I'm listening to SVR founder Thomas Naylor on the radio right now. The connection to the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission has been cleared up. It's his father, not him, so let me be clear that that has been put to rest.
That said, Naylor's quite the bullshit artist. He's saying a lot of things that aren't true. For example, he say that the SVR critics main problem with DiLorenzio is that we have a problem with his Lincoln revisionism. Bullshit. If you look around all of the coverage, aside from one or two posts in the comments section by someone not affiliated with the blogs in question, I can't find any of us taking issue with the Lincoln revisionism. Frankly, I could care less. He also goes on to say that we feel that the advisory board should all be Vermonters. Can't find anything on that. And of course, he's still got that big-headed 'we're doing this because we fear them' excuse. Saying that the critics of SVR are motivated by the fear that SVR is gaining serious momentum is like me saying that the reason I didn't hook up with all the hot girls in high school was because they were just afraid they couldn't handle my sexual prowess and stayed away. Puh-leeze.
Now he's getting into paranoid mode... odum's working for the official state agenda to dismantle SVR...Oooh... odum worked for Bernie.. that's damning, huh? Not very talented at character assassination.
After listening to this show, I really don't think Naylor is a racist. And I'm glad he had the chance to clear that up. But I do believe he turns a blind eye to it in the service of the greater cause. But he still sounded like this all caught him off guard, and he did bullshit quite a bit. He's pretty good at diversion and evasion. Green Mountain Collective doesn't get it either, according to Naylor. I think they do, and that's why they released that statement concerning SVR.
click here for the new...
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Naylor on WKVT AM-Live Blogging
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I was surprised by the fact that he still didn't answer Gorty's question, which was why did Rob Williams and Co. dismiss the fact that some of the people on the board had racist dealings in the past? Why should we not care? I think Gorty was trying to put the finger on part of the whole pulse.
Instead Naylor says, I'm going to issue a report on that later.
But the thing of it is, even though he was a founding member of the Lamar society, an organization aimed at fighting racism, don't you think he's compromising his own principles for the sake of seccesion? Like he's turning a blind-eye to Livingston's and Dilorenzo's past because secession is all that matters to him? Well which is more important to Naylor? Standing tall to you're ideals on racism or getting advice on secession with people who have shady pasts? Doesn't that go against what he stands for? How would the Lamar Association feels that SVR is getting advice with people affiliated with racist ideologies?
That's the matter of this issue. Ya think?
JDRyan wrote:
"He also goes on to say that we feel that the advisory board should all be Vermonters. Can't find anything on that."
"Green Mountain Collective doesn't get it either, according to Naylor. I think they do, and that's why they released that statement concerning SVR."
BG: it is in the GMC statement...
excerpt:
"We especially find the presence of Thomas Dirolenzo, and Marco Basani (both NOT Vermonters) on the SVR’s advisory board very troubling."
I missed that, but the whole point of their objection is not based in the fact that they aren't Vermonters. Moot point.
I believe he wanted to specifically refute David Van Deusen's GMC statement which included it...no offense but I don't think he probably knows about you or your posts because I don't believe he has internet access.
of course in the GMC statement there is a lot of anti-libertarian stuff too...
BG, who is David Van Deusen? I heard Naylor mention him, and I think he may have written for VT Commons, but other than that, I don't know anything about him in regards to what's going on here. I didn't see anything in the NEFAC statement.
BG:of course in the GMC statement there is a lot of anti-libertarian stuff too...
Which reinforces the belief that I'm feeling stronger about every day.. perhaps before seceeding we should be talking more about what kind of republic that people of all stripes envision. Would be a shame to get there only to have a civil war shortly afterwards. But I know that's not the prevailing conventional wisdom right now.
JDRyan wrote:
"who is David Van Deusen?"
head of the GMC but because it is a collective there are no "leaders" (wink, wink, nod, nod, nudge, nudge)...
my casual historical gleanings was he was active early on with the SVR (prior to me) but when it became apparent that there was no sympathy towards a NEFAC type of anarcho-communism (no markets, no money, no governance, no private productive property, no renumeration on one's labor, etc) then he left...
