Another 'Epstein Binders': White Nationalists Mock MAGA Spin on SPLC Indictment

“Conservatives are dumb, and they come to the wrong conclusion and they come to a very self-serving conclusion," says Unite the Right organizer Richard Spencer.

Prominent white nationalists, including those who planned Charlottesville’s deadly “Unite the Right” rally, are mocking MAGA figures for their efforts to spin the Trump administration’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Those reactions from the people with the most knowledge of the events in question follow repeated claims by MAGA figures in recent days that the indictment of the legendary civil rights group proved that it created what were essentially “false flags” for fundraising purposes.

“I’m beginning to feel that the #SPLC indictment is much more like the Epstein Binders than a real criminal case,” said Richard Spencer in a post on X.

“In other words, it’s a convenient conspiracy theory or limited hangout served up by the government to allow conservatives to indulge in victimization.”

Spencer, one of the organizers of the 2017 gathering of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups, included a photo of far-right influencer Jack Posobiec holding up his copy of the much-anticipated Epstein Binders. In fact, it turned out that the binders released by AG Pam Bondi were nothing new.

Since news of the indictments broke on Tuesday, Posobiec has been among those far-right and MAGA figures who have falsely claimed that the indictment showed Charlottesville was “staged by the SPLC.” The group had previously reported on the influencer’s white supremacist connections.

Among those also latching onto such conspiratorial interpretations were MAGA figures who have long been critical of SPLC’s decisions over the years to classify certain conservative organizations under the label of “hate.”

Evangelical Megan Basham falsely claimed that the indictment said the legendary civil rights group paid people “to organize protests and transport [people] to those protests.” Federalist co-founder Sean Davis argued “the SPLC funded and organized [Unite the Right] while pretending to be scandalized by it.”

In fact, the DOJ indictment only says that SPLC paid an informant who was a “member of the online leadership chat group” and who had “helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees.” It also claimed he “made racist postings under the direction of the SPLC.”

It does NOT say that SPLC was directing the informant on the organization of the rally nor paying him to transport people—only that the SPLC had an informant on the inside who was working in that capacity.

Spencer, whom a jury found liable in a civil trial for his role in planning the Charlottesville tragedy, understood the distinction about the informant.

“My hunch is that it will be someone whom no one remembers, who came out of the woodwork,” he said in a post on X.

In a separate post, the white nationalist also mocked FBI Director Kash Patel, calling him a “clownish figure.”

“It’s difficult to take anything he signs off on seriously,” he added.

Spencer predicted that “exposure of a paid informant in the Alt-Right will quickly allow conservatives to claim everything they don’t like is a ‘hoax,’ ‘scam,’ ‘SPLC front,’ etc. They did this with J6….”

Later, in a podcast interview, Spencer said: “Conservatives are dumb, and they come to the wrong conclusion and they come to a very self-serving conclusion.”

Appearing alongside Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, Spencer derided suggestions that the Southern Poverty Law Center or anyone else on the left was pulling the strings on the “Unite the Right” rally.

“The fact is this indictment does not even suggest that,” the rally organizer added. “And this is, it's just a very self-serving thing for conservatives to now say, oh, I knew it was a hoax or something.”

Spencer predicted what SPLC’s defense would be.

Another Charlottesville figure, who now goes by the name Augustus Sol Invictus and was convicted for his role in the rally, was equally adamant.

“Every ‘right-wing’ influencer pushing this lie that Unite the Right was an SPLC psyop is dead to me,” he wrote in a lengthy post on X.

On Instagram, an account associated with the white nationalist Patriot Front also lambasted the claims from the far-right, MAGA influencers.

That account, known as @patriotjourno, argued that the SPLC indictment was “an attempt to silence the nationalist movement.”

“First off, the weaponized MAGA influencers have been acting as if the SPLC was funding entire organizations and, in turn, the entire nationalist movement. That’s simply not true,” the post read.

“Based off the indictments, they were funding INDIVIDUAL TRAITORS within these organizations.”

The post later continued, “First it was fed-jacketing, now it’s SPLC-jacketing, but the end goal is the same; they don’t want whites to organize. The mainstream right sees the writing on the wall. Nationalism is the future, and they know it. This will not be the last time they come after us or the movement.”

Patriot Front founder Thomas Rousseau led members of the neo-Nazi Vandguard America in Charlottesville.

On Telegram, another account associated with a white nationalist figure also ridiculed suggestions that the SPLC was trying to “manufacture opponents.”

“As with most right-wing talking points, it is incorrect,” wrote the person who claims his goal is to “spread revolutionary Fascist ideals.”

That account’s post claimed to have identified at least two of the informants who were allegedly paid by SPLC. (I redacted the names from the post below.)

In one case, he alleged the SPLC source “ruined and almost destroyed the National Alliance.” Another “assisted in the downfall of the Aryan Nations.” A third “led the American Front during its decline into irrelevance.”

“The SPLC was not trying to prop up the racialist movement via funding,” the post said. “They were trying to destroy it by bribing traitorous retards, thereby leading to the downfall of the groups they were involved with.

“This is a hugely important distinction.”

He added, “The fact that a group has an informant within it does not mean that group itself is a honeypot. Unfortunately, just about every group will end up with an informant in it at some point….”

What do you think?