Second Vermont Republic/Vermont Commons Tied to White Supremacists: UPDATED (at bottom of diary)

Big story.. (0.00 / 0)

Good reporting on this one, odum. It will be interesting to see if SVR survives this, or if an alternative organization springs up in its place that isn't a front for white supremacists.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 08:54:59 AM CST

Shocked (0.00 / 0)

This is truely shocking. I'd say the secessionist movement needs to start over again with a clean slate. Yes, I'm very disturbed at these kinds of connections coming to light in Vermont. Good sleuthing, Odum.

---

by: Anne @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 12:30:33 PM CST

Thanks for the compliments, but... (0.00 / 0)

... it's this guy who really earned 'em.

I tellya, I'm getting really worked up about this. Maybe it's the native southerner in me. If the traditional media doesn't pick up on this when it's been brought to their attention, they become complicit in letting this sort of element have their way in this state.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 17:28:33 PM CST

SVR/VTcommons (1.00 / 1)

  I am a founding member of SVR and a contributing editor at VT Commons.
  First, Odum did not do any sleuthing, he is picking up a pathetic piece of disinformation and poor scholarship for reasons of his own.
  Second, Donald Livingston is a highly respected scholar, and a full, long-time professor at Emory Uiversity. I've interviewed him on my radio program, and the interview is available at the archive of www.wgdr.org, and will be up at www.vtcommons.org. Don Livingston's writings may be read, by anyone who wants to actually read them, at www.vtcommons.org in the archives; and his own books and articles are available. You don't need to swallow this.
  Third, the Southern Poverty Law Center has been exposed as a scam by better and more thorough investigative journalists than the anonymous one writing about the Second Vermont Republic. Perhaps Odum could rip off an article about them.
The Nation (Yes, your politically correct Nation) did an expose' about them many years ago as I recall. Their goal seems to be to fund themselves, though I have heard nothing about them in some years.
  I suggest that you read Vermont Commons. You will see that it well deserved a spot as finalist in the UTNE READER'S "Best New Publication of the Year" awards. UTNE is a bit more reliable, you will agree, than the hacks who are attacking SVR and Vermont Commons.
  SVR is, basically, a left-leaning libertarian group that advocates secession and return of Vermont to an Independent Republic, real participatory democracy, sustainable agriculture and energy, a restoration of the Constitution, NO NAIS or National ID, honest labeling of food, local food production, prosecution of the crimes committed by the Buscists including the 9/11 attacks, complementary currencies, separation from the Federal Reserve, and a laundry list of other liberal causes that
the ridiculous article posted by Odum does not mention.
  IF we were affiliated in some way with an organization that someone else calls rascist, which we are not, that would NOT be a valid criticism of SVR, since we are not a racist organization. We accept membership from all, without regard to race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. That has been our policy from the beginning. And I'd bet that we have done far more to ensure the rights of man than Odum or his source have ever done.
Jim Hogue
 

---

by: Jim Hogue @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 19:43:39 PM CST

Well... (4.00 / 1)

Methinks thou hast touched a nerve here, odum.

Mr. Hogue, other than attacking the SPLC (which may or not be meritorious) and the very notion that someone would dare to write this piece, you haven't refuted ANYTHING claimed in odum's column. DiLorenzio, in particular is quite disturbing, yet he sits on the advisory board of a supposedly 'left-libertarian' organization,and has some serious connections with the League of the South, which even has a link on the SVR website. I don't need the SPLC to tell me about the agenda of the LoS; five minutes at their website would tell me that, and much of what is there doesn't sound like anything that me or a number of other 'lefties' who support the aims of the SVR would support, either. Many of us do read Vermont Commons, for we are interested more than casually in the idea of Vermont secession. That's why it's all the more important for this issue to be at the forefront.

So professing outrage, and attacking, without clarifying or addressing the accusations isn't exactly inspiring confidence in those of us that would love for the story to not be true, but after reading a somewhat well-documented case are smelling something really funny with the SVR. Some of us share a lot of the goals that SVR strives for, but not if the ones unseen involve things tied to racism, Christian Identity or any of the any other xenophobic ideas that some of the people on SVR's advisory board are confirmed to have been affiliated with, as 15 minutes with Google will easily confirm. Answer the accusations, or don't, but don't just attack the messenger. I'm not saying this to be a smartass, I just want to know what's going on, because it doesn't look good.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 20:34:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

SVR: Some Clarifications Regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center (4.00 / 1)

As today's article involving ties between the Second Vermont Republic starts to gather steam, so are the reactions. As one myself who has admired and supported the ideas of SVR, I was quite disturbed at the allegations, and would love for them to be bogus ones. But there are many unanswered questions and things don't smell right. One of the SVR's founders, Jim Hogue, has commented on the article in response. While offering no solid refutation of the allegations, one of his critiques was of a major source of information on some of the hate groups that certain members on SVR's advisory board are known to have ties with, called the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm. Today, the Center is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.

Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, one of the oldest and most effective civil rights organization in the country:"Thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Center, we are a better and more tolerant nation."
So they're a pretty successful group that exposes the nation's underbelly of hate and bigotry and also seems to raise a lot of money doing it, which, at times has exposed them to some criticism, some valid, yet in no way refutes any of their criticisms of some of the hate-groups in question here.  I wanted to see if I could shed some light on Mr. Hogue's accusation:

Third, the Southern Poverty Law Center has been exposed as a scam by better and more thorough investigative journalists than the anonymous one writing about the Second Vermont Republic. Perhaps Odum could rip off an article about them.
The Nation (Yes, your politically correct Nation) did an expose' about them many years ago as I recall. Their goal seems to be to fund themselves, though I have heard nothing about them in some years.
I suggest that you read Vermont Commons. You will see that it well deserved a spot as finalist in the UTNE READER'S "Best New Publication of the Year" awards. UTNE is a bit more reliable, you will agree, than the hacks who are attacking SVR and Vermont Commons.

Seems like most of the critiques of the SPLC come from white supremacist and hate groups. Big surprise, eh? Here's a typical one from one of those 'beware the Zionist conspiracy' people speaking of SPLC head Morris Dees, who appeared on 60 Minutes...

Why has Mike Wallace stooped to using a scumbag like Morris Dees to discredit William Pierce, author of the Turner Diaries, in a June 2001 version of 60 Minutes II. Is Dees the most qualified person Wallace could find?

...As for your blatant race bating Mr. Wallace - using a story on William Pierce to try and pit Whites who feel powerless against Blacks who also may want somebody to be angry at - you should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Wallace. What would happen if poor Whites and poor Blacks got together and decided that most of their problems were because of Rich Jewish Bankers and Media execs in New York who control 90 percent of the money and power in the United States?

The Turner Diaries as many of you know, is a favorite novel of many white supremacists, and was the novel that Oklahoma city bomber Timothy McVeigh had in his possession at the time of his arrest. And looking around many other sites, time after time, the critiques are coming from militia groups, Aryans, and many other xenophobic hate groups. What is that saying? What credible journalist has 'exposed the SPLC as a scam'? They're a pretty big, visible organization that's been around for 36 years, quite impressive for a 'scam' organization.

As for the Nation article  Mr. Hogue refers to, he didn't bother to supply a link to their supposed indictment of the SPLC. Here's one. If readers take a moment to check it out, they might figure out why he might choose to characterize it in such a way to suit his needs without actually providing the text:

That's changing, Nuckles says, as more people are forced to find what some here call "get-by solutions" to transportation; with elected officials now attentive to the matter, he expects major improvements in the system within a year. Meanwhile, the transportation coalition, with no staff or full-time agitators, strives to gather more support, with mixed results. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, which maintains the Civil Rights Memorial here and is currently assaulting the Capitol area's landscape with a glaring new office building, rejected the coalition's requests for $5,000 and $10,000 grants, hoarding its $120 million endowment to battle a Klan that can only fantasize about hurting people the way transit racism has.

That's right. The writer was pissed off that SPLC wouldn't give a grant from their significant endowment for transit activists. It's quite a stretch to think this writer's frustration with the organizations response to an infrastructure issue equates to a discreditation of the organization's work. In fact, The Nation frequently cites the work of the SPLC. Here's one example.

A great article
from a site called The Subway Canaries addresses and sheds some light on some of the critiques of the SPLC:

Now, for an organization that is allegedly determined to rook innocent people out of their hard earned money and do it far more successfully than all the TV preachers combined, and ferrets out Nazis, and the KKK, looks like their primary critics, aside from [right-winger David]Horowitz are Nazis and the KKK... Dees critics include the  Nationalist Movement,  where the site tries to 'explain' away all the 'Nazis'.

It was hard to find any legitimate criticism of SPLC that wasn't coming from some kind of hate-group or another, and the criticisms offered by Mr. Hogue unfortunately mirror some of what I've read on some of those sites. His response and reaction to odum's article leaves even more unanswered questions than before. Hopefully, we'll have more information forthcoming, soon. 

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 22:12:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

SPLC (0.00 / 0)

I have been a contributor to SPLC  for a number of years, and as such I receive monthly updates on their activities.  They are wonderful organization which does excellent work  fighting racism, white supremacists and hate groups.

---

by: Anne @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 23:41:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Legitimate Concerns about SPLC (0.00 / 0)

Your defense of the Southern Poverty Law Center, like the criticism of the Second Vermont Republic which started this thread, as based on selective reporting rather than on the whole story.