JDRyan wrote:
"Which reinforces the belief that I'm feeling stronger about every day.. perhaps before seceeding we should be talking more about what kind of republic that people of all stripes envision"
BG: that is the purpose of the VT Commons and the reason why I tried to articulate to you and others what I saw as the orientation of the SVR...a fusion of the historical radically decntralist impulses on both the right (distributism/agrarianism/civic humanism) and left (mutualism, geoism, bio-regionalism).
mutualism being individualist anarchism (free market, anti-capitalism) vs. the collectivist anarchism (most promonently syndacalism & communism) of the GMC.
I am going to have to start charging you tuition soon!
I don't think Naylor knows about me either. I'm really just commentating from the sidelines, and my blog is not strictly political, either, so maybe that makes me less of a target. Who knows.
Has Van Deusen made a recent statement in regards to the current situation? Or was Naylor mentioning him because of past disagreements?
BG: I am going to have to start charging you tuition soon!
Well, when the dust settles on all this, as it most certainly will, and I haven't made it on to your list of mortal enemies, would a few beers count as tuition??
I think what it really comes down to for me (without getting back into he poli-sci) is that regardless of the intent, Naylor/Williams need to address the emotional reaction that people are having towards this, because so far, people feel like they're being dismissed. I have no personal stake in this, but I know many who do, and SVR is not addressing it specifically, independent of all the blogwar stuff. By digging in their heels on principle, the many people who do find this disturbing don't seem to feel that SVR gives a rat's ass about them. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but for many this is an emotional issue that's not going to be addressed by intellectual or political arguments.
JDRyan wrote:
"Has Van Deusen made a recent statement in regards to the current situation?"
BG: I assume that Thomas Naylor assumes that Van Deusen is the main author of the GMC list of demands.
JDRyan:
"would a few beers count as tuition??"
BG: will you be at Langdon Street cafe assuming it isn't cancelled?
JDRyan:
"I think what it really comes down to for me (without getting back into he poli-sci) is that regardless of the intent, Naylor/Williams need to address the emotional reaction that people are having towards this, because so far, people feel like they're being dismissed."
BG: can you imagine growing up in Mississippi in the 50's w/your father involved professionally with a racist governor afraid to lose his job and come to the realization at the age of 13 that the culture and family you live within is part and parcel of a racist ideology?
and then started one of the most successful racial equality groups in the South in the 60's to face down the KKK etc - that he is going to give into to a set of demands by self-avowed anarcho-communists (GMC)and an anonymous blogger who tried to draw his deceased father into the smear and hasn't had the courtesy to acknowledge the falsified DiLorenzo posts on the VNN site.
if anyone was really allied with the secessionist movement here then the way to have done this, as Rob Williams has said over and over, is in the spirit of fair play & dialogue - go to the leadership of the SVR BEFORE making public accusations over the web to discuss people's concerns.
I am afraid it's too late...the SVR wasn't trying to hide anything.
I did empathize with Naylor in regards to his father. I do think it was fair to ask him for clarification instead of blindly accusing him, which to his credit, 'Rowley' did not accuse him. I think there was a very real possibility of it being Naylor's father, and so he did not want to accuse him without the clarification. But that's neither here nor there...I'm trying to keep discussions about things on this blog to things that I say on this blog. I have no interest on personal attacks on Thomas Naylor... he' s a smart guy, I've read some of what he's written and found merit in it. I think he's a bit deluded as to the importance of his organization to the public at large. My problem is how he's handling this situation, nothing more.
I might go to the Langdon thing, it depends on what my work load is at the time. If I do, I'll be sure to seek you out.
What do you think the leadership of SVR would have said had Rowley contacted them first? Do you really think that the script would have been any different?
Odum wrote:
"There are no "Accusations." PERIOD."
BG: actually there are a set of DEMANDS from the GMC and the Guardian that were spurred by the way this was nefariously brought to the attention of the general public.
Odum wrote:
"Once more with feeling - we saw what was on the SVR website and who was writing for VT COmmons. PERIOD. Many of us - in fact everyone I've talked to (including people involved in the organization) think it's inappropriate and downright SCARY to have these people involved so tightly with an organization that supposedly promotes the values SVR does. PERIOD."
