little use to the powerful. They can only exist as concepts insofar as they avoid all intellectual rigor and scrutiny. The “flexibility” in their definitions is precisely what makes them so useful as instruments of power. Though everybody is actually guilty, the only people charged are whoever those with authority choose to charge, and since nobody is innocent, nobody can prove themselves innocent, and since nobody can prove themselves innocent, every charge is equivalent to a conviction. Political concepts can not survive real scrutiny because they are generally ill-defined and logically inconsistent. Nevertheless, they do not need to be consistent, nor do they need to be well-defined, to survive as political concepts. The natural soil of political concepts is power, not truth.

The stakes are that much higher and the risks that much greater when highly political organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL are coaching and working alongside powerful law enforcement entities. Law enforcement is not supposed to be politically or ideologically driven. Membership in a “hate group” could form the basis for “hate crime” prosecutions by local authorities, or for the targeting of “hate” organizations for state surveillance. This problematic label, combined with a lack of any sympathy for such groups among the general public, create the risk that members of such groups could be targeted by local police, prosecuted selectively and unfairly by district attorneys, punished excessively by judges or magistrates, or otherwise crushed by the state on account of their political beliefs, with no repercussions for those doing the oppressing, bringing to mind totalitarian states of yore, where “enemies of the state” (also usually political dissidents) were targeted by state and quasi-state actors for persecution, imprisonment, or worse. Some believe a number of Western nations are already very much there, but many who don’t are still understandably concerned that terms like “hate speech” and “hate group” are stepping stones to such a place. Given the European Union’s willingness to use state power to crush political dissent of a supposedly hateful nature, and Michigan Attorney General, Dana Nessel’s call to create a stasi-esque “hate and bias” database to carefully catalog instances of supposed “hate” within Michigan, even if those instances don’t constitute actual crimes, there is ample reason to be gravely concerned.

Moreover, these are only the threats emanating from the state itself. As Big Tech censorship, well-funded left-wing boycotting campaigns, and willfully discriminatory corporate policies have shown, the “hate group” and “hate speech” labels are used on a fairly large scale in the private sphere as well, as a pretext to marginalize, silence, disemploy, blacklist, and even deny essential services to those with the "wrong" ideas or associations. What's more, violent left-wing paramilitary organizations like Antifa and By Any Means Necessary have shown themselves quite willing to use these labels as justifications to engage in mob violence against innocent civilians, in many cases specifically to deny them the free exercise of their essential rights and liberties. As such, the threats to ordinary Westerners arising from these labels are by no means confined to state action.

Various social critics have also criticized the usefulness of the label. Some contend it amounts to little more than a slur or an ad hominem attack (informal fallacy). In a similar vein, many insist that if one disagrees with another’s speech or another’s politics, there is no reason whatsoever to use a demeaning, tendentious label such as “hate speech” or “hate group” to describe such speech or such a group. The liberal tradition prescribes civilly stating one’s reasoned disagreement with such speech or such politics, not slapping some silly propaganda label on ideas or parties, so that one doesn’t have to actually grapple with what is being claimed or represented. Amalric de Droevig, over at American Thinker, contends that both labels are used not to encourage debate or understanding, but as an underhanded attempt to arrest all dialogue, debate, and inquiry. As such, both terms are both implicitly authoritarian and fundamentally illiberal, in that they are meant to advance a political agenda rather than describe the world as it really is. Given that these concepts are often used to delegitimize dissident groups, and lay the foundation for persecuting, prosecuting, and materially harming people on account of mere speech and association, both essential human rights, some also therefore view the concepts as fundamentally totalitarian in nature or effect. Others view the ideological foundations of these concepts, and especially the way such concepts manifest themselves in real-world sociopolitical contexts, as fundamentally Marxist or Cultural Marxist in character. One’s license to use crass and harsh language against out-group members seems to reflect the prevailing views on the modern left regarding “oppressor” and “oppressed” classes/groups almost perfectly. The more allegedly powerful and oppressive is the group you speak for, the more worthy are you of censorship, contempt, and maltreatment by those with power. What's more, the dynamics of the situation seem inherently paradoxical. Why are all of these supposedly powerful groups in fact unable to defend themselves or advance their interests through peaceful advocacy?

Many proponents of “hate speech” restrictions and the forceful disbanding of supposed “hate groups” have also been known to contend that “hate speech” causes intergroup violence, genocide, and other like atrocities. Nevertheless, there is simply no evidence for this in the scientific literature. Not only is a society’s toleration of radical political speech and expression, including but not limited to “hate speech”, essential for the proper functioning of democracy, the liberty to express oneself openly in a society is also strongly negatively correlated with the adverse outcomes aforementioned (genocide, interethnic and interreligious strife, etc.). The most oppressive regimes on Earth (Saudi Arabia, North Korea) are certainly not known for their enthusiastic support for freedom of expression after all.

