|
|
Keith Thompson
At-Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
|
Mr. Chair,
Mr. Martin is once again using the public list as his personal soapbox, attacking colleagues, relitigating every personal grievance, and treating an official LNC communications channel like his private blog for undermining the very organization he was elected to serve.
This is not normal board conduct. It is not productive dissent. It is organized dysfunction dressed up as moral courage.
The constant accusations, public denunciations, personal attacks, insinuations of treason, and attempts to provoke endless internal conflict read like they were taken directly from the CIA black book on how to destroy an organization from within: exhaust its leadership, poison trust, turn every disagreement into a loyalty test, and ensure that no productive work can occur without first passing through a gauntlet of manufactured outrage.
To be clear, I am not accusing Mr. Martin of being a federal agent.
I am merely observing that when someone repeatedly behaves exactly as a hostile infiltrator would behave, advances the same destructive outcomes a hostile infiltrator would seek, and attacks anyone who attempts to restore order as a tyrant trying to silence him, reasonable people are entitled to ask reasonable questions.
When it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and spends every waking hour sabotaging the duck pond, perhaps we should stop pretending that asking whether it is a duck is somehow beyond the pale.
Who benefits from this?
Does the Libertarian Party benefit when donors watch its board members call one another Nazis, terrorists, communists, psychopaths, traitors, and subhuman criminals on a public list?
Do our candidates benefit?
Do our state affiliates benefit?
Do our members benefit?
Or do the only beneficiaries happen to be the political institutions, intelligence agencies, major parties, and hostile actors who would love nothing more than to see the Libertarian Party consumed by internal paranoia, personal vendettas, and endless public humiliation?
Again, I hope Mr. Martin is not knowingly doing the CIA’s dirty work for them.
But intent is not magic. A man can serve an enemy’s interests without ever receiving a paycheck from that enemy. He can become a useful instrument simply by allowing his ego, rage, and obsession with internal enemies to override every obligation he has to the organization.
The result is the same.
And frankly, the reflexive claim that any attempt to impose standards of conduct amounts to “silencing dissent” is itself part of the pattern. Accountability is not censorship. Decorum is not tyranny. An official list is not a constitutional entitlement to abuse colleagues without consequence.
If Mr. Martin believes his conduct is helping the Party, he should be prepared to explain exactly how.
Who has joined because of it?
Who has donated because of it?
What candidate has been elected because of it?
What organizational objective has been advanced by it?
If the only measurable products are resentment, distraction, reputational damage, and donor disgust, then perhaps we should judge the behavior by its results rather than by the heroic mythology Mr. Martin has constructed around himself.
I am just asking questions.
For the sake of transparency, accountability, and the survival of this organization, those questions deserve answers.
My statement stands.
Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
At-Large, LNC
Austin,
That is a remarkable deflection.
You were asked to explain how your conduct benefits the Libertarian Party.
You did not answer.
Instead, you insinuated that I am an unregistered foreign agent.
When asked to substantiate the allegation you introduced, you did not answer that either. You abruptly declared that the discussion was about something else and told everyone to “stay on point.”
No, pal.
You do not get to change the subject, make an accusation of federal criminal conduct, and then change the subject again the moment someone asks for evidence.
You introduced FARA into this thread.
Either it was relevant, in which case you should substantiate it, or it was an irrelevant personal smear, in which case you should retract it.
Name the foreign principal.
Identify the alleged relationship.
Produce evidence of direction, control, coordination, compensation, or representation.
If you cannot do that, then your FARA comment had nothing to do with the merits of this discussion, rather it was a diversion intended to avoid answering the questions put to you.
This is precisely the pattern under discussion:
You are confronted about your conduct.
You refuse to answer.
You manufacture a new accusation.
You are asked to support it.
You refuse again.
Then you accuse everyone else of being off topic.
That is serial deflection poised as righteous indignation.
The original questions remain unanswered:
How has your conduct benefited the Party?
What member joined because of it?
What donor contributed because of it?
What candidate was elected because of it?
What affiliate was strengthened because of it?
What organizational objective was advanced by calling your colleagues Nazis, terrorists, communists, psychopaths, traitors, and foreign agents?
You have now had two opportunities to answer.
You used the first to make another accusation and the second to run away from it.
Facts, Austin.
Stay on point, please.
My statement stands.
Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
At-Large, LNC
Austin,
Read your own email.
This is now your fourth deflection.
Produce the evidence.
Or admit that you made it up because you could not answer the questions already put to you.
The title of an email is not a magic shield against accountability for what you write beneath it.
Facts.
Mahalo for demonstrating the pattern yet again.
Stay on point, please.
My statement stands.