Saturday, December 29, 2012

Maybe He LIKES Bein' Bored

On December 23, Brooks Devious Simpson posted an entry at his blog titled, Not Skeered ... Just Bored, primarily about moi.

It's obviously not true. He definitely is not bored. The very day Simpson posted that rant proclaiming how bored he is by my old, stale jokes, rants and whining, he visited my Backsass blog three times, at 3:51 p.m.; at 5:47 p.m.; and at 5:53 p.m.

He's visited Backsass twice since then, on the 27th and the 29th.

He even visited my 180 Degrees True South blog on the 29th.

Here's a thumbnail of a screen capture of my visitor log, with the pertinent visits highlighted. Click the thumnbail to see the graphic full size:

Nope, he's conspicuously not bored by me.  He's decidedly interested in what I have to say.  He just doesn't want me posting my thoughts and observations in the comments on his blog and exposing his sycophantic readers and commenters what I say because it is quite damaging to him. So he's keeping my comments off his blog. 

He doesn't want his his questionable claims and conclusions, his manipulative language, and other flaws and foibles pointed out to his regulars.  For example, that it is highly illogical to proclaim that someone is threat to children if they don't post on his blog that they do not support such threats.  It has to be on his blog. Never mind that he has produced nothing written by them that echoes or promotes calls for violence. All he has to do is set up false criteria, and then proclaim that certain folks didn't meet it.

He is skeered, which is why he steadfastly refuses to debate Southern heritage people anywhere but the safety of his own blog comments, where he holds the power to delete comments before they ever see the light of day.

He wants to say whatever he wishes about them without being challenged. He'll post a few of their "safe" comments -- but when they start seriously challenging him, they're no longer contributing, or they're not adding anything new, yada yada yada, and their comments abruptly cease, thanks to his deft employment of the delete key.

No, he's not bored and, yes he is skeered.

I may give his Not Skeered ... Just Bored rant a  more thorough reply at some point in the future. A lot of it begs to be exposed. We'll see.

Friday, December 28, 2012

Sweet Southern Boys Video Trailer

Finally completed the video trailer for Sweet Southern Boys. Hope you enjoy!


Verona, Georgia
January 14, 1994

The vehicle streaked westward on a dirt road through sparse woodlands, kicking up dust in its wake. Behind the wheel, Randy Stevenson, soon to turn eighteen, monitored the road ahead. Tall and broad shouldered, he was a gracefully muscled athlete. Shaggy black hair framed his face – a sensitive, enigmatic face that captivated girls at Verona High School.

Only people who knew him well – and the two boys with him knew him as well as anyone – would know how agitated he was behind his stony expression. His nostrils flared to accommodate his rapid, shallow respiration. His hands were not trembling only because they held the steering wheel in a tight grip.

A crescent moon hung in the sky ahead, glowing through a hazy cloud cover. It was eight o'clock. The temperature hovered around forty degrees and the three boys wore lightweight jackets over their jeans and shirts.

Randy's eyes darted to the rear view mirror. In the distance, a dusk-to-dawn light cast a circular glow in the darkness and shone down on the riverside cabin the boys had departed moments before. The cabin and the half dozen vehicles parked around it disappeared as trees closed in behind the car.

The two-year-old white Sable belonged to Randy's mother and the music playing softly on the radio was one of her oldies stations. On the drive to the cabin earlier, the trio had been in such high spirits, yakking and laughing nonstop, they hadn't noticed the radio was on.

Now it annoyed Randy. He turned it off and broke the ensuing silence. "John Mark?"

"Yeah," answered a subdued voice from the shadowy back seat. "I'm okay."

"Shelby." Randy glanced to his right. The dashboard lights dimly outlined his friend slumped against the door, his head tilted back, wedged between the door and the headrest, and his blonde moptop falling away from his face. His eyes were fixed on the headliner.

"I'll be arright," Shelby muttered.