The expose on the Southern Poverty Law Center that Jim Hogue was referring to is, inexplicably, no longer available on the Nation website, but has been cached on a number of other (mostly Southern conservative) sites.  Here is one: http://www.freerepub...

While the SPLC has done much good work exposing and bankrupting hate groups, like the Klan, there is also good reason to question their motives and modus operandi.

I've been following Morris Dees (SPLC founder and director) since the 70's and have been impressed with his efforts. But it should come as no surprise that his focus is also on making lots of money (his salary is more than a quarter million).  Morris's first commitment to himself was to become a millionaire before finishing college, a goal he and his partner Millard Fuller achieved.

But while Fuller gave away his wealth and founded Habitat for Humanity, Dees settled in to a life of affluence and turned from defending racists to fighting them.

Perhaps Julian Bond has offered faint praise for the SPLC, but other civil rights activists are not so pleased.

Stephen Bright, director of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, which handles several dozen death-penalty cases a year, said of Dees, "You are a fraud and a conman [because of] your failure to respond to the most desperate needs of the poor and powerless despite your millions upon millions, your fund-raising techniques, the fact that you spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly."

This is how the article begins:

The Church of Morris Dees
By Ken Silverstein
Harper's Magazine, November 2000
How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance

Ah, tolerance. Who could be against something so virtuous? And who could object to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Montgomery, Alabama-based group that recently sent out this heartwarming yet mildly terrifying appeal to raise money for its "Teaching Tolerance" program, which prepares educational kits for schoolteachers? Cofounded in 1971 by civil rights lawyer cum direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees, a leading critic of "hate groups" and a man so beatific that he was the subject of a made-for-TV movie, the SPLC spent much of its early years defending prisoners who faced the death penalty and suing to desegregate all-white institutions like Alabama's highway patrol. That was then. Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. "He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement," renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, "though I don!t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye." The Center earned $44 million last year alone--$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million from stocks and other investments--but spent only $13 million on civil rights program , making it one of the most profitable charities in the country.

---

by: Riversong @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 09:09:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

At least one mystery solved (0.00 / 0)

The "inexplicable" reason the article isn't on The Nation web site might be because the article is in Harpers. From your quote above [empahsis mine]:

The Church of Morris Dees
By Ken Silverstein
Harper's Magazine, November 2000
How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 18:16:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When the wacky left meets the wacky right... (0.00 / 0)

it seems it is hard to distinguish between the two. 

I received a gratis copy of the Vermont Commons yesterday in the mail.  I probably would've tossed it in the recycle bin save this post (hats off to Odum). 

Having read it through and having gone through the website, it strikes me that, like so many groups claiming to be progressive and liberal, they are actually pretty reactionary. Anti-globalization nativism mixed in with a bit of William Jennings Bryan agro-populism.

As for the charge of connections to hate groups, well, here I think Vermonters ought to tread lightly.  I lived many years in the South (did my undergrad down there) and one thing I learned is that we New Englanders don't get racial issues in the South at all.  we tend to paint with a pretty broad brush when the reality is much more nuanced.  Thus, I am not convinced by the 'guilt by association' charge. 

 

---

by: SPS @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 06:02:53 AM CST

Guilt by Association? (0.00 / 0)

I have to wonder why this writer is so intent on painting the Second Vermont Republic as "racist" that he must build his arguments upon the questionable notion of guilt by association (remember McCarthy?), and completely ignore the considerable body of writings published by SVR and its sister organization the Vermont Commons.

While, as a contributing editor to the Vermont Commons, I have been writing forcefully about the need to distinguish the uniquely New England secession movement based here in Vermont from other secession movements (secession was a New England impulse before it was a Southern one - Daniel Webster/War of 1812, e.g.), I will denounce the malicious claim that all Southern secessionists are racist or that the SVR is a racist and nativist group because it speaks with those of different cultures.

What is more disturbing to me - and should be to all Vermonters, progressive and conservative alike - is that the Southern secession movements have strong fundamentalist Christian theocratic tones.  This is a far greater danger to our Republic than the residual racism that we Northerners participate in at least as much as our Southern brethren.

I was at the Burlington Secession Conference, which brought together representatives of secession organizations from Alaska to Hawaii, South Carolina to New Hampshire.  There was a prominent consensus on the depredations of the American empire and the American right of secession (a right recognized and enacted by the Founders and destroyed by Lincoln), but the one moment of contention occurred around a discussion of racism in the movement - with the Southerners defending their inclusive positions to the skepticism of some Vermonters.

If we Vermonters believe in cultural diversity (which is a foundation of the SVR platform), then we cannot condemn those who choose to converse with, and learn from, Southern secession experts.  But we must also make clear where our positions differ from those of other "sister" movements and offer fair criticism of them when it is deserved.  This, I'll acknowledge, we haven't yet done well except in our private conversations (see my blog on the VC website: http://vtcommons.org....).

But "guilt by association"?  May as well brand the Service Employees International Union as anti-labor because it has joined Wal*Mart and the Business Roundtable in a Universal Health Care Coalition.

- Robert Riversong

---

by: Riversong @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 07:24:02 AM CST

asdf (4.00 / 1)

May as well brand the Service Employees International Union as anti-labor because it has joined Wal*Mart and the Business Roundtable in a Universal Health Care Coalition.

If Wal Mart executives were on SEIU's board, you would have a point and a valid comparison. They are not.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 11:25:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Odum (4.00 / 1)

Odum -- Great job bringing the issue to the forefront!

I'm very pleased to see both the debate and the effort to shed light upon the arguments of both sides.

So far I see lots of specifics from Odum, et al and from Hogue, at al only a charge that Morris Dees makes what is often considered a reasonable salary for running a huge non-profit (remember what they are paying the BC/BS guy here in VT). And that SPLC is very successful in keeping itself in business.

Not much of an indictment.  Is it only when organizations are bordering on insolvent that their work and cause can be consdered "pure"?  Seems to me that the success of the SPLC is somewhat irrelevant to the real issues of whether they do good work and whether their reports are accurate.

In my experience, they do work that no one else does -- monitoring hate groups of all kinds -- and are widely considered the absolute best and most diligent in the country at that job. Sour grapes will not change that.

Credible reports of inaccurate SPLC work ought to be required before we will buy the bashing.  Defensiveness is not an argument.

Not to mentione that the LoS website and others referred to seem to speak for themselves.

I still await one credible, valid arguement from the defenders of SVC.

---

by: woodpile @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 13:35:06 PM CST

SVR (0.00 / 0)

Odum, your "Quick Notes" update at the end just saved me a lot of typing, which is great because I've still got plenty to add here.  I hope everyone reads those 4 points carefully before posting any more comments. 

Jim, and others here to defend SVR, like Odum and JDRyan said above- this is not an attack on the idea of secession; there are people (myself included) very supportive of a lot of what SVR stands for and fights for.  But in the tradition of the best of what being a Vermonter means, being associated with (and defending!) racists, neo-nazis, and neo-fascists is absolutely unacceptable.

I was heavily involved in SVR at its very beginnings and I ultimately chose to end my formal ties with it because I disagree strongly with the opinion of many in the leadership that SVR should avoid political stances and fight solely for the idea of secession.  The assertion that VT would just naturally become an independent State with the "moral high ground" because of the enlightened population here is ignorant of history's lessons and suggests a sort of "Vermont nationalism"- nationalism itself often stemming from a subtle -even subconscious- form of racism ("we're better because we're us and they're not").

My enemy's enemy is not my friend- the League of the South and other racist, neo-fascist, or fundamentalist religious groups should have no place at our table.  The right of the individual to believe whatever they want ends where their belief becomes destructive of the community at large- unless someone wants to somehow argue that we're not a social species (well, all of us except JDRyan perhaps ;-}.  This is implicit in the concept of the "libertarian left" (which Jim H. rightfully characterizes SVR as) and is essentially what differentiates it from the libertarian right.

The SVR needs to purge itself of individual's tied to hate-espousing organizations and who hold racist and fascist beliefs, period.  To not do so gives such people and their ideas undue credibility.  I know Thomas Naylor fairly well, in addition to many other folks involved or supportive of SVR and secession.  I do not believe they are racist or pushing a racist agenda.  But one of Naylor's favorite talking points is that the United States as a whole (particularly Washington DC) has lost its "moral authority"- well, this is exactly SVR's chance to demonstrate what a community that does hold "moral authority" can and should use it for- rejecting intolerable attitudes like racism.

Marco Bassani and Thomas DiLorenzo must be pushed out, or SVR becomes suspect of supporting their hateful ideas.  If they do not sever any and all ties to such people and groups, they will rapidly loose the interest of most of that 8% of Vermonters who claim to support them, that I am sure of.  I think that would be a shame, because SVR is the force behind the most important public  conversation (which brings together the right and the left in a truly unparalleled way) that I know of in the U.S. surrounding the very question of the role of the Federal government in our individual lives and our local communities.


-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 14:29:11 PM CST

left vs. right libertarianism... (0.00 / 0)

wdh3 wrote:

"I was heavily involved in SVR at its very beginnings and I ultimately chose to end my formal ties with it because I disagree strongly with the opinion of many in the leadership that SVR should avoid political stances and fight solely for the idea of secession."

BG: I believe that has changed somewhat over time as can be seen by the writings within the sister organization VtCommons - no?

wdh3 wrote:

"The assertion that VT would just naturally become an independent State with the "moral high ground" because of the enlightened population here is ignorant of history's lessons and suggests a sort of "Vermont nationalism"- nationalism itself often stemming from a subtle -even subconscious- form of racism ("we're better because we're us and they're not")."

