The Strawman responds:

A couple weeks ago GMD user Carbonpenguin published a diary entitled “VT Secession, beyond the Strawmen,” which drew much attention from people who are critical of the Second Vermont Republic for its past association with the League of the South, calling the leaders racist.  Last night on ASR Matt and I hosted Thomas Naylor, who responded to these accusations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

The full episode can be viewed at http://asrblog.com which includes a discussion about the similarities between the former Soviet Empire and the United States, in addition to Dr. Naylor’s perspecitive on National Healthcare.

5 thoughts on “The Strawman responds:

  1. Anyone else watch the video? Naylor does a lovely “blame the messenger” smear job, entirely sidestepping the issue: League of the South is widely recognized as a white supremacist hate group whose only interest in secession arises from their desire to create a “racially pure” new country – only pale-faces need apply.

    Their interest in Naylor’s movement, in the whitest state in the country, is simply to further their own goal.

    Back when the association with League of the South became clear, he could have made the problem go away by simply denouncing the racism of the League of the South and disassociating SVR from them, but he chose not to. Instead, he chose to attempt to intimidate those who wrote about the unholy alliance between SVR and the racists. His refusal to denounce them and their racism seems to imply that he is OK with their racist goals.  As a result, he has significantly damaged his credibility – even if he disagrees with their goals – simply because his actions created the appearance that he agrees with them.

    He can’t regain his credibility by continuing to attack the messenger while continuing to refuse to denounce the racists.

  2. I don’t know the particular details of this back and forth, but I did watch the video. What did stand out to me was Prof. Naylor’s insistence that his critics must have another agenda, or that it all must be a coordinated smear job intended to discredit him, presumably because he has become some sort of threat to the establishment.

    What Prof. Naylor is in effect saying is that racism and the connections to racist groups are simply not enough of an issue to merit criticism. That there must be some unspoken hidden motivation.

    It is in this way that he becomes his own worst witness. Most people would see racism as more than enough to raise hackles and to prompt people to speak out. Historically, it certainly has been. He is essentially sending the message that, to his way of thinking, racism is no big deal, and therefore there must be more to his critics’ motivations.

Comments are closed.