The road emerged from the woods into a scrubby flatland and Randy eased up on the gas pedal. An intersection with a county blacktop road lay just ahead.

Randy braked at the stop sign and made a left turn toward town. They'd traveled no more than a few yards when Shelby lurched upright and growled, "Pull over!"

The Sable slowed and bounced as its tires hit the weedy, rutted shoulder. Shelby opened the door and hung his upper body out, retching, before the vehicle came to a complete stop.

In the dome light's glow, Randy caught John Mark's gaze in the rear view mirror.

John Mark tilted his head toward their friend. "We need to take him to the emergency room."

"No," Shelby said. He leaned out the door a few moments after his heaving stopped, spit a couple of times, and raised up, breathing heavily between parted lips. He wiped his eyes, glanced at Randy and half turned to look behind him. "No. I'm fine."

John Mark returned Shelby's glare. "Don't be stupid. If that really was LSD she gave you--"

"I didn't swallow any," Shelby insisted. "I rinsed my mouth out four, five times before we left. Besides, I ain't sure LSD makes you puke. Bein' kissed by Tiffany Bratcher is what made me puke."

Randy gave him a quick appraisal. "You done?"

"Yeah." Shelby shut the door and murmured, "Let's go."

Conversation was sparse on the twenty-minute drive to Verona. It was still early on a Friday night and the cinemas, restaurants and convenience stores were doing a brisk business.

"Guess it's time to call it a night," Randy said as the Sable rolled down busy Chilton Avenue, a brightly lighted commercial thoroughfare.

"No, I don't want to go home," Shelby said. He looked much better, sitting upright, his hands clasped around an upraised knee, but his blue-gray eyes were restless, troubled. "I feel like us sticking together a while."

"Me, too," said John Mark.

Randy nodded. "All right. Where to?"

A momentary silence fell as they considered their options.

"My house," John Mark said. "Let's stay there tonight."

"I thought your folks went to Tennessee," Shelby said.

"They did. But they won't care. I'll call their motel and let them know and y'all can call your folks and tell them where you'll be."

"Works for me," Shelby said.

The light turned green and Randy accelerated, his eyes flitting to Shelby. "I don't like it. What if you have some kinda delayed reaction to that drug?"

"If it even was a drug," Shelby replied. "You know what liars Wes and Tiffany are. I don't feel anything from it. Y'all just keep an eye on me and if I start acting weird, take me to the emergency room."
* * *

A lone observer, standing still and silent in the shadows of the cabin's rustic porch, watched the Sable streak away from the riverside party, its red taillights, clouded by the following dust, finally disappearing into the woods.

The faint smell of beer and cigarette smoke had followed him outside. Muffled conversation and laughter reached him through the cabin walls, overlying the thumping rhythm and lower frequencies of recorded music.

After a few moments, he ambled down the steps into the yard, his longish russet hair glinting in the glow of the security light. He followed a path down a slope to a boardwalk edging the inky Oostachula River.

He found a wooden bench, sat down, and pulled a flip-top cigarette box and butane lighter from his jacket pocket. The only cigarette in the box--thin, filterless and slightly crumpled--had not been made in any tobacco factory. He lit the cigarette and inhaled deeply.

His three rivals had said nothing to him when they departed; just filed past him with stony faces. But he knew from long experience that they were shaken--by now, he was an expert at shaking them up--and a corner of his mouth slanted upward.

Eight years had passed since his first run-in with these three crackers, fisticuffs that had got him detention at school and a talking-to at home. But his father's lecture had ended with a priceless observation:

"...there are other ways to fight, son."

Indeed, there were.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Modern Politics and Culture Wars

At his Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog, Andy Hall sez, "Lots of folks have made the observation that the Confederate heritage movement is, at its core, far more about modern politics and culture wars than it is about events of 1861-65; the 'War of Northern Aggression' often serves as a convenient proxy for beliefs and positions and resentments that are firmly rooted in the late 20th/early21st century, and past events are refigured explicitly in those terms."

