Until now. All of a sudden, the SVR's Thomas Naylor launched a surprise attack on the LOS over alleged "racism" and threatened to dissociate themselves from the LOS unless they made some suggested "changes". Some of these changes are more than just cosmetic; they would completely change the character of the LOS so that it would be a Southern organization only geographically. It would no longer be Southern in character.
Here's the part of the SVR post discussing the proposed changes (this attracted a brief discussion on the Vanguard News Network Forum):
In the spirit of our common objective, the peaceful dissolution of the United States of America, I respectfully invite the leaders and members of the League of the South to consider the following actions aimed at eliminating once and for all any perception that the LOS is a racist organization:
1. Renounce Racism: The leaders of the League should draft a statement which takes the form of the unconditional denunciation of all forms of racism. This statement should be presented to LOS members at their next convention for ratification. [Ed. Note: What does the SVR define as "racism"? It appears from reviewing the remaining suggestions that the SVR considers any form of pro-white expression to be "racist".]
2. Recruit Black Members: LOS leaders should embark on a strategy to recruit African American members into the LOS. This will be a tough sell, because Southern blacks will be understandably suspicious of the motives of a formerly lily-white secession organization. It will most likely be necessary to offer scholarships or discounted memberships to attract blacks. The importance of this step cannot possibly be overemphasized. [Ed. Note: Really? So SVR wants LOS to bribe blacks into their organization through perks and affirmative action? Why would blacks need special scholarships, anyway? They've already got the United Negro College Fund.]
3. Black Speakers: One way to attract black members is to invite black speakers to participate in local LOS meetings as well as the annual convention. A wide variety of black speakers should be considered. For example, Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University is a black, conservative economist who favors secession. One might also invite left-wing, black political leaders who oppose secession. [Ed. Note: This is not a bad idea, but I would restrict the invitations only to blacks who preach empowerment rather than entitlement. Jesse and Al need not apply.]
4. Civil War: Having attended two of the LOS annual conventions, I am not sure that all LOS members realize that the Civil War ended in 1865. Much of the literature on sale at LOS conventions highlights Confederate symbolism, the flag in particular. Whether justifiably or not, most Southern blacks view the Confederate flag as an overt racist symbol aimed at rubbing salt in their 400-year wounds. If the LOS wants to be an effective secession organization, then the Confederate flag has got to go! And in a similar vein, nothing enrages Southern blacks more than the singing of “Dixie.” [Ed. Note: Despite having attended two LOS conventions, Naylor fails to grasp Southern culture. At the very core of Southern cultural heritage lie the Civil War (more precisely known as the War for Southern Independence), the Confederate battle flag, and "Dixie". If the LOS gave up all of these aspects, it would effectively cease to be a Southern organization in the cultural sense. It would be just another geographical fellowship. Furthermore, Southern blacks didn't start complaining about the flag and the song until outsider agitators, acting under Yankee urban Jewish prompting, began stirring them up.]
The bottom line - the Second Vermont Republic wants the League of the South to completely surrender its regional cultural identity as the price for SVR's continued fellowship.
Why the sudden volte-face by the Second Vermont Republic? A review of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) website reveals a possible answer. On the SPLC blog, edited by Mark Potok, the gay Jew who heads up their Intelligence Project, the SPLC has launched a series of attacks on the SVR, accusing it of "racism" based on the slippery slope theory.
In their Summer 2008 Intelligence Report, the SPLC began their current series of attacks on the SVR in an article entitled "North Meets South", in which they questioned the SVR's association with the LOS and insinuated the two groups might have more in common than just secession. Thomas Naylor immediately responded with a strong statement posted on the SVR site denouncing the SPLC's findings, characterizing them as a left-wing version of the John Birch Society, and correctly surmising that anyone who disagrees with the SPLC will be denounced as "racist". Yet even in his denials, he gave signs that he might distance himself from the LOS, relating how he had refused to stand for the playing of "Dixie" at a high school assembly.
One June 24th, the SPLC fired their next shot at the SVR with a post entitled "Vermont Secessionists Team Up With Racist Neo-Confederates", in which Potok posts a podcast between him and notorious SPLC feminist Heidi Beirich discussing the meeting between the "supposedly progressive Vermont secsssionists and the racist neo-Confederates". Note the sly use of the word "supposedly", to plant the seed of doubt and suspicion in the mind of the reader.
On July 2nd, the SPLC fired a third shot at the SVR with a post entitled "League of the South Leader Depicts Obama With Rubber Spear". While the primary focus of the post was the LOS, Potok took yet another swipe at the SVR with the phrase "allegedly progressive secessionists of the Second Vermont Republic (SVR), who have gone so far as to co-sponsor a major conference with the league...". At that point, the SVR had had enough; Naylor hollered "Uncle!" and issued his statement of appeal to the LOS.
And on July 3rd, the SPLC quickly acknowledged the SVR's abrupt volte-face with a post entitled "Second Vermont Republic Calls on League of the South to Denounce Racism". But if Naylor was expecting the SPLC to grant him "absolution", then he was misguided, for none was forthcoming. The SPLC does not grant "absolution" to instant anti-racists. And so Thomas Naylor is still on the SPLC's "shit list".
The problem is that Thomas Naylor doesn't completely understand the true nature of the SPLC - he still believes they're worth placating, despite his personal anger at them. Consequently, he is responsive to their input. And he's made a mistake. While the LOS hasn't publicly responded to Naylor's statement, they're unlikely to take it lying down.
The League of the South is clearly NOT a racial nationalist organization. In fact, it's doubtful that they're even a racial populist organization. But they are unmistakeably and indisputably pro-white.