BG: isn't the point that Vt. had been an independent republic before joining the "union" and that it bypassed the industrial revolution going from agrarianism to post-industrial (see Vt. Papers) and it still practices a unique form of face-to-face, small scale, deliberative democracy and has always displayed a "go it alone" independent streak??

whd3 wrote:

"My enemy's enemy is not my friend- the League of the South and other racist, neo-fascist, or fundamentalist religious groups should have no place at our table.  The right of the individual to believe whatever they want ends where their belief becomes destructive of the community at large- unless someone wants to somehow argue that we're not a social species (well, all of us except JDRyan perhaps ;-}.  This is implicit in the concept of the "libertarian left" (which Jim H. rightfully characterizes SVR as) and is essentially what differentiates it from the libertarian right."

BG: but what about the individual common right to free speech and free association?

how exactly does speech and association become destructive of "the community at large"?

what seperates the libertarian left and right is over property rights as it relates exclusive use/access to the natural and social commons - which is a re-occuring them within VtCommons - no?

wh3d wrote:

"The SVR needs to purge itself of individual's tied to hate-espousing organizations and who hold racist and fascist beliefs, period.  To not do so gives such people and their ideas undue credibility."

"Marco Bassani and Thomas DiLorenzo must be pushed out, or SVR becomes suspect of supporting their hateful ideas."

BG: because the SVR is a secessionist organization it is in sync with SOME aspects of the revisionist historical views on Lincoln (DiLorenzo) and because it is left-libertarian it may share SOME of the states rights/southern agrarianism/natural law theory (Bassani) that other groups may share too.

but that doesn't mean that DiLorenzo or Bassini actually share ALL of the SVR views on economics either...

wh3d:

"SVR is the force behind the most important public  conversation (which brings together the right and the left in a truly unparalleled way) that I know of in the U.S. surrounding the very question of the role of the Federal government in our individual lives and our local communities."

BG: but part of those views are shared by the likes of folks at the von Mises Institute (Austrian) and the Abbeville Institute (Southern Agrarian) as it relates to the state...

but the SVR is also just as committed to exploring mutualism (free market, anti-capitalism) and georgism (anti-landlord monopoly of economic rent) which puts them in direct contrat to these institutes program...

I'd be interested in your take on this topic as it relates to the state and property rights.

---

by: BeGreener @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:48:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll Respond To You Points (4.00 / 1)

1- VT Commons seems to make quite clear that SVR & it are functioning as entirely separate bodies, though "sisters" in so far as they both were working towards the same goal- secession.  So there is no real reason for me or anyone else to assume the views of VT Commons are shared by SVR.  Regardless, I agree that VT Commons continually offers many good perspectives that are certainly "taking sides" on issues.

2- I don't understand your point in relation to the quote from me above it.  My point was simply that not being explicitly against tyranny (be it the tyranny of military dictators, an owning class, whatever) and explicitly for direct, participatory democracy is questionable and weak (I see my addition to the SVR principles that took a step towards doing so has turned into a questionable and watered-down statement about "power sharing").

3- I made my statement about the individual's right to freedom of speech. . . you have the right to say or believe whatever you want, but if your views (not "you" personally, the universal "you") are destructive towards the lives of others or our community as a whole, I think you forfeit our collective desire to include you ("a free association of free peoples"). 

4- I know Lincoln is a fake, he said (among other things) "if I could have ended the Civil War by only freeing one slave I would have done so").  But
Bassani & DiLorenzo clearly hold inappropriate and anti-social (anti-democratic) views that go far beyond critiquing Lincoln.  I have no interest in being associated with them or their type, and this reaction (to defend them) from folks within SVR makes it likely that the organization will loose my support as well as that of many other Vermonters who are more level headed and intelligent.  I think that is really, really too bad.  In addition, if you imagine SVR will continue to receive the cuddly coverage that it enjoys from VT's mainstream press now that SVR is known to associate -and defend- racists, you may want to think a little harder.  Now, being a favorite of the press doesn't have to be a priority or goal, but it has been tremendously helpful for SVR in building recognition and support.  My advise would be to replace those two fascists on your advisory board with a couple of people with a little bit of political savvy and strategic planning under their belts.

5- I appreciate that SVR is committed to exploring many different ideas of what a free society in the Green Mountains may one day look like. 
Here's the one I like the most, which may answer your question about my opinion of the State and property rights.  Exploring different ideas doesn't have to include ones that are clearly wrong, like racism or fascism.

When I was more closely involved with SVR, I always argued for bringing as many different perspectives (from within VT) to the table.  I went out of my way to point out that SVR could be capable of attracting conservatives, liberals, and radicals if it played its cards right, and Dr Naylor and many others agreed and it seems to have worked fairly well for you folks so far.  I never urged for SVR to take political stances on issues such as abortion, medical pot, candidate backing, etc.  I did push, however, for clear statements on principles that are more direct and straight forward than this. 

Once again, nothing here is trying to -or hoping to- defame SVR or its ideas.  Differences on this or that little thing are what makes creative thinking fun.  The article that started this was simply questioning the little-known existence of individuals with highly questionable morals, beliefs, and motivations in positions of influence within SVR.  I'd gladly debate my views on any number of issues or ideas with anyone willing and able to have a logical conversation- it's one of my favorite things to do.  But as JDRyan points out, the one thing that SVR has so far refused to do is directly answer the questions raised about these people on your Board.  Take a stance on supporting them or not, and justify it, and let the public and your supporters fall with or against you.  But this Bill O'Reilly style conversation about everything other than the original question is suspect and troubling.

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 20:13:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

is it the libertarianism or racism aspect? (0.00 / 0)

1. hasn't the SVR founder Naylor and board members Livingston, Sale, and Bryan all written several articles for VtCommons?

2. being of the left-libertarian persuasion (a mutualist/geoist) and a member of the SVR I would say that we should draw a clear distinction between the state which is set-up to allow one class of elites to exploit the labor-based wealth of those being excluded from the natural and social commons by privilege...

first by allowing the resulting (from exclusive use/access tot eh commons) economic rent to accrue to landowners, economic interest to accrue to bankers, and economic profits to accrue to owners of capital at the expense of labor and the environment.

second by imposing a system of taxation on wages and capital which violates our absolute rights to the fruits of our labor and hence self-ownership itself.

and local governance as LEGITIMATE agency which is constituted to protect an individual's absolute right to life, liberty and LABOR-based property which requires those being excluded from the natural and social commons to be directly compensated for being economically disadvantaged.

btw - this puts me and others like me squarely in opposition to paleo-libertarian views...the real debate that you are going to miss is over the economic interpretation of southern agrarianism and catholic distributism which migrated into the conservative fusion strategy (traditionalists & libertarians) via Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk's traditionalism but actually has a nice little following on the left.

see "Crunchy Cons" by Rod Dreher.

3. words are not destructive only actions are...those who hold morally repugnant views should be first engaged and then shunned but not physically forced out...civic republicanism (see Livingston's & Bryan's writing on this) is different than classical liberalism in that it sees individual freedom only thru small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative bodies (like town meeting) where one can practice virtuous behavior but it will still be based on majority rule (51%, 66%, 75% or ?) not consensus with constitutional guaranteed rights

4. our founding fathers had anti-democratic views (not referring to slavery) that is why we today have a constitutionally limited, democratic republican form of governance.

my and possibly others view in trying to fuse a left and right analysis as it relates to political economy fall into a constellation of ideas called the "third way" critiquing both state capitalism and state socialism, the individual and the collective, in which some unsavory characters/movements in the past have tried to negotiate before and we are unfortunately left to tread in their tracks - as very lightly as possible...

one of those historical trends in the US is called "southern agrarianism" and the other in the UK is called "catholic distributism" - they have some rough edges that need to be smoothed and made relevant to the 21st century and Vermont in particular but I think they are dead-on correct when added to mutualism, georgism, and bio-regionalism from the left into something potentially new and exciting.

we only need to look across the Canadian border to the Maritimes to see the influence that catholic social teaching as it relates to distributism had on the Antigonish worker-owned, cooperative movement...but there is no getting around the fact that justice Roberts, Aiello, Scalia, and Thomas are all catholics.

I don't really feel that the libertarian von Mises or Lew Rockwell organizations are racist. 

5. as I see it there are actually two strains of anarchism (individual and collective) and one strain actually has a US origin in a fellow named Josiah Warren who was a refuge from Robert Owens "New Harmony" utopian socialist experiment that failed...he is called the US version of Proudhon and the founder of what is called mutualism (free market, anti-capitalism) others are Wm B. Greene and Benjamin Tucker - all from NE (Mass.).

some Rothbardism (anarcho-capitalists) try to co-opt Tucker as he was a Stirner egoist too but he always claimed to be a Ricardian socialist...

syndicalists & communist anarchists fall under the collectivist strain of anarchism...

SVR tried to become a dues paying membership organization and that did not work to well and the focus seems to have been shifted to an advisory board/quasi-think tank status.

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 05:22:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exclusive self-righteousness ain't gonna bring us freedom (0.00 / 0)

"I was heavily involved in SVR at its very beginnings and I ultimately chose to end my formal ties with it because I disagree strongly with the opinion of many in the leadership that SVR should avoid political stances and fight solely for the idea of secession."

