Sunday, February 11, 2007

Thomas J. DiLorenzo - SVR Advisory Board Member revisited

In my post below I provided some background on Second Vermont Republic advisory board member Thomas J. DiLorenzo's earlier work for Big Tobacco.  I also suggest that he has a somewhat comparative goal in the bizarro alternative histories and essays that he's been churning out in print and on the web, in addition to lecturing about, on Abraham Lincoln.  He's really turned it into quite an industry.  Even I can admire the entrepreneurial skill necessary to generate income from something that is basically nothing.

But there's an even darker side to this prominent advisor to Vermont's secession discussion.

As I read through the archive of his essays at [1] I came across a few of his thoughts on issues besides his very apparent Lincoln obsession.  One, called "Hurrah for 'Sweat Shops' - They help the poor, among their other virtues," or "How 'Sweatshops' Help the Poor," boils down essentially to an offshore tactic for union busting in America. [2]

He's also written an essay called the "Truth About the 14th Amendment." [3]  That's the amendment with those pesky civil rights, citizenship/voting rights and due process rights that led to the end of previously legal segregation.  He believes that an argument can be made for its abolition, and that's important to white separatists like those in the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans with whom he's so deeply involved. [4] [5]

Certainly SVR could not have know that he is a frequent poster on a neo-Nazi, jew baiting messageboard at the Vanguard News Network [6]

Here's how the ADL has described Alex Linder's Vanguard News Network
"The Web site consists of two parts: a news section, where Linder posts news articles and opinion pieces of relevance to white supremacists, and an online message forum, where white supremacists from around the world can post messages and engage in on-line discussions and debates."

"The ideology that Linder has sought to infuse into his site is exemplified by VNN's header: "No Jews, Just Right." [6]

DiLorenzo's posts at VNN don't descend into the crude racial and anti-Semetic slurs that are common on these sites.  He's to much of a scholarly, condescending Uptown Klan kinda guy to engage in that sort of thing.  He merely drops in from time to time to toss a bit of red-meat to the more expressive types, and to Linder, that confirms their worldview. [7]


At Sunday, February 11, 2007 at 11:39:00 AM EST , Blogger J.D. Ryan said...


You might want to reword this post. None of those posts that you link to are resaponsed from SVR in any official capacity, and one of them is just a copy of an apologist posting at GMD. As far as I know, there's still no official word from SVR on the matter. Maybe they think it will just go away. Wishful thinking.

At Sunday, February 11, 2007 at 12:05:00 PM EST , Blogger Thomas Rowley said...

I thought about that. It's their site/blog. There's no disclaimer that posts on their site do not necessarily represent their views. If they choose to advise me to that effect, I'll certainly update the post for them rather than just leave it in comments. (I think we're talking about the post below, right?)

I wonder if they'll get to that before the say something, anything about DiLorenzo. What could they be waiting for?

At Sunday, February 11, 2007 at 2:00:00 PM EST , Blogger J.D. Ryan said...

Yeah, I menat the post below. Considering the serious intellectual powerhouses involved with SVR (and I say that sincerely), I'm really surprised at the pathetic attempts that have come up in defense so far. Sure, we've grown to expect Bill O'Reilly style arguments and stuff from the neo-cons - it's their stock and trade which works due to the uncritical nature of their demographics. I have to wonder with this, especially after Jim Hogue's feebel attempt of a rebuttal on GMD earlier - were they really caught off guard? When they got these people of nefarious character involved, didn't somebody at least come up with SOME kind of plan for defense should this be made an issue? Or did they just think that nobody would notice? It's obvious that to some, the goal of secession trumps any concern with who they're getting in bed with to accomplish it. I'm just really shocked at how poorly this has been handled so far.

At Sunday, February 11, 2007 at 10:49:00 PM EST , Blogger Thomas Rowley said...

begreener -

You make unsubstantiated charges of "doctor(ing)" records at other sites that no one could do without access. The site operators are silent on your charges. Even DiLorenzo hasn't said he's not a VNN poster.

You ignore question after question, yet expect everyone to join you in chasing your dust bunnies.

You've admitted elsewhere to a degree of technical incompetence so that you are unable to offer proof of your claims.

You think because you "discovered" that some posts are not linked within a site that means something. No one has ever said that DiLorenzo does not post at other sites, nor that he exclusively posts at VNN.

You're welcome to come here to have real discussions about real situations and even to act ridiculous (everyone has their style) but if you ignore the other side's questions and charge away here without a sufficient offer of proof, you are no longer welcome here.

Answer the questions that have been put to you or you'll be deleted on Tuesday. That should give you time to copy whatever you want to keep to put up on your own blog.

At Monday, February 12, 2007 at 10:48:00 PM EST , Anonymous Miah said...

I can't believe how easilly distracted you really are. How is this any different from allegations of being a front for NAMBLA and childmolesters is this from two years ago? Why don't you look in with half the skepticism you gave to SVR into Southern Poverty Law Center. Comb their own page with a critical eye, and if you can't see the obvious for yourself, look into the many exposes of SPLC.

In any case, even if a racist or pedophile or what have you even pans out to be part of the organization, it has nothing to do with Vermont separatism. Vermont tradition is proud of combatting intolerance and it is what weaves the Second Vermont Republic mission together. If a racist were trying to mole into SVR, and if he were not also on the Government payroll, he would be barking up the wrong tree.

My suspicion is that COINTELPRO is alive and well, now carried out by voluntarilly cooperative Corporations (such as the LP bombing of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney) and quite likely SPLC is doing cooperative spy work for the government. They're hate list is full of so many holes it's ridiculous. They are at best fleecing people and opaque accountants, or they are a domestic COINTELPRO front to watch the militia movement and secessionist movement for the FBI post-Waco.

I stand by the Second Vermont Republic mission and in honor of the tradition, will stand against any intolerance or hatred of others for their differences. Unsubstiantiated allegations against the movement as a whole based on unsubstantiated claims about individual members is just seen as smokescreen and obfuscation, and a vindication that SVR is getting things right if the propaganda campaign against them is getting such willing cooperation from those who are so easilly distracted.

Long live Vermont and RIP to Tyranny,

At Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 2:56:00 PM EST , Blogger J.D. Ryan said...

Yep, Cointelpro really gives a shit about a tiny VT secessionist organization, and showed this by providing all of these verifiable links from many different sources. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're out to get you, right?

At Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 5:02:00 AM EST , Blogger Alex said...

Remarkably dishonest post. I (ed. of VNN) have posted DiLorenzo stuff in order to critique. Specifically I call him task for not explaining what is wrong with Lincoln's racism - because Lincoln's racism, we believe, was fully justified, in light of East St. Louis, Detroit, Washington, D.C., uh, Africa, and like hellholes. Of course, being the libertarian coward he is, DiLorenzo shrinks from similar conclusion. He may well privatly agree, but in public, he is merely the standard gelded pussycat, chiding Lincoln for not being Semitically Correct in 1860. I suspect your poster here knows this and is deliberately trying to smear DiLorenzo.

And that makes him a piece of shit.


A. Linder


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home