Interesting, coming from a man who defines his blog as a "civil war era" blog and then includes posts about:
1. A currently existing Southern heritage book publisher
2. Numerous posts about H.K. Edgerton, who is a conteporary Southerner
3. Ron Wilson's prison sentencing for running a ponzi scheme (occurred in Nov. 2012) 
4. A 2012 movie about Abraham Lincoln
5. A current dispute in Selma, Alabama over a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest
6. Confederate flaggers, especially the Virginia Flaggers, which has only been in existence for less than two years
7. Dixie Outfitters and H.K. Edgerton, a currently existing business and living human being, makin' money
8. Clint Lacy's blog, which is currently online
9. Lynyrd Skynyrd, a currently existing rock and roll group, and the Confederate flag
And that's just since early October, compiled from a quick scanning of his blog, meaning I may not have noticed all contemporary references about modern politics and culture wars that Andy makes.... 

Pot.  Meet kettle.

Andy, just out of curiosity, what ARE the date/time limits of the "civil war era" -- in your estimation?

Motives, Agenda and Character

I want to revisit some of the comments from Brooks Devious Ego Simpson's blog in a little more depth.
"Connie is too busy attempting to draw parallels between Pat Hines’s/Josephine Bass’s and Micheala Levin’s.comments on various blogs. It seems, according to her, that talking about murdering someone and being thankful for evolution are the same thing."
And I replied:
"Michaela has expressed thankfulness for evolution somewhere? I wouldn't know, I haven't seen that. Nor have I attempted to draw any parallels -- I have simply showcased her orgiastic pleasure ("makes my day," she said) over the prospect of early death for Southerners."
His comment reeks with either blatant dishonesty or stupi -- careless mental processing. First, as I noted in my original reply, I wasn't attempting to draw any parallels. When I wrote about Michaela Levin's expressions of joy over the prospect of early death for Southerners (Here, December 6th), Josephine Bass's remarks (December 18) had not been written. And my remarks mention neither Bass nor Hines.

How can you "draw parallels" between things you don't even mention?

Second, Pat Hines's remarks, which I dealt with some time ago, occurred on Facebook, not "various blogs."
Then, Rob says, "It seems, according to her, that talking about murdering someone and being thankful for evolution are the same thing."

The "according to her" part is a blatant lie, since I have not stated that murdering someone and being thankful for evolution are the same thing, nor have I hinted or suggested it, or alluded to it in any way.

Finally, I note that nothing in Michaela Levin's statement that I wrote about had anything whatever to do with evolution. Here it is again as it appeared on a comment thread at Civil War Memory (with the pertinent part highlighted): 
    Michaela Levin October 25, 2012 at 10:09 am 16
    Actually the translation of the German sentence is: “Black man does not belong in the vicinity of our flag”. Of course, as the “elite” minds of the SHPG go, the grammar in the German sentence is wrong. However, I am not surprised to see that they use the German language for racial slurs. If they were in Germany they probably would still find many arguments why Hitler was such a “success”…all in the “gentle” spirit of “heritage”, excluding Jews, commies and the rest of “them”. The only thing that makes my day is that the overall education these people enjoy and their general attitude to life, especially their choice of diet will statistically make enough a difference that they croak earlier than the average person in the US. Bless their heart!
The only question I have about her death-wish is who all she includes in "these people" -- the few identified in the screen shot her husband posted on his blog?  All members of the Southern Heritage Preservation Group?  Or Southerners in general? I think she means Southerners in general -- or rather, white Southerners -- because there's no evidence that the choice of diet for SHPG members is somehow different than the choice of diet for Southerners in general.

So the question comes -- why did Rob make such a false claim? I think we can drop stupi -- careless mental processing as a reason, which brings us back to blatant dishonesty.