If secession is to become a Vermont movement, it must (as it already does) welcome and include the entire political spectrum within the state.  SVR, I believe, is quite clear on its philosopy of libertarian populism and does not need to muddy its mission by either becoming a political party or taking sides on issues best left to the populace.  If we are authentic about an independent self-governing state, we cannot impose a particular politic on those we wish to liberate (as the Southern groups seem to do). Jefferson trusted the will of an educated populace, as do we.  And the Vermont Commons newspaper is our tool for public education.

"My enemy's enemy is not my friend- the League of the South and other racist, neo-fascist, or fundamentalist religious groups should have no place at our table."

I guess that also excludes the vocal "Take Back Vermont" element.  Whom else should we exclude from this discussion? Honest, open, and inclusive dialogue at least has the potential of changing hearts and minds. Exclusion only cements the differences.

You might read "Brother to a Dragonfly" by Will Campbell: a deeply moving personal and family history of a Southern minister who, among other things, befriended and melted the heart of a neighbor who had been an active Klansman. Inviting those we disagree with "to the table" offers the only possibility for discovering the common humanity that we all share.  Exclusion is a form of self-righteousness which we tend to see only in the "other".

While I have been lobbying for removing the hyperlink to the League of the South from the SVR website, because it suggests a more familial relationship than is the case, I don't believe we should cut off our relationship with them.  They may have as much to learn from Vermont's tradition of tolerance as we do from their long history of anti-federalism (they DID journey to Vermont to speak with us).

And perpetuating stereotypes and misunderstandings of the "other" (as is evident throughout this thread) not only prevents the possibility of reconciliation, but diminishes our own humanity.

Though I've been a long-time supporter of the Southern Poverty Law Center, I suspect there is some truth in the claim that they self-perpetuate by painting individuals and groups as "hate-mongering" with a rather broad brush, much the way the Israel lobby paints people like Jimmy Carter for daring to speak of taboo (i.e. not politically correct) subjects.

Rather than castigating DiLorenzo's scholarly work on Lincoln because of the author's politics or culture, consider his rather important work on its merits.
__________________________________________________________
[from the Amazon.com website]

Continuing a vital work of reclamation, December 31, 2006
Reviewer: Andrew S. Rogers (Seattle, Washington)

With this book, Thomas J. DiLorenzo continues his mission of taking a firehose to the feet of clay beneath America's martyr-saint. "Lincoln Unmasked" is an essential companion to the author's earlier "The Real Lincoln."...

Taking on a nation's mythology is a serious undertaking, and Abraham Lincoln long ago ascended from the realm of human politician to that of mytho-poetic symbol and even, for some, literal Christ-figure. That makes dissenters like DiLorenzo not just historians with a different point of view, but Judas Iscariot or worse...

But the facts laid out in "Lincoln Unmasked" are...aspects of Lincoln that his defenders not only refuse to confront, but deny even exist. So much easier to smear Father Abraham's critics as "neo-confederates" or even defenders of slavery than to square Lincoln's modern image with his actual words and deeds...

DiLorenzo has a commitment to primary sources, and so those who would discount "Lincoln Unmasked" must also deal with the author's extensive and well-catalogued research...

Assaulting the Lincoln Lie is not an act of nihilist destruction. Instead, it's a radical ("to the root") effort to reclaim America's *original* founding story, the one Lincoln himself so hated: an America that emphasized local communities, free trade, voluntary associations, decentralized government, sound economics, peace and freedom. It's one thing to say we may never recreate such a nation, but something else -- something far worse -- to insist we must deny it ever existed. That's what makes "Lincoln Unmasked" both so brave and so important.
__________________________________________________________

So, instead of shooting the messengers because we don't like the color of their beliefs, let's start listening to the message and determine what there might be of value in it. 

- Robert

---

by: Riversong @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:50:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As I see it. (0.00 / 0)

WDH3... you're really asking for it.. just because I go out to listen to music maybe 3 times a year does not make me believe we're not a social species... just remember, I'm working on yer garage, boy....;)

Ok, there's a lot to respond to here. And I think it is commendable that most of us have kept our cool on this, regardless of where we are on the position. Since I wrote the big thing on SPLC last night, let me start with that. I hadn't actually read too muh about them but I knew their purpose. I've read the Harper's article that Riversong alluded to. And I didn't bother to refer to it for this simple fact:

In this whole deal we're talking about here, the SPLC is irrelevant. Why? Go to the League of the South site for yourself and spend some time there if you can stomach it. The point is, which Jim Hogue (or anyone else for that matter) has not addressed, is why are people like DiLorenzio, who are well-documented proponents of hate speech, on the advisory board for SVR? Sure, it's easy to say that he and his ilk are just 'advising on matters of secession'  (which, if you look how the Civil War turned out, they didn't end up doing all that great of a job, did they?) So y'all mean to tell me that there are NO credible advisors in regards to secession that DON'T have ties to Neo-Confederacy groups? Did SVR bother to look, or more frighteningly, are some of the upper echelon not really all that uncomfortable with it to begin with? I have to ask that. Perhaps, since there is no 'race problem' here in VT (as some in the LoS would put it), maybe Vermont was a good choice for this, for it would be easy to keep those motivations under the radar. Combine that with a vibrant, activist left-libertarian population such as VT, and whammo, both agendas are served. Now maybe I'm stretching it but I'm really baffled and somewhat disgusted by the fact that some who profess to be lefties are so tied to the idea of secession (which, by the way I wholeheartedly support), that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the backgrounds of some of their 'allies', in the greater service of the cause. And as for the SPLC, Riversong is pointing to freerepublic.com for a resource? Gimme an f-ing break. You're jsut reinforcing my argument that the majority of people who have a hard time with the SPLC are the hardcore rightwing (exemplified by the knuckle-dragging populace that comprises the majority of F.R. readership). Might as well let us know what David Duke or Pat Buchanan thinks abut SPLC, too, while you're at it.

I'd like to address Riversong specifically  for a minute, because he brings up some points that need to be addressed.  First of all, the goal here is not to 'paint the SVR as racist', as he puts it. Some of my best friends and also many well-known figures with impeccable progressive credentials are involved with SVR and I certainly don't consider them racist. So let's clarify. We are intent on revealing that a number of influential people in the SVR have serious connections to some major Southern hate-groups. You can ignore it or deny it if it helps you sleep better, but that fact is not going away. Just because Jim Hogue says it isn't true so doesn't make it so. And his rather shocking reaction was telling, for it was not unlike a right-winger who got caught with his pants down: pants-crapping righteous indignation, attack the accuser and his motivations, refute all sources, and never deny anything, all while never proving a shred of evidence to disprove your accusations. I got the same reaction from an email to VT Commons when I asked for some sort of explanation: 'Odum doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's trying to piss on the secession parade' was the gist of it.  And yes, maybe some of you are having a hard time because you feel duped. That's okay. I feel that way as well, and I know many others that do, too. As usual, the right wing fucks it up for the rest of us, eh? We got hoodwinked. Now pull up your pants, get to the bottom of it, and either demand SVR cut the racist ties or start a new damn secession organization. Lemme know, I'll sign up.

Now, no disrespect intended to Riversong, but should we not judge someone by the company they keep? I read the VT Commons article on the conference just yesterday, and there were some great people there and some racist ideologues as well.

You gotta have a lot of balls to somehow imply that the cultural diversity that us Vermonters hold dear should somehow include getting in bed with hate groups so 'we can learn from them'. I can't imagine a bigger sell-out of the principles one holds sacred. If Vermont can't secede without enlisting the advice of people devoted to the preservation of, as the League of the South proclaims, Southern 'culture' and 'heritage' (which, in case some of you haven't figured it out are the covert and more friendly words for 'white pride'), then maybe we need to re-evaluate the idea in the first place. If we have competent, knowledgeable and transparent leadership, I don't see why we should have to give up on the idea of secession.

One more thing...this isn't my crusade by any means. It happened, I got interested, and now I'm trying to help get to the bottom of it. As some of you GMD'ers know, I'm hardly a bastion of politically correct liberalism, I  think Democrats are only a bit more palatable than Repubs, and I vehemently disagree with odum on the idea of the viability of third parties, so this isn't some united mainstream front we're talking about here. So, as those who are defending SVR continue to do a fine job of NOT making their case, just remember, this isn't about 'mainstream politics', 'capitalists', 'Dem-cheerleaders', John Odum, or JD Ryan.  It's about something very simple. Equality. Justice. And keeping bigots from positions of influence. So just save your breath with inane crap like GMD is 'trying to use accusations of racism to trump decentralization and secession as a viable political strategy for Vermonters and Americans as a whole.', as  Rob Williams put in an email to me last night. Sounds like friggin' Bush speak, fer crissake, and we're not buying it, especially when the facts are so out in front and easy to see. I seriously doubt Odum's tossin' and turnin' at night trying to figure out how to bring down the VT secession movement with all those millions of dollars that Peter Welch  and Howard Dean send him every week.

So it's like this: if SVR hopes to salvage any bit of credibility with the libertarian-left, they need to sever all ties to the southern-affiliated hate groups and give us an explanation as to what went down, who knew, and when did they know it. But judging from the way its defenders have handled it so far, it may be past point of no return. The word is out on this one.

Now can we please have the Green Mountain Boys flag back? I don't want it to turn into a symbol of a northern stars 'n 'bars Dixie flag.

 

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 17:52:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A bit more on DiLorenzio (0.00 / 0)

here

Yeah, I'm blogwhoring. Deal with it.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 18:54:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess I can't expect an honest answer... (0.00 / 0)

...or a respectful response.

JDRyan: "Riversong is pointing to freerepublic.com for a resource? Gimme an f-ing break."

