It's Just Business

The extreme left wing understands capitalism. To the SPLC, white supremacy became a product with a demand, so they built factories to create it and a supply chain to get it to a willing market.

For me, the SPLC revelations are simultaneously damning and completely unsurprising. I’ve been researching and writing about why people persist in believing things that simply aren’t true for a long time. It’s not just the SPLC, it’s most high-profile left-wing organizations that incorporate propaganda as one of their chief outputs. I became acutely aware of increasing SPLC discoveries of “racism” and “homophobia” during the G.W. Bush administration as need for a class wedge evolved. If you or your group was conservative, Christian, or even just leaned libertarian, you made their list.

The increases in the named groups that are enemies of the Democrat Party and the corresponding increases in funding as the names on their list increased is not coincidental. It is actually a business model.

Let’s not forget that model requires two things, the cynical bastards who to create the lies (that not even they believe) and push them into the popular mind, and the willing dupes who, with religious-like fervor, will believe anything regardless of how improbable or impossible it is, simply due to who or what the lie is aimed.

If you think there is a persistent tendency in American political discourse to treat ideology as a set of ideas to be tested against reality, you don’t get to pass Go or collect $200. That assumption breaks down when what you are actually dealing with is not ideology alone, but something closer to theology, an all-encompassing belief system that orders the world not by evidence, but by moral narrative.

Much of the contemporary American left operates in precisely that space, where politics is not merely about outcomes or policies, but about affirming a worldview rooted in opposition.

Every functioning system needs critique, skepticism, and competing priorities. What we are seeing instead is something more reflexive and less tethered to results, it is opposition as identity. If a policy, institution, or outcome can be associated with the “wrong” side of the moral ledger, be it capitalism, tradition, nationalism, or meritocracy, then it must be resisted, regardless of whether it is objectively working within the boundaries within which it was designed to operate.

This is where the theology enters from stage left. This is not about God or a god, but it exists in a very similar religious framework. In a traditional framework, outcomes are often secondary to adherence. The true believer does not measure truth by immediate results, but by fidelity to doctrine and the strength of beliefs remain even when the desired outcomes are not realized.

When that approach is transposed into politics, you get a system where success itself becomes suspect or illegitimate if it emerges from the wrong premises. A functioning market is recast as exploitation (capitalist competition is racist, right?) and effective law enforcement becomes systemic oppression (the ICE actions, particularly in Minnesota are good examples). Even declining crime or rising prosperity can be reframed as evidence of hidden injustice rather than indicators of success (think about the accusations of racism as DC’s crime rate fell).

Intellectually, doesn’t make sense. If a system is achieving its stated goals by reducing poverty, increasing opportunity, or maintaining order, it should at least earn a hearing on its own merits, but that requires a willingness to evaluate outcomes dispassionately and separate emotional reaction from empirical observation—precisely what an ideo-theological framework resists.

It cannot afford to concede that something it opposes might actually work, because doing so would undermine the moral architecture of the entire belief system.

So, the evaluation shifts from logical examination to emotional reasoning. The question is no longer “Does this produce good results?” but “Does this align with our moral narrative?” If the answer to the second question is no, then the first question becomes irrelevant. In fact, positive results can intensify the opposition, because they represent a threat. They suggest that the world is more complicated than the doctrine allows, that solutions can arise from sources deemed illegitimate.

This helps explain the immediate and compulsive need to locate failure, injustice, or crisis even in environments that are objectively improving. The system must remain morally flawed, not because it is, but because the belief system cannot stand if it isn’t.

The difference between intellectual consideration and emotional evaluation is stark. The former asks whether something works and why. It is the century old basis for using logic and facts to understand and solve problems, the basis for the scientific method.

The latter begins with a conclusion and works backward, filtering reality through a predetermined lens. In a way, it is a capitalistic model that recognizes a need, then finds ways to fill it.

In that, the SPLC is not alone, it is no different from the Human Rights Campaign. The HRC was the number one left-wing ally and funding source for same sex unions. When the Supreme Court decision about gay marriage came down, the donations dried up, so the HRC switched to advocating for transgenderism and the money started flowing again.

Likewise, SPLC saw an increasing demand for racism while supply of was dwindling (and the money drying up), so they started building white supremacy factories all over America.

Opposition is no longer a means to an end; it is just the business model.