And this is a fine example of why these Southern-hating bloggers don't like me, and why they ban me and attack me -- because I don't fall for their phony claims of being all about "history. I am concerned with the motives, or agenda, or character that underlies their purported reverence for "history," which I am convinced is a post-civil rights obsession with "racism" and an overwhelming desire to portray white Southerners, past and present (with a few exceptions) as humanity's greatest manifestation of evil -- violent, inbred, moronic, scum-sucking racists.

It's all right there in their blogs. Oh, sure, they include posts that focus on battles or generals or other war-related subjects to provide plausible deniability against the charges of evilizing white Southerners. But these simply don't neutralize the efforts, or the desire behind them, to demonize white Southerners.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Racist? Or Truth?

Pusillanimous Poltroons

Back in August 2011, I posted a comment at Andy Hall's Dead Confederates blog, to the effect that Brooks Simpson's university had gotten a bad rating from The (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and after they cleaned up their act, the FIRE rating improved.

For some reason, that so incensed Andy Hall, he banned me forever forthwith from commenting at his blog, saying,
"Finally, you’re done commenting here. I should’ve done that last week. You really do contribute nothing of substance to any discussion, and seem to have no interest in doing anything other than finding a way to question the motives, or agenda, or character, or (in this case) the affiliated institution of those who challenge your preferred historical narrative. You have a blog and readership, there and elsewhere; you don’t need electronic real estate here to make your voice heard. I know that you will take being blocked as full vindication of the rightness — indeed, righteousness – of your position, and that blocking you simply affirms that an unwillingness to acknowledge the “truth” you offer. In fact, what you offer, as in the example above, is little more than rhetorical contortions, ugly insinuations and evasions best described using Stephen Colbert’s term, “truthy” — there’s just enough reality behind it to make it seem truthful to those who want to deem it so, if no one looks too closely."
Mercy me! Wordy outrage worthy of a woman, huh? And way out of proportion to my "infraction."

But Andy does give a hint of the real reason why he's banning me ...
 "You really do contribute nothing of substance to any discussion, and seem to have no interest in doing anything other than finding a way to question the motives, or agenda, or character, or (in this case) the affiliated institution of those who challenge your preferred historical narrative."
Why, that is partially right!  In fact, my purpose is exactly to question the motives, or agenda, or character, of certain folks, but not because they challenge my "preferred historical narrative."  I don't really have a preferred historical narrative.  I question the motives, agenda or character of folks who "civil-war-blog" with a political/racial agenda of stroking their overblown egos and showcasing their own "anti-racist" credentials by misportraying others as evil racists.

I am convinced that the underlying motive that Kevin Levin, Brooks Simpson, Andy Hall and hangers-on Corey Meyer and the pathetic Rob Baker (and perhaps others I don't know) have for "civil war" blogging is to portray white Southerners, past and present, as humanity's greatest manifestation of evil: racists.  Of course, those civil war bloggers who are themselves Southerners are exempt from the racist label.

This desire to trash white Southerners as evil racists is tempered by the need to come across as scholarly and evenhanded, so it is cloaked in "civil war" crap. But it is certainly there, and certainly detectable.

This explains why their blogs are not "civil war blogs."  They're "civil war memory" and "civil war era" blogs. And natcherly they decide what constitutes a "civil war memory" or what falls within the "civil war era."  They love trashing the Virginia Flaggers, which have only been in existence a year or two -- meaning NOW is the "civil war era."  And somehow, Kevin Levin's animosity for the SCV and the UDC are civil war "memories."

The overwhelming desire to portray white Southerners as evils racists explains the portrayal, chiefly by Hall and Levin, of the lives of blacks (slave and free) as total and utter misery. Because, you see, white evil exists in exact inverse proportion to black misery.  You see this all over both their blogs.

Andy's over-the-top umbrage at my criticism of Arizona State University is actually anger at my earlier criticism of him for trashing Ann DeWitt's black Confederates research, here:

I posted, "Honest mistakes can be fixed. Purposeful arrogance, bullying and ridicule, even in their written form, are signs of a character flaw that is frequently permanent."