BG: well a professional journalist actually interested in fair play and dialogue BECAUSE they claim to be in alignment with the GOALS of the SVR/VC (secession) would bring their concerns DIRECTLY to the SVR leadership to find out just how "tightly" the folks in question and their views are with the SVR's - no?
rather than rely on an anonymous blogger whose most salacious charge (which still hasn't been repudiated by him nor you or JD Ryan*) is that Thomas DiLorenzo actually posts on a neo-nazi website (VNN).
now a responsible investigative journalist would have taken the google search like I did and then did a simple google search on the title of the posts and would have seen that each and every one of those posts were cut and pasted from either the Von Mises site or Lew Rockwell which I don't consider to be racist websites...radical libertarian yes (which I can easily take apart intellectually).
*as a good will gesture I am personally asking (again) for you to remove this aspect of Thomas Rowley's post on GMD and JDRyan's salacious screenshot and highlight of the Borat commentary...and then all of my subsequent related postings (and others) attempting to clarify the situation (I give you editing privileges to pull them out of longer posts).
Odum wrote:
"There are no FACTS in dispute, except for your one weblink out of 50 that you think is unfair. FIne, youve made your case about that link, but what about the 40 others? What about who these people ARE? What they espouse? What they represent."
BG: as I have said repeatedly I know for a fact that there were racial separatists and/or supremacists in the leadership of the southern agrarian movement (in particular Davidson and Owsley), as well as, racial equality advocates (Nixon and Penn Warren) who were not leaders.
I am quite sure that there are both racists and theocrats in the southern secessionist movement.
I generally agree with DiLorenzo about the Lincoln "myth" (I have not read any of his books but have read many articles of his on Mises and Rockwell sites) and as I understand it JDRyan has no problem with the Lincoln myth aspect...you too?
apparently so does the southern secessionist movement.
I vehemently disagree with him about (I have read many articles by him on Mises and Rockwell):
1. his interpretation of classical liberalism/libertarianism and his subsequent views about labor and corporation.
2. his views on catholic distributism being socialism and his Mises colleague Thomas Woods much more prolific writing in this area.
I strongly agree with Donald Livingston about civic republicanism because I have read all of his articles in VC on the subject and may have a disagreement with him over southern agrarianism and christian reconstructionism influence in the south but he has never written anything on these subjects in the VC either.
his views on individual freedom (Harringtonian civic republicanism) actually put him at odds with DiLorenzo's views (Lockean classical liberalism)
apparently the southern secessionist movement also likes his analysis of Hume as it relates to civic republicanism.
I generally agree with Marco Bassini's views of states rights doctrine as expressed by Calhoun because I have heard him lecture (via podcast) on the subject via the Mises website.
my sense is that I would generally disagree with him about Jeffersonian agrarianism and classical liberalism (just from the podcast) although he has never written on the subject on VC.
apparently the southern secessionist also likes his analysis of states rights and Calhoun.
Odum wrote: "The only "facts" are the people SVR includes. All the rest is an OPINION: that they SHOULDN'T be involved. Thats IT. No conspiracy. No NOTHING."
BG: and again any decent human being would have brought their concerns (opinions) to the leadership FIRST if you were really aligned with the goals of the SVR (secession) rather than via the web by an anonymous blogger.
it is obvious by yours and others action that there IS another agenda here - what I don't know.
why would you do this the way that you did unless you wanted to seriously hurt the SVR?
Odum wrote:
"Because it pissed me off. DiLorenzo and the LoS being promoted by supposed lefties."
BG: who claims to be "lefties"?
the SVR loathes big government AND big corporations.
Odum wrote:
"Almost as much as digging in and continuing to be an apologist for him."
BG: apologist?
I sharply criticized his "royal" libertarian views on labor and corporations a number of times.
didn't you say you agree with his Lincoln myth busting?
Odum wrote:
"I don't "clear" or forewarn or beg for approval from elected officials before I criticize them - and that includes the ones I personally know and respect. I contacted the SVR people I personally knew. That's more of a heads up than I give anybody. It's a freaking web log for god's sake."
