Sickening. Vermont liberals meeting with white supremacists

[cali]

As a Vermonter, I get a kick out of the groups urging Vermont to secede. It's typically quirky Vermont stuff, but when they meet with a group on the Southern Poverty Law Center's watch list, they completely lose me. Way to lend some cover to these assholes.

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

<snip>

Vermont, one of the nation's most liberal states, has become a hotbed for liberal secessionists, a fringe movement that gained new traction because of the Iraq war, rising oil prices and the formation of several pro-secession groups.

<snip>

Thomas Naylor, the founder of one of those groups, the Second Vermont Republic, said the friendly relationship with the League of the South doesn't mean everyone shares all the same beliefs.

<snip>

Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, which monitors hate groups, said the League of the South "has been on our list close to a decade."

"What is remarkable and really astounding about this situation is we see people and institutions who are supposedly on the progressive left rubbing shoulders with bona fide white supremacists," Potok said.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_us/secessionist_movement_1

[CottonBear]

1. Oy! They're meeting in the city where I grew up. Chattanooga: the site of Civil War battles.

The racist wingnuts just won't quit, will they? :(

[flashl]

2. We see people and institutions

who are supposedly on the progressive left.

That says it all.

[cali]

3. But the truth is that the secessionist groups

in Vermont are composed of liberals.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I'm all for secession. But, this is nauseating.

Not to mention hypocritical. I assume that the liberals in Vermont wish to secede because they see the government too aligned with the right. Sitting down with the right, not to mention the worst of the right, is hypocrisy beyond nose-holding.

[cali]

5. Yeah, pretty shocking.

Not just the right, but white supremacists on SPLC's watch list. And yes, the seccessionist movement in Vermont comes strictly from a liberal/progressive/anti-corporation place.

[LoZoccolo]

6. I think a lot of people aren't thinking about what this meeting means.

They are not forming an alliance; they are agreeing to be on opposite sides of a secession. They are meeting to separate from each other, not ally.

[cali]

7. I think that's being far too generous

they certainly are forming an alliance.

[LoZoccolo]

8. In one sense, yeah.

In another sense, no. They are agreeing to split the country and live in separate parts. It's not too complicated.

[cali]

9. They're working together for a common

goal. Not too complicated. And there's no excuse for meeting with white supremacists. It both denigrates any liberal argument for secession and lends cover to the haters.

[Javaman]

10. So let's paint a picture of an alternative future shall we?

the Vermont "separatists" cut a deal with these rightwing racists. all sorts of unprecedented legal wrangling occurs and via some bizarre set of circumstances, Vermont sucedes.

Now, what happens to those ultra right wing racist nuts? Think they will quietly go away and slap each other on the back? Hell, no. They have a new home in Vermont.

I wonder if these Vermont Liberals have really thought through this deal they are making with the devil.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between who is the fool and who is the tool.

[UncleSepp]

11. Not all that surprising

There are many points of agreement among the progressive left and the white supremacist/neo-Nazi groups. These are not, NOT ideological points of agreement - don't misunderstand me, I'm not at all saying that the left are Nazis or the Nazis are progressive. However, there are points where we and they come to the same conclusion for different reasons. One example would be opposition to the Iraq war; another would be opposition to free-speech zones.

I'd like to applaud BOTH groups for being able to hold their noses on BOTH sides, to meet with a group with a radically different ideology, in order to find some way to come together on what little common ground they do have or at least to agree to disagree. As much contempt as each side might have for the core beliefs of the other in this scenario, if there were more of this and less refusal to talk across ideological boundaries, there would be more peace in this country and in this world.

[cali]

12. Ugh. You applaud a hate group?

There's absolutely no reason for the Vermonters to meet with white supremacists and it has nothing to do with advancing peace.

[UncleSepp]

17. I didn't think anyone would agree

But I still maintain that the ability to meet for whatever reason with people with whom one disagrees, in search of common ground, is the way in which peace is made. Any time I see that willingness to bridge gaps of belief, I will applaud it. When we stop talking with each other, when we stop listening to each other, the only avenue we have left is fighting. Willingness to talk instead of fight might seem most important at the scale of nations, but it begins with individuals, and goes up through small groups.

[NorthernSpy]

13. I think they should both eat shit and die...

As much contempt as each side might have for the core beliefs of the other in this scenario, if there were more of this and less refusal to talk across ideological boundaries, there would be more peace in this country and in this world.

What "peace" would there be for nonwhites in the neo-Confederates' South?


They're greasy little nazis. They -- and anyone who collaborates with them to any extent or for any reason -- are fair game for whatever traitors deserve.

[UncleSepp]

18. That's not the point.

The point is the willingness to meet with people who hold beliefs you yourself do not hold, the willingness to talk and to listen. It's not about the beliefs of the other any more, it's about one's own actions and one's own willingness. That's the part that leads to peace.

[mmonk]

14. All this means is there is rebellion on the left and rebellion on the right

from the status quo. Healthy? That's all for the beholder to decide

[cali]

16. No. It means that liberals are willing

to meet with out and out hate group members to advance a hopeless and rather meaningless agenda.

[mmonk]

19. They may be willing to meet with unsavory types

but that doesn't mean my observation is wrong.

[flashl]

15. Do anyone remember Texans secession effort while * was Governor? n/t

[bobbolink]

20. Well, we Baaaad left-wing liberals keep hearing how we have to compromise....

or leave the damned party.

I guess in Vermont they got the message.

[Jed Dilligan]

21. Is it worse for the far left to meet with a far right hate group--

neither of which has any power to do anything--or for "moderate" Democrats in Congress to meet with the GOP and support their legislation?

[cali]

22. I don't see that that point is germane

to this particular issue. I wasn't saying it was better or worse than any particular other thing- jsut that it's bad.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. It's unimportant is what it is. nt

[cali]

24. Not to Vermonters n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

25. Then post it in the Vermont forum

Here, it comes across as an attempt to smear the left.