Andy sanctimoniously came back with, "I have always been careful to criticize Ms. DeWitt’s work, not to impugn her character. ...  My criticisms of her work have always been focused — I don’t just say, “she’s wrong,” but go into considerable detail to show why and how."

My reply: 
"Andy says, “My criticisms of her work have always been focused — I don’t just say, ‘she’s wrong,’ but go into considerable detail to show why and how.”
Why, sure you have, to wit:
“You don’t hear much about them because they had to be stationed way, way in the rear. It’s just not possible to do a decent souffle with the concussion of artillery nearby.”
“Cupcakes were a critical resource, but in the South it was very difficult getting sprinkles in through the blockade. Bragg was reportedly grumpy all the time about that.”
Oh, that’s focus, all right. Real focus. ... The most impeccable historian credentials in the world can be totally nullified by rigid adherence to a hostile and/or self-aggrandizing agenda.
THAT is what really got me kicked off Andy's blog -- that and his fear of taking me on.

Thus, the claim by Simpson, Levin and Hall -- that I don't "contribute anything  of substance" in my comments on their blogs --  is their acknowledgement that I'm not there to comment on history but on their motives, agenda and character.  I think those are legitimate subjects.  They are afraid to take me on because because they know I will mercilessly question their motives, agenda and character and, frankly, they can't answer me.

I notice they don't ban folks who are overly emotional, or people whose loyalty to the South and its heritage may outweigh their book learning or understanding of history.  These hate-bloggers LOVE to slap around these folks. They get off on it.

They also love to put on their phony displays of outrage over "violence" and "threats" that they know are not real. If they thought for a minute some crazed Confederate lunatic would actually come after them, they'd notify the authorities and then go silent and lay low on their blogs and completely ignore the threat -- what any reasonable and prudent person would do -- rather than bait and antagonize the lunatic.  You can ALWAYS know whether they think a threat is real by whether they provoke and badger the threatener...

But because I'm not awed by their education or other credentials, because I point out their inconsistances and lies, because I see through their motives and  say so, because if they try to slap me around, I'll slap them back, twice as hard -- they're skeered of me. So, they ban me.  Cowards.


The following comments, in italics, are my OPINION of the ideas expressed in the post and comment thread at Brooks Simpson's Crossroads hate blog:

What Is It With Some People?
Dec19 by Brooks D. Simpson

Several months ago Crossroads reported on violent threats against schoolchildren made by southern nationalist Pat Hines, who in the past has won the approval of people such as Mike Lamb.

Note, children, the hate-making here -- the attempting to smear Mike Lamb for "approving" of such a despicable person as Pat Hines. Why showcase someone who "approves" of Pat?  Why not showcase someone who disapproves?  There are numerous folks who have posted their disapproval on Facebook.  Why not showcase them?  He could find them if he wanted to.  After all, this is the fellow who said, "... I tiptoe through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War."
Well, that's what he says.  What he means -- what he does -- is look for Southern heritage folks to smear, lie about and drum up hatred for.  (I note that there's no evidence Mike Lamb approves of Pat Hines for his threats, though that is what Simpson expects you to think).
 I note that not a single southern nationalist has taken exception here to his comments.

As I've noted in a previous blog post -- why must they do it "here" -- i.e., on Simpson's blog? And note that because they haven't done it there, we're supposed to believe they haven't done so at all, anywhere?  That's what he expects his myrmidons to believe. I guess they don't have the critical thinking skills to see through his hate-mongering.
Now comes word that Josephine Bass, a.k.a “Josephine Southern,” has offered the following comment on Corey Meyer’s blog:

Bless Your Heart, I do think you are lucky that no one has shot you in the face or gone to your kids school and shot up the place. 

What is wrong with these people? Is this the way advocates of Confederate heritage and southern separatism intend to go about their business?