Research by Jacob Mchangama and Rasmus Andersen finds that only in the most closed and repressed societies, does loosening up speech restrictions lead to a slight uptick in intergroup violence, civil discord and unrest. In the vast majority of cases, reducing speech restrictions and minimizing censorship reduces interethnic and interreligious violence, social unrest, and like adverse outcomes. What’s more, there is absolutely no reason to believe that restricting freedom of expression fosters tolerance or social cohesion. A 2017 study out of the European Journal of Political Research finds that countermeasures like “hate speech” restrictions, which are intended to constrain radical right politics, paradoxically appear to actually fuel right-wing extremist violence. Not only do such laws not achieve their stated goals, they actually exacerbate existing intergroup tensions, deepen perceived grievances, and further polarize societies. Israeli scholar Amichai Magen has argued that one of the reasons for this is that political freedom, especially freedom of speech, allows grievances to be voiced before they boil over and turn violent. Gordan Danning, author at Qullette, argues that although “hate speech” by powerful officials or elites, may, in rare cases, facilitate the carrying out of major atrocities, in that it can incite violence and aid coordination efforts by brutally repressive regimes, this threat does not extend downward. When speech reaches the coordination phase amongst lesser, non-state entities, it is not mere "hate speech" at that point, but a criminal or terrorist conspiracy, and as such, is better addressed by counter-terror operations rather than content-based speech restrictions. Danning states that there is no evidence to suggest that permitting “hate speech” by ordinary persons in ordinary contexts, has any effect whatsoever on violence of this nature. For that reason, placing hate speech restrictions on everyday speakers and internet users is horribly misguided. What such labels really do is help create excuses for governments and other powerful entities to use allegations of “hate speech” to silence any ideas they dislike, or which might pose a threat to their rule.

Those who cite the Nazi era as proof that freedom of speech is a particularly dangerous right for a society to protect, especially on account of Adolf Hitler’s uncanny ability to rile the masses via passionate oratory, are ignoring the fact that the Weimar Republic had many “hate speech laws” of its own, and that those laws were enforced regularly and aggressively against Nazi members and officials. Not only did those laws not stop the Nazis, they arguably aided them, by enabling the Nazis to successfully portray themselves as victims of hostile, left-wing, anti-ethnic-German elites. Thus, those laws and the public prosecutions arising from them, arguably deepened the divisions in German society, enraged a sizable number of ordinary Germans, provided free publicity to Nazi leaders, and made a severe right-wing backlash all the more likely.

Organizations not labelled as hate groups by politically correct sources

• Islamist organizations that support implementing sharia, despite this often including support for discrimination and/or violence against non-Muslims, Muslims with perceived wrong beliefs, women, and homosexuals.
• Communist organizations that promote class hatred, violent Communist revolutions, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and/or praising Communist mass murderers.
• Social anarchist organizations that use violence and other crimes against opponents (ie, Antifa).
• Non-white, pro-terrorist or terrorist organizations that promote or commit violence.
• Anti-white hip hop groups.
• Pro-abortion groups that commit violence against opponents of abortion, though, when the opposite occurs, the opponents will usually be labelled as "hate groups".
• Radical feminist groups that commit violence against or promote hatred towards men.

See also

• Anti-Defamation League
• List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups

Further reading

• Denning, Dorothy E., and Peter J. Denning. Internet Besieged: Countering Cyberspace Scofflaws. New York: ACM Press (1998)
• Jessup, Michael The Sword of Truth in the Sea of Lies: The Theology of Hate, Google Print, p.165-p.166, in Robert J. Priest, Alvaro L. Nieves (ed.), This Side of Heaven, Oxford University Press US, 2006, ISBN 0-19-531056-X
• J. Wayne Dudley, '"Hate" Organizations of the 1940s: The Columbians, Inc.', Phylon, Vol. 42, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1981), pp. 262–274 (JSTOR)

External links

• Hate Groups at DMOZ
• Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online, Internet Bigotry, Extremism and Violence - The Anti-defamation League
• Hatewatch
• Online Hate - The Media Awareness Network
• Deconstructing Hate Sites
• Survivor bashing - bias motivated hate crimes
• Hate Communities in Cyber Space; Manjeet Chaturvedi,Ishan, Ishita
• "When Hate went Online" at the Wayback Machine (archived September 27, 2007)
• Active U.S. Hate Groups - a map at The Southern Poverty Law Center