BG: you took the word of an anonymous blogger rather than go to the leaders of the SVR that you claim to support and get clarification of your "opinion" of what you read from the anonymous blogger?
how is that fair play?
Udum wrote:
"To a person, everyone I've told about this connection has been shocked - every bit as shocked and outraged as I was when I was told."
BG: well guess it depends on what you told them the connection is - which is the point.
did you tell them the lie that DiLorenzo is a neo-nazi who posts directly on the VNN?
why do you continue to ignore my appeals for fair play in removing that aspect of your blog??
Odum wrote:
"Believe it or not, sometimes the only "agenda" is to do the right thing. That can be enough. Especially where white supremacists are concerned."
BG:
yes, the right thing would have been to come to the leadership of the SVR so your "self-important" opinion could be rectified to the facts.
you are entitled to your opinion about the facts but not the facts themselves.
there is no doubt in my mind that there are racists and christian reconstructionists in the southern secessionist movement who use some aspects of the writings of some members of the SVR board of advisors to further their cause.
does that make the advisory board members racists or by association the SVR?
clearly the answer is NO.
Now, I don't want to get in the middle of this slugfest here, because it's nice to sit on the sidelines for a change, but a few things need to be pointed out.
First, BeGreener, please stop implying this Naylor bullshit idea that we're saying SVR is a racist organization. Nobody has made that accusation, any more than we're doing this because we feel 'threatened' by SVR's delusions of success, self-importance and 'gaining traction' or because we have a problem with the Lincoln revisionism. The issue here is the SVR's lack of concern as to whether or not certain members of the advisory board are racist, which they have made clear in numerous instances that they really don't care one way or the other. And that pisses a lot of people off.
And people aren't thrilled about VT Commons giving ex-con Christofascist Franklin Sanders a voice, either. That, and the fact that the attacks on the SPLC mirror almost exactly the ones used by the hate groups and that a majority[not all, a majority] of the groups and people who hate and bash the SPLC tend to be of the racist variety, well this all adds up to something that doesn't smell good. Only thing missing right now from you guys is talk about a Zionist conspiracy to bring down SVR.
Is SVR racist? I wouldn't say that, but there sure seems to be an undercurrent of tolerance of it at the very least. And that doesn't sit right with many people, and the big 'fuck you' you and others seem to be giving to those concerns is only hastening SVR's descent in to irrelevancy.
Those not worshiping at the altar of Naylor (who did a fine impression of sounding like a paranoid nut job on the radio the other day) have reservations about it, which you still can't seem to acknowledge or address in any coherent form. It's not going away, and you really don't seem to get it.
JDRyan wrote:
"The issue here is the SVR's lack of concern as to whether or not certain members of the advisory board are racist, which they have made clear in numerous instances that they really don't care one way or the other. And that pisses a lot of people off.
"
BG: I thought Rob's comments on this subject were a little careless...but Thomas whose anti-racists past is impeccable was unequivocal that none of the advisors are racists.
JDRyan wrote:
"people aren't thrilled about VT Commons giving ex-con Christofascist Franklin Sanders a voice, either"
BG: I believe it was an article on money not christofascism...
I personally am an advocate of mutualist credit clearing (giving a talk on it tomorrow) not a hard money (precious metal) advocate at all...
JDRyan wrote:
"Only thing missing right now from you guys is talk about a Zionist conspiracy to bring down SVR."
BG: that's because there are no racists in the SVR...
JDRyan wrote:
"there sure seems to be an undercurrent of tolerance of it at the very least."
BG: we have advisors whose ideas/writing on secession are also embraced by the southern secessionist movement that no doubt has avowed racists within it.
that apparently has upset many people but they are essential to our cause.
I'm a glutton for punishment. But anyways...
BG:but Thomas whose anti-racists past is impeccable was unequivocal that none of the advisors are racists.
Well, then if Grand Exalted Papa Naylor says it, it must be true then! Maybe there is something to Odum's note of the cult fetish undercurrent here.