As I made quite clear, the source was the Nation, which seems to have deleted this article from its archives.

If you're going to judge the article by which groups repost it onto their websites, rather than on its merits, then I can understand why you'd get so incensed about what others claim about SVR without bothering to discover for yourself what the truth is.

---

by: Riversong @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 15:36:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

DiLorenzo's supposed postings on a neo-nazi website not true... (0.00 / 0)

Odum wrote:

"Rowley even forwarded to me the following Google search link which shows DiLorenzo's multiple postings on a neo-nazi website with the heading "No Jews, Just Right" No doubt Rowley's far more extensive work on DiLorenzo over the next couple days will be damning."

BG: I went and researched everyone of those "supposed" multiple postings on a neo-nazi website BY Thomas DiLorenzo and they are ALL re-postings from either the austrian school's von mises institute or the paleo-libertarian website lewrockwell.com's blog where DiLorenzo frequently posts.

this is the second time that I have found web posts being taken out of context by Thomas Rowley.

the first was clearly a sarcastic remark that DiLorenzo made to his friend Thomas Woods in response to the neo-con Dinesh D'Souza new book blaming the cultural left with responsibility for 911 as everyone should know that paleo-conservatives (Buchanan) and paleo-libertarians (Rockwell) loathe the neo-conservatives (whose original leaders like Frank Meyer and James Burnham were former Trotskyites).

you can read my comments here:

http://vermontsecess...

now here is one of the google searches on the neo-nazi website:

http://www.vanguardn...

and here is the reader review (some guy named Lee Bell
Key West Florida) of DiLorenzo's book on the mises store website:

http://www.mises.org...

and here is another one of his "supposed" postings in the "reader mail" section:

http://www.vanguardn...

but as you can clearly see this is just a re-posting from lewrockwell's blog:

http://blog.lewrockw...

------------

so if we are going to try to have an honest and open discussion can we all tone the rhetoric down and be a little more careful with what we are calling "facts"?

BG

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 03:59:00 AM CST

you are incorrect (0.00 / 0)

Several say "posted by Thomas DiLorenzo" quite clearly. Now it's nice that they're generally Bush-bashing, but I still have no tolerance for the community he seems to be so comfortable in. Here's one for example:

http://www.vanguardn...

About 2/3rds of the way down is a post called "LOUSIANA LIES FROM THE BUSH LEAGUES" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

Of course, to get to it, you have to start from the top of the page, which looks like this.

Re-check the google link above. There are several posts.

Let me ask you something, because I'm genuinely curious as to your reaction - how should Jews or African-Americans feel about all this? How would you have them feel? What about their families? Friends? Will all the Christian Identity swimming about, how should gays and lesbians feel? I'm the donor for the son of some dear friends of mine who are lesbian parents. How should they feel about these associations? How should their son (my biological son)? Do their feelings and fears matter at all?

I'm genuinely intrigued to hear your answer.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:16:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

once again you are WRONG Odum... (0.00 / 1)

Odum wrote:

"Several say "posted by Thomas DiLorenzo" quite clearly."

BG:

this is ONCE AGAIN a re-post from the Lew Rockwell blog - scroll to August 29, 2006

http://blog.lewrockw...

NOT a direct post BY DiLorenzo to the neo-nazi website...

when are YOU going to stop this PARTICULAR direction of inquiry?

and REMOVE all references to it in the orginal blog here and this most recent inflamatory post??

fair is fair - no??

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 13:00:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok, (0.00 / 0)

And when are YOU going to stop your apologist BULLSHIT? I know, facts are stupid things, right?

Gee, I wonder what it was DiLorenzio thought it was that was so funny? Maybe he thought that those sterotypes in Borat were true?

Got any other bad info you'd like to share? Keep diggin' that hole.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 13:28:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"once again?" (0.00 / 0)

Please tell me - specifically - what else I am "wrong" about in the post. I'm still waiting for that.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 15:03:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm baffled (0.00 / 0)

I just can't believe that someone is defending DiLorenzio...

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 13:31:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and when are you going to stop spreading disinformation? (0.00 / 0)

JDRyan wrote:

"And when are YOU going to stop your apologist BULLSHIT? I know, facts are stupid things, right?"

BG:

the comments posted above - as I have been saying all along - are NOT the direct posts of Thomas DiLorenzo...they are manually re-posts on a racist website

in the above screenshot posted purported to be directly from Thomas DiLorenzo, the title of the post "Duke Rape Hoax" (which DiLorenzo didn't post) was added to a post he made at the Lew Rockwell blog which you can see here:

http://blog.lewrockw...

which says:

"November 09, 2006
Durham, N.C.: Land of Idiots and Tyrants
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at November 9, 2006 06:43 AM

Mike Nifong, the government prosecutor who insists on prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse players despite no evidence, mountains of conflicting evidence, and admitting to not having even interviewed the accuser, was re-elected on Tuesday.

Send your kid to Duke; pay 50 grand a year or more; turn him (or her) into a politically-correct idiot. "

-----------

and then you have the audacity to not only claim this re-post on VPN is FROM DiLorenzo but then make it look like he also posted the racist comments on the BORAT movie????

sir - HAVE YOU NO SHAME???

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 14:46:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)

site original sources, then, because I can find nothing to indicate that these aren't DiLorenzo and others going back and forth on the VNN website. Like this link, for example:

http://www.vanguardn...

Give me a little proof. Links. C'mon, you should know how this works.

So, to be clear - you are saying that DiLorenzo is not a white supremecist? That is your claim?

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 14:58:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have given you proof over and over again... (0.00 / 0)

The "reader mail" section is a total ruse.

I already posted on this above...

where I stated:

"and here is another one of his "supposed" postings in the "reader mail" section:

http://www.vanguardn...

but as you can clearly see this is just a re-posting from lewrockwell's blog:

http://blog.lewrockw...

---------------

Odum wrote:

"you are saying that DiLorenzo is not a white supremecist? That is your claim?"

BG:

NO - my specific and unwaivering claim is that all of these posts on the clearly racists VNN website are NOT posted DIRECTLY by DiLorenzo but are made to look like the were posted by DiLorenzo...

and this is easily shown to be the case by taking the title to the re-post and google it as I have done and you will se that ALL of these supposed "posts" by DiLorenzo are actually manual re-posts FROM his original posts to the website of Mises (one was actually the comments of a reviewer of one of his books on Mises made to look like it came from him) and Lew Rockwell's website were he very openly and publicly post articles of his and responds in the blog section.

the most heinious one is the re-post of his that makes it look like he is commenting on the Borat film in a racist way.

THOMAS DILORENZO DID NOT POST THE RACIST TRASH ABOUT BORAT on VNN!!!

HE HAS NEVER DIRECTLY POSTED ON THE CLEARLY RACIST WEBSITE VNN!!!

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 15:24:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry - can't post links... (0.00 / 0)

I now realize that none of the posted links of mine as offered proof of my assertions in any of my posts have come thru properly so you can't see for yourself the re-posts.

so unless someone can instruct me as to how to post a url link that doesn't break then I am afraid I am stuck...

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 15:31:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

weak n/t (0.00 / 0)

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 17:16:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

only the post links that copied don't work... (0.00 / 0)

so go to any of the links that I have posted on:

by: BeGreener  @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 04:59:00 AM EST

and there you can see you evidence by me...

look at the "Duke Rape Hoax" posts...

this is the original post from Thomas DiLorenzo at Lew Rockwell's blog

http://blog.lewrockw...

do you now see the content was lifted and reposted on the VNN website?

do you now see that the VNN put the salacious title of "Duke Rape Hoax" which was NOT in Thomas DiLorenzo's post there which is titled:

"Durham, N.C.: Land of Idiots and Tyrants"

and date stamped: Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at November 9, 2006 06:43 AM

and do you see anything in DiLorenzo's post on Lew Rockwell blog having to do with the Borat movie and the racist comments about it? NO

that's because the racist Alex Linder made the crap up and posted in such a way to make it look like Thomas DiLorenzo did it...

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 21:32:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hmmm... (4.00 / 1)

that's because the racist Alex Linder made the crap up and posted in such a way to make it look like Thomas DiLorenzo did it

Okay - I think I've got it. OTHER racists are bad, bad, bad. SVR advisory board racists are good, good, good.

Got it.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 22:11:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jeez.. (0.00 / 0)

I keep saying I'm done dealing with the apologists...

Ok. Fine. Let's chuck out all the crap you're moaning about involving googlechaches, Dkke University, crossposts, whatever, because it has no bearing on the original information, and it's just a distraction from the issue at hand.

The fact still remains that DiLorenzio and Livingston have well-established ties to the Neo-Confederacy movement. Here's what it seems like your pathetic 'arguments' are boiling down to:

1. this is all because 'mainstream whatever' wants to bring down the secession movement.

Wrong. As far as I can tell, just about everyone involved here is either supportive of it or indifferent at best. 'Scared' doesn't really enter into the equation.

2. Just because the credible SPLC and HUNDREDS of hate sites have references to these people, doesn't mean anything. It's all 'taken out of context'.

Funny, Vanguard news service, one of America's premier news outlets for hate-groups, have shown quite an interest in this site, as the stats show. What could they possibly be interested in? Peter Welch?

Ok. And George Bush is Winston Churchill. Next?

3. Because we don't want to get 'the whole picture' from above-said racists to 'see what we can learn from them', WE'RE the intolerant ones.

Yeah, and I'm sure I could have had a great conversation with Hitler about vegetarian cooking or his painting days in Austria as a young man.

So that about sums it up. You guys still can't seem to be able to address this directly, which leads me to believe you're rather sympathetic to it all. I'm more than happy to leave you guys holding onto your johnsons with one hand and wavin' the stars 'n bars in the other, cuz that's what it's looking like. Done.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 18:22:10 PM CST

ok, fine...let's chuck out all the crap! (0.00 / 0)

JDRyan wrote:

"Ok. Fine. Let's chuck out all the crap you're moaning about involving googlechaches, Dkke University, crossposts, whatever, because it has no bearing on the original information, and it's just a distraction from the issue at hand."

BG:

you mean "ok fine" I admit that Thomas DiLorenzo did not make any original posts to the racist website Vanguard Network News?

if this yes, then how about removing all references in this blog and I will remove all of my posts that reference those false accusations?

if no, then why not?

---

by: BeGreener @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 21:13:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, (0.00 / 0)

No, I mean you're insistence on something as shaky as this does not alter the facts in this in any way shape or form. Due tho the nature of the Vanguard Site, we have no way of being clear as to who posted what, etc. And that doesn't change the basic facts that DiLorenzio's name appears in association with many of these groups, as any Google search will show. Keep defending them.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:10:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DiLorenzo's Posts (0.00 / 0)

JD:  It was the casual, conversational nature of some of those posts that caught my eye.  So at ease on a board with jew-baiting racists.  DiLorenzo's supporter has no way of knowing that he didn't post there but is pretzeling himself for someone who has yet to say, "That isn't me."

The League of the South has an evasive "policy statement" on racism that is inconsistent with the facts learned by monitoring groups about LoS's goals for a New South.

http://www.leagueoft...

Apparently SVR has been learning it's lessons well when it comes to trying to slip past the fact that their advisors are known racists.  It's been interesting to watch them try to re-frame the discussion so that the only real problem is with the people who find it repugnant to keep company with known racist ideologues and activists.  It has an Alice in Wonderland feel to it, don't you think?

---

by: Thomas.Rowley @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:06:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Up is down, left is right... (0.00 / 0)

Yeah. I think that they might get away with it simply because of the fact that the MSM views them as a novelty/fringe group not worthy of the ink. That's the vibe I'm getting. And no, The New York Sun and Pat Buchanan's American Conservative aren't 'mainstream media', nor do I know why one would want praise from them in the first place.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:34:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

why did you erase my posts on your blog? (0.00 / 0)

when I presented the evidence with website links that showed  DiLorenzo could NOT have posted on the VNN site because the time and date stamps are exactly the same from the lew rockwell blog (where he did post) and in the racists comments section about the Borat film the person said he saw it in Dallas and DiLorenzo lives in Baltimore?

so that is the only evidence you will accept - DiLorenzo himself posting here saying "it wasn't me"??

kinda like answer "so Mr. DiLorenzo when did you stop beating your wife"?

---

by: BeGreener @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:47:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the date stamps are exactly the same... (0.00 / 0)

how can someone post exactly the same thing at exactly the same time at two completely different websites?

unless they were copied and pasted...

---

by: BeGreener @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:40:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In re: the MSM (0.00 / 0)

Odum, I did a quick Lexis Nexis search on the Second Vermont Republic and came up exclusively with articles relating to the 2006 secession gathering (most written -- again almost exclusively -- in a tone of not-too-gentle mocking of the movement).

From my experience in the Vermont media and as a subject of them, I honestly have no idea why the MSM (an interestingly pejorative term BTW) should care about the SVR. There seems to be no evidence that the MSM (in VT or elsewhere) is paying any attention to the movement (such that it is).

So why should you castigate the media for not reporting on a non-story?

This is the epitome of a tempest in a teapot -- worthy of less attention even than the town of Killington's attempts to become part of New Hampshire, which was newsworthy only in its quixoticy (sp?) but at least had a majority in several town meeting votes.

The SVR movement seems (from comments here) to have an 8 percent support rating. It's a non-issue, racist ties or no.

Cheers,
Brendan

---

by: VT Tony Snow @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 00:21:41 AM CST

To a point... (4.00 / 1)

VT Tony Snow,

That thought crossed my mind too, but I'll tell you why it is important. The simple fact is there are a lot of people in support of this organization on the left that wouldn't have  anything to do with it if they were aware of the situation, so at the very least, it's important that they know about it.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:42:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Isn't that what this blog is for? (0.00 / 0)

Had these ties been noticed around the time that there was already coverage of the SVR movement, I'm sure they would have been part of the coverage (for better or worse).

I'm just not sure whether it's an issue of broad enough concern to merit the 6 O'Clock news or a spot on B1 (or whatever the local page is in the Freep) in the absence of any other "news" about SVR.

A spot in Freyne's column? Sure, 'cause in a certain light it's amusing (or could be written that way), but other than that and in the Vt Blogosphere? I don't really think so.

---

by: VT Tony Snow @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 15:52:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

WEll, (4.00 / 1)

VT Tony Snow,

I'm not one of those bloggers with a heightened sense of self-importance, meaning that I don't think that the majority of the people that need to know this are GMD readers. (many of which are well outside of the Democratic party and wouldn't come here in the first place-I'm sort of an anomaly in that regard)

I'm not saying this is front-page material anywhere. I don't think it is, nor is it some b.s. of 'traditional media ignoring the blogs - wahhh! Most of the media I've been in touch with(even the indy media) view SVR as somewhat of a novelty/fringe thing anyway, and not worth the ink. But all it takes is the right blurb in the right place and SVR is done with the left in VT.

On a side note, you the guy that worked for Rainville? Not a pejorative, just curious.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 16:08:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Re: Side note (0.00 / 0)

Yup, I took the screen name taken from one of Odum's screeds (http://greenmountain...) out of irony & the desire to identify myself (as I pride myself on taking credit/responsibility for my personal opinions) rather than out of anything resembling an homage (sp?).

I suppose I should refer you to this article in the Vermont Guardian (http://www.vermontgu...) for a more accurate depiction of how I came to work for the campaign, however.

---

by: VT Tony Snow @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 19:25:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Non Issue? (0.00 / 0)

VT Tony Snow: "The SVR movement seems (from comments here) to have an 8 percent support rating. It's a non-issue..."

You're right that this whole "tempest in a teapot" is a non-issue since it was based, from the beginning on cherry-picked out-of-context and distorted and misrepresented "intelligence" (and I use that term advisedly) from an anonymous (read that cowardly) blogger.

Those of you who claim to be SVR or secession supporters know full well where SVR stands on issues such as racism, but - because of an unstated agenda - have chosen to engage in a McCarthy-like witchhunt, demanding that we renounce the communists - oh, sorry, its racists this time around - in our midst.

By continuing to insist that we respond to your "facts" (facts as spurious as the hundreds of commies in the government or the WMDs in Iraq), you are only revealing yourselves to be scalawags and scoundrels.

The irony is that the only "storm" you've stirred up is the blowback you're going to feel as you erode your own credibility in Vermont (if there was any to erode - I don't know, I never heard of John Odum or the Green Mountain Daily until I was linked to this diatribe).

And, as far as the similarly out-of-context and misrepresented factoid that the SVR has "only" 8% support in Vermont - the poll result was for the current level of support for Vermont secession, after virtually no public discussion of the issue.  That 8%, if it did represent support for SVR, would put us far ahead of the VT Green Party which seems to secure less than 1% of the vote.  And that 8% for secession places Vermont ahead of every other state and regional secession movement in the nation.  While it's only a beginning, it's anything but insignificant.

Sorry, Odum (whoever you are), but you've done nothing to undermine the credibility of the Vermont secession movement, SVR, VC or any of its active participants.

You have, however, seriously undermined your own.

Sorry that the main-stream media isn't taking you as seriously as they have the SVR: Burlington Free Press, VPR's "Switchboard", VERMONT LIFE, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, The NEW YORK SUN, The LOS ANGELES TIMES, American Conservative, UTNE Reader...

- Robert

---

by: Riversong @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 17:55:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

still havent heard a refutation (4.00 / 1)

If you're too thick to infer my "unstated agenda," here you go: to shine as much light on your white-hooded buddies you want to build a society with as I possibly can.

Truth comes with responsibilities. When I was told these connections, I was morally obliged to write about them, even though I knew it would bring out the nutjob, frothing at the mouth haters.

When you and your buddies had the truth laid out in front of you, you had a choice. Look reality in the eye and step up to the plate to do the right thing, ot go the Fox News route. Destroy, attack, demean, smear, insult. Whatever it takes. Who's influencing who in your little "coalition?"

The only reason I haven't banned your sorry ass off of this board is every time you put your fingers on the keyboard, it's more and more of a public record of who you've chosen to be, and who you've chosen to stand with. You had a moment of truth here, and you've chosen to stand with evil - nothing less than evil.

You want to build a society with people who wouldn't think twice about giving the Matthew Shepherd treatment to both friends and family of mine. I will never forget that.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 21:34:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What are you talking about? (4.00 / 1)

Sure they've given a refutation, odum. I put it on my site yesterday. Here's apologist Rob Williams from Vermont Commons:

"some of our secession scholars - Don Livingston, for example - happen to be southerners. Anyone who has met and talked with Don knows the man is thoughtful and well-studied. Is he a racist? I don't know. And frankly, it is none of my damn business, at a personal level."