BG: I believe it was an article on money not christofascism...
Once again, this response shows me how clueless you really are as to what the issue is here.
BG: that apparently has upset many people but they are essential to our cause.
Why exactly are they so essential to your cause? What states have they successfully aided in secession? Other than getting the fawning adoration of racists and theocrats everywhere, countless academic degrees. and writing a bunch of books, what tangible accomplishments can you point to that make them so valuable? I'd think that considering not ONE state has been able to successfully secede, they're not doing a very good job of anything, are they?
And aside from that, with all the other secession organizations in the north, why did you have to bother with the lost cause types from Dixie? If you didn't, none of this would even be an issue, would it?
JDRyan wrote:
"Why exactly are they so essential to your cause? What states have they successfully aided in secession? Other than getting the fawning adoration of racists and theocrats everywhere, countless academic degrees. and writing a bunch of books, what tangible accomplishments can you point to that make them so valuable? I'd think that considering not ONE state has been able to successfully secede, they're not doing a very good job of anything, are they?
And aside from that, with all the other secession organizations in the north, why did you have to bother with the lost cause types from Dixie? If you didn't, none of this would even be an issue, would it?"
BG: the advisory board of the SVR (a secessionist think tank and voluntary association) is made up of an attempt of a balanced view of both left and right.
on the right:
1. Livingston (southern agrarian thought, Italian-City states, civic republicanism)
2. Bryan (civic republicanism within VT)
3. DiLorenzo (Lincoln myth busting, paleo-libertarian)
4. Bassini (States rights, Jefferson/Calhoun)
5. Sorens (pure modern secessionist scholar)
have you ever read any of Naylor's books?
~VT Manifesto?
~Affluenza?
~Downsizing the US?
Yes, I read the VT Manifesto and Affluenza. You gonna quiz me?
Anyways, since you answered my question with this: the advisory board of the SVR (a secessionist think tank and voluntary association) is made up of an attempt of a balanced view of both left and right., which didn't answer my question at all, let me ask it again:
"Why exactly are they so essential to your cause? What states have they successfully aided in secession? Other than getting the fawning adoration of racists and theocrats everywhere, countless academic degrees. and writing a bunch of books, what tangible accomplishments can you point to that make them so valuable? I'd think that considering not ONE state has been able to successfully secede, they're not doing a very good job of anything, are they?
Odum wrote:
"I wouldn't have said a couple weeks back that the SVR people were likely to be racists.
However, given the reaction to these reports from SVR cultists, I'm now approaching the question with a newly open mind..."
BG: do you believe Naylor is even though he was involved in an southern anti-racists group before moving to VT?
Odum wrote:
"he has a personal investment in these issues"
BG: like?
geez - maybe a relative was an educator involved in the anti-regionalist movement in the south during the 30/40's at the height of southern agrarianism and he was much maligned for his efforts...so he holds some sort of unwarranted grudge against a Vt movement trying to incorporate aspects of southern agrarian thought onto their overall analysis?
how do I know unless the anonymous blogger reveals himself...
both sides are trying to paint each other in the worst light - the truth is in the middle.
let me ask you this though...in your mind which is worse:
a. the fact that some racists within the southern secessionist movement use DiLorenzo's writings on Lincoln to boost their case.
or
b. the fact that DiLorenzo's views on economics would lead us back to robber-baron capitalism
JDRyan wrote:
"Why exactly are they so essential to your cause?"
BG: the myth that the civil war was fought over slavery and answered the question once and for all that secession is off the table and anyone who believes it should be back on the table - is a racist.
Ok, that's non-answer #2. Wanna try again?
Odum wrote:
"c. the fact that DiLorenzo is a racist."
BG:
and your direct, factual evidence for that would be?
I gave you the evidence for why he could not have possibly posted on the VNN website...
yet you STILL have it up on your blog - why?
Odum wrote:
"No you didn't.
Once again - you gave me an argument as to why he MAY not have. It's only proof if you're coming from a preconceived notion that he would never post there."
BG: How can someone make two posts that are exactly the same at two different websites at exacly the same time?
you can't...
Post a Comment