Seemingly uninquisitive enough to not bother checking the Google, he doesn't know, and more importantly doesn't care. I'm sure that any Jews or gays affiliated with SVR wouldn't care, either?

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:15:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

SRV Must Set Corrective course, Now (4.00 / 2)

Feb.13th, 2007
Statement of the Green Mountain Collective, NEFAC
Concerning the Alleged Racism of the Second Vermont Republic Organization

The Green Mountain Collective, NEFAC (composed of members of the VT AFL-CIO, the Vermont worker co-op movement, the Student Labor Action Project, and the Vermont Workers' Center) finds the reports posted online by Thomas Rowley, and Odem on www.greenmountaindaily.com alleging that the Second Vermont Republic (SRV) has official ties to racists and right-wing extremists to be very disturbing.  The undemocratic, neo-fascist beliefs of such organizations as the League of The South, the Northern League (of Italy) and others cannot and will not be tolerated in the Green Mountains (as we would expect the SVR to agree).  As Vermonters we are unflinchingly dedicated to democracy, community, equality, and freedom.  Nowhere in this tradition is there a place for racism or bigotry of any kind; nor should there be a place for it in Vermont's growing separatist movement.

We especially find the presence of Thomas Dirolenzo, and Marco Basani (both NOT Vermonters) on the SVR's advisory board very troubling.  Bassani is a member of a far right Italian Northern League. This party, which advocates secession of the relatively rich Northern part of Italy from the less industrialized central and south, is clearly composed of right-wing extremists who would find little sympathy in the Green Mountains. 
"While the [Northern] League leadership dismiss charges of racism, there have been instances of speeches, interviews and banners pointing to that. [party leader] Umberto Bossi himself said that African immigrants, whom he called Bingo-bongos, should not receive popular housing paid for with Lombard money. [Party leader] Erminio Boso proposed to segregate immigrants in different train cars from native Italians. Umberto Bossi, in an interview, suggested opening fire on the boats of immigrants who would disembark in Italy, but after widespread criticism he declared he meant the empty boats. The former mayor of Treviso, Giancarlo Gentilini, talking about those he called immigrant slackers, said that "We should dress them up like hares and bang-bang-bang". In June 2005, at a festival organized by the League, a banner was displayed saying "Rape Pecoraro", (referring to Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, the openly bisexual secretary of the Federation of the Greens); the banner caused outcry… In 2005, Mario Borghezio, MP for the [Northern] League at the European Parliament, was found guilty of arson, for having set on fire the belongings of some immigrants sleeping under a bridge in Turin in 2000."  [from Wicapedia]
As Vermonters, and as people who uphold a basic humanism, we find it deplorable that a member of such a political movement is allowed legitimacy in Vermont, as an official advisor of our separatist movement.
Dirolenzo, for his part, holds extreme anti-worker, anti-working class positions.  He regularly calls pro-union workers, and socialists "malcontents" in his writings, and contends that organized labor is a great social evil in American society.  For this he sits on the SVR's advisory board?  Here we would remind all that 30,000 Vermonters are union members, and another 70,000 are either retired union members or relatives thereof; that is one in six Vermonters.  And again, if, according to Dirolenzo, socialists are malcontents, what does that say about the 65% of Vermonters who just elected socialist Bernie Sanders to the U.S. Senate?

To quote from Dirolenzo's own writings: "One of the oldest myths about capitalism is the notion that factories that offer the poor higher wages to lure them off the streets (and away from lives of begging, stealing, prostitution, or worse) or away from back-breaking farm labor somehow impoverishes and exploits them. They are said to work in "sweatshops" for "subsistence wages." That was the claim made by socialists and unionists in the early days of the industrial revolution, and it is still made today by the same category of malcontents - usually by people who have never themselves performed manual labor and experienced breaking a sweat while working. (I am not referring here to the red herring claim that most foreign "sweatshops" utilize some kind of slave labor. This is an outrageous propaganda ploy designed to portray defenders of free markets as being in favor of slavery)…  Finally, perhaps one of the strongest virtues of foreign "sweatshops" is that they weaken the hand of American labor unions. With few exceptions, American unions have long been at the forefront of anti-capitalist ideology and have supported virtually all the destructive tax and regulatory policies that have been so poisonous to American capitalism. Unions believe that they cannot exist unless workers can be convinced that employers are the enemies of the working class, if not society, and that they (the workers) need unions to protect them from these exploiters." [from the Green Mountain Daily report]

  Instead, Dirolenzo argues the virtues of capitalist economics such as Wal-mart.  "Wal-Mart has undeniably been a glorious economic blessing for its mostly low- and middle-income customers; has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs; has enriched thousands of small business owners who supply its products; has invented many new and superior management techniques; and has been a driving force of a large segment of the entire US economy." [from Dirolenzo's article `Should Wal-Mart Be Broken Up' 7-19-06]

  Here we should not have to remind folks that Vermont was the last state that allowed Wall-mart to enter (under Dean's watch), and that Wall-mart is an economic institution which hurts our traditional downtown economies and which pays it's employees far less than livable wages. 

  These two advisory board member have to go.

  Likewise, we do not understand why the SVR would reasonably choose to provide a link on their website to an organization called "The League of The South."  This self styled neo-confederate organization is also cut from the far right.  In a recent article posted on their official website, the group questions the very meaning of the word "racist" which they contend was invented as some sort of Marxist conspiracy.  They further come to the bizarre conclusion that "Therefore, loyalty to one's cultural traditions, from the way you talk to the faith you profess, is a manifestation of a fear of progress, and progress, as we all know, is the inevitable movement toward globalism and universalism that Marxism promised. Love of one's own people, then, is not love, but hatred of one's neighbors… The motivation of the anti-racist, then, is not justice, brotherhood, or concern for the downtrodden, but the lust for power and treasure." [`Lets Drop The `R' Word' by Michael C. Tuggle, 1-25-07]

With that being said, we understand that such connections and ties, as outlined by the article `Second Vermont Republic/Vermont Commons Tied To White Supremacists' may have developed unintentionally and without the knowledge of SRV's membership.  In fact we have talked to MANY SVR members and supporters across the state, including Vermonters on the advisory board, who had no idea that SVR's leadership had developed ties with persons holding such far-right beliefs.  In addition, many long time members had no idea who Dirolenzo or Basani are or what positions they hold.  In many ways, this latest controversy may be systemic of the separatist movement lacking a democratic oversight of the policy positions of the organization.

  To support this `benefit of the doubt', the Green Mountain Anarchist Collective points to the previous joint statement of Thomas Naylor of SRV and our collective decrying the right-wing Minuteman organization; an organization with neo-nazi ties which both our collective and Naylor of the SRV called on common Vermonters to resist (and which we successfully did resist).  Furthermore, knowing such SVR leaders as Thomas Naylor, Rob Williams, and Jim Hogue in a personal capacity, we attest to the fact that they do not hold racist views, nor have they espoused anything but a vision of ethnic and race equality in their understanding of how an independent Vermont would operate.  And again, the SVR has a solid list of outstanding progressive-leftist members/activists including Peter Schumann of Bread & Puppet, anti-Bush activist Dan Dewalt, and others.  However, this `benefit of the doubt' must be backed up by immediate corrective measures on the part of the SVR.

These measures must include:
1. The immediate dismissal from SRV's advisory board of Thomas Dirolenzo (for extreme anti-worker, anti-union views) & Marco Basani (for his connections to the extremist, anti-immigrant, Northern League of Italy).
2. The official cutting of relations between SRV and the neo-Confederate League of the South, as well as any other organizations with ties to right-wing extremists, racists, and/or neo-fascists. The weblink on the SVR website must be deleted.
3. A statement from the SVR recognizing a workers' right to form unions and the historical necessity for workers to do such insofar as democracy and economic equality are goals which are socially desirable.
4. A statement from the SVR that reaffirms their complete opposition to racism, fascism, bigotry and discrimination.
5. These statements should be posted on the SVR website, and should be printed in the Vermont Commons (which is a sister organization of SVR)

We expect SRV to do the right thing and to comply with the above five conditions insofar as they remain committed to "direct democracy on the farm and in the workplace," anti-racism, anti-fascism, and the building of a progressive social movement in Vermont and beyond.

In conclusion, the Green Mountain Collective believes that the above outlined links between the SVR and extreme-right wing elements developed through the false idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and that "separatism is the most revolutionary force in the world today"; both ideas have been forwarded by the SVR.  Let us remember that Ethan Allan and the Green Mountain Boys once rode into the town of Gilford, Vermont, in order to put down a counter revolution launched by a group of people who's aim it was to break up the formation of Vermont and to turn back the tide of democracy by themselves separating from the Green Mountains and instead allying themselves to the reactionary New York government.  In a word, secession is not revolutionary in itself.  If the League of the South separates from the US in order to recreate a Jim Crow south, nothing will have been gained, and much will have been lost.  Separatism can only be considered a useful and ethical tool if it is aimed at a truly revolutionary end; that being the reorganization of society according to participatory democracy, social equity, and freedom.  Anything else is a sham and a half measure.  We invite the Second Vermont Republic to agree.

-The Green Mountain Collective, NEFAC
greencollective@chek.com 

---

by: GreenMountainCollective @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 17:49:59 PM CST

And so it begins... (0.00 / 0)

The dominoes have started falling....

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. But why would you do something silly like that?

---

by: JDRyan @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 19:42:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes They Are (3.00 / 1)

The 20-and-30-something crowd of activists, lefties, etc that I hang out with in Montpelier are starting to ask me a lot of questions about this and are pretty shocked and concerned.  I haven't heard anyone arguing that SVR's connections to these people are in anyway irrelevant.  SVR may find itself a weakened shadow of its former self after all this, and they'll have no one to blame but their own non-response.

If SVR's event in March at the Langdon St Cafe is allowed to go on I'm guessing that they'll be sitting in a room with a bunch of folks asking some serious -and maybe embarrassing- questions.  Go luck with that one.


-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:02:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

just curious... (0.00 / 0)

what is your definition of a "libertarian-socialist"?

---

by: BeGreener @ Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:32:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

The best way to answer that should probably take more time and space than I'm going to put into it right now, here.  But. . .

Libertarian-socialism generally envisions human societies where we come together to provide for the common good of all, but this "coming together" does not mean the formation of a State that binds people to be obligated to one thing or another; so "libertarian" to the effect that each individual enjoys all the natural freedoms inherent within him or her without the coercion of forced relationships based on a social or economic force beyond ourselves.  "Socialism" in recognizing that human beings come together as a social species for the survival and empowerment of all and differentiating from the libertarian-right concept that society (and therefore human life) should be left to the whim of corporate logic, interests, and greed. 

Anyone effected by a decision should have a say in that decision.  It may sound at first glance increasingly messy and impossible, but there have been many, many good thinkers who have put forth numerous ideas about how such a society would function practically and efficiently.

The sound-bite one-liner that applies best is "a free association of free peoples".

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:58:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

is libertarian-socialism then a "historical revisionist" project? (0.00 / 0)

the word "libertarian" today in our culture means:

the absolute right of self-ownership and thus the freedom from coercion of another...this defines what is known as a legal framework of "negative liberty"

the word "socialist" today in our culture means:

the collective ownership of the means of production (land, labor and capital) where the collective has delegated it's authority to elected representatives (the state).

welcome to the revisionist historical project!

wdh3 wrote:

"Libertarian-socialism generally envisions human societies where we come together to provide for the common good of all"

BG:

in common actually means individual (not collective/joint) equal access/use opportunity rights & property.

the difference is that one does not require prior permission to access/use (in common) but determines afterwards whether some other individual's equal rights to the same access/use are being infringed upon...whereas collective/joint property and rights require the consent of every other owner (consensus) PRIOR to access/use.

wdh3 wrote:

"but this "coming together" does not mean the formation of a State that binds people to be obligated to one thing or another; so "libertarian" to the effect that each individual enjoys all the natural freedoms inherent within him or her without the coercion of forced relationships based on a social or economic force beyond ourselves. "

BG:

and is this libertarian-socialist society run by consensus and if so what is done with those that dissent?

whd3 wrote:
""Socialism" in recognizing that human beings come together as a social species for the survival and empowerment of all and differentiating from the libertarian-right concept that society (and therefore human life) should be left to the whim of corporate logic, interests, and greed. "

BG:

but the libertarian-right isn't based on "corporate logic, interests, and greed" because corporations being "artificial persons" are created via the state granting of privilege to encourage the pooling of capital in exchange for limited liability protection.

corporations are therefore an extension of the state...

the libertarian right is based on the concept of individual rights and "negative liberty" (freedom from coercion by another)

whd3 wrote:

"Anyone effected by a decision should have a say in that decision. "

BG: so we should run our society based on consensus?

whd3 wrote:

"there have been many, many good thinkers who have put forth numerous ideas about how such a society would function practically and efficiently."

BG: like?

---

by: BeGreener @ Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 14:25:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

asdfjkl; (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate your interest in these ideas, but a) your writing style makes it hard for me to follow what you're talking about (sorry, I don't have an advanced degree in anything and come from a working poor background; i.e., your response is too intellectualized, even for a sometimes intellectual like me) and b) I am (at the very least) smart enough to recognize your deconstructionist red-baiting tactics.  I'm fine thinking I know what I know about human nature and society and letting you think you know what you know about the same- and that's only because your views and the actions you take based on them -to my knowledge- aren't causing anyone any harm or acting in a destructive manner. 

If you want to, try here, here or here for a little bit more about these ideas.  I can't say I entirely back any of these 100%, but they make sense to me mostly.

I troll on this site to include my values into a mainstream, relevant, and practical conversation.  Debating semantic and academic definitions of political identities is what I do drunkenly with my other political-geek friends.  If you'd like to get together for some beers and debates I'm your man.

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 00:00:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

an estranged step-child... (0.00 / 0)

in my "intellectual" opinion the SVR is trying to fuse these unique elements of political economic theory to create something entirely new.

from the left:

1. mutualism  (free market, anti-capitalism) which from the wiki article you posted it appears to be the estranged step-child of the broader "libertarian-socialist" movement because collectivist anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism & anarcho-communism) predominates and individualist anarchism (mutualism) is subordinated even though it has a rich and proud tradition in the US and leading early theorists (Josiah Warren, Wm B. Greene, Benjamin Tucker) were all New Englanders.

2. geoism (equal access to the natural and social commons for all, anti-monopolization of economic rent & economic interest which accrue to private interests via privilege) a number of activists within the SVR subscribe to this type of approach.

3. bio-regionalism (political boundaries drawn according to bio-regions) one of the members of the advisory board (Kirkpatrick Sale) is one the leading theorists on this having written a book called "Dwellers in the Land"

with these from the right:

1. agrarianism (modern, northern industrial capitalism destroyed southern agrarian culture)...this is where all of the recent controversy is coming from as southern agrarianism moved into the traditional wing of the conservative movement via Richard Weaver who was a student of one of the original southern agrarians (John Crowe Ransom) and friend of Donald Davidson (who had a house in VT, taught at Middlebury's Broadloaf Institute, and was an avowed racial separatist). Weaver wrote the book "Ideas Have Consequences" which still heavily influences conservative thought today.

2. distributism (the problem with capitalism is that there are too few capitalists and thus productive property needs to be distributed into many more hands) was based on the catholic social teachings from the Pope's encyclics which includes the principle of "subsidiarity" and developed in the UK at the same time as the southern agrarians (1930's) ...the most famous catholic distributist book being "Small is Beautiful" by EF Schumacher. In my humble, intellectual opinion, the founder of the SVR Thomas Naylor's economic orientation can best be described as "distributist" (without any religiousity).

3. civic republicanism (individual human freedom can only be achieved by practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, deliberative bodies) which stands diametrically opposed to classical liberalism idea of human freedom based on the biological imperative which is embodied in the idea of free will to contract and individual rights. The main proponents on the philosophy are Donald Livingston and Vermonter Frank Bryan.

so unless you understand the full context of the political economic orientation of the SVR you will never pick-up on the fact that they actually philosophical OPPOSE 2 out of 3 of Thomas DiLorenzo's economic & political philosophies.

1. he is a classical liberal (paleo-libertarian) fully oriented within the Austrian school's neo-classical/marginalist utility tradition...whereas the SVR is trying to revise civic humanism (republicanism).

2. he is a catholic who along with his colleagues Thomas Woods and Lew Rockwell believes distributism is actually left-wing, clap-trap (glorified collectivism).

3. he is today the most influential and visible US revisionist author on secession & Lincoln and the SVR to date has chosen to focus on secession rather an economic vision although in my humble "intellectual" opinion - that is trying to be articulated within VT Commons. 

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 07:02:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

how delightful (0.00 / 0)

Now all you have to do is lose the white supremacists.

Or at least, stop whining about how unfair it is for those who have a problem with it to be speaking up about their feelings. If you can't understand those feelings, you're not nearly as bright as you're so determined to present yourself as.

I really couldn't care less if it's Vermont Commons or Vermont Teddy Bear. White supremacists are going to get my attention every time.

here's a question for you, that will be difficult for you to hide an answer behind an over-psuedo-intellectualized dodge. You said:

he is today the most influential and visible US revisionist author on secession

Influential with whom, exactly? Specifics. Honest specifics, if you're up to it.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 10:51:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it was and is a mistake... (0.00 / 0)

for the SVR to focus solely on secession as an end in itself and not a means to an end with the end being a fusion of left and right radical, decentralist political economy like what I have tried to describe above.

in my opinion the reason why is then the southern agrarian portion (which I have repeatedly stated there is no doubt in my mind has a historical, racial separatist or superiority component - Donald Davidson and Frank Owsley were advocates prominent within the movement whereas Robert Penn Warren and Herman C. Nixon were racial equality advocates) would be easier to explain as it could be set in a much broader context than how it is being narrowly construed by you and others.

so let me be clear about my opinion as a member of the SVR:

~my historical reading (5 books within the last 3 years) tells me there was a racial separatists or superiority component by some of the advocates of southern agrarianism in the 1930's.

~I don't doubt that there is a racial separatist or superiority component within the membership of what is pejoratively called the "neo-confederate" movement today...how much I have no way of knowing though.

~there is no racial, religious, or anti-labor component that I am aware of to what the SVR advocates.

apparently DiLorenzo's writing on Lincoln and secession has influence within ALL the secessionist movements in the US but I have actually never read any of his books because I am much more interested in the political economy aspect of the SVR which requires extensive reading and research in 6 different areas.

---

by: BeGreener @ Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:49:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Too Small to be a Nation (0.00 / 0)

The SVR sound like members of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge. 

I guess they forgot what South Carolina Unionist, James L. Petigru, had allegedly commented in 1860 about South Carolina: "Too small to be a nation and too large to be an insane asylum."

E. Flanagan
Constable, NY

---

by: epfrush @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 16:06:27 PM CDT