Uh, no, it isn't, and you know it, Simpson.  This is over-the-top emotionalism, likely brought on by the hate-mongering on your blog, and Hall's and Meyer's and Levin's. As closely as you monitor Southern heritage, you know there have been absolutely zero episodes of violence from Southern heritage folks, so you're dishonestly attempting to equate emotional rhetoric with violence.
There’s been a lot a talk about the face of evil lately. There’s also been a lot of talk about mental health and social responsibility. There’s also been a lot of talk about how schools should be safe from violence.

Yet this is what we hear from certain folks in the name of Confederate heritage and southern separatism.
Sometimes, people, confrontation is not only the right thing to do, it’s something that we all must do.

P.S.: Ms. Bass says that in making these statements she’s acting as a defender of southern honor. Really?
25 comments to What Is It With Some People?


Louis Burklow says:

They couldn’t “take their country back” – now all they know to do is lash out. The result is they sound like schoolyard bullies with superior firepower. These folks are now starting to realize how demographics is changing the country and it will never go back to the way they want it.

They?  All both of them, Burklow?  LOL!  And how do you know what they're starting to realize?  Do you have a crystal ball?  Well, do you call Miss Cleo?  Throw chicken bones?
Michael Confoy says:

Maybe it’s time for a colonization scheme for southern nationalists?

Nah.  Secession will do just fine, thanks.

Missouri Tenth says:

Mr. Simpson, I’d respectfully put forth that a number of Southern folks are waiting for you to engage them (per your comment on confrontation being the right thing to do). I’ve posted a number of “open” invitations awaiting your response (on differing worldviews, historical interpretations, etc) over at Missouri Tenth. If you would prefer not to dialogue about this openly, please send me an e-mail. I agree there are some hot heads out there, but my aim is to bring together folks on both side of the debates and try to work some of these issues out.

Just my opinion, but you're showing entirely too much deference and respect to someone who doesn't deserve a syllable of it, Missouri Tenth.

Brooks D. Simpson says:

These folks know where to find me. You do. I tend not to frequent your blog except for a few recent posts from you, and, having seen how you allowed Mike Lamb post rather self-serving and incomplete accounts of supposed conversations, I see no reason to trust your venue as a place where responsible discussion takes place. Nor do I see Mr. Lamb as a responsible individual, let alone a southern historian. I’ve given you the attention you deserve …. some would say more than you deserve, and I’m not sure I’d disagree with them.
Let’s see you engage those southern nationalists who advocate violence, especially against children. Seems you’re afraid to confront them. Why is that?

Absolutely HILAROUS!  The serial liar Brooks Simpson doesn't trust the Missouri Tenth?  And once again, we see Simpson expecting proSoutherners to state approval or disapproval ON HIS BLOG -- and if they don't, they're "afraid" or maybe they secretly approve of violence.  He expects every thing to take place on his blog.  Why is that?

Connie Chastain says:


Brooks D. Simpson says:

More like amused …

Oh, no. No, no.  You aren't the least bit amused.  You're madder'n a wet hen and that's why you've gone deeper than usual into nasty mode, and why you're more determined than ever to stir up hatred for heritage folks.
... if we’re talking about the blog bluster. But perhaps you mean the threats against children? I take those seriously. Why don’t you?

I do take serious threats seriously.  I don't take nonserious threats seriously solely for the purpose of stirring up hatred, as you do.
It seems that Connie Chastain also has a problem denouncing Ms. Bass. Guess she’s skeered. As alarming as these threats against children are, the author of Sweet Southern Boys doesn’t really worry about threats made against American children. That’s sad. But then she’s defended, justified, and excused bad behavior and bigotry in the past.

Like I said, I take serious threats seriously.  I don't pretend to take nonserious threats seriously for the purpose of drumming up hatred for folks the way you do, or for trying to portray written over-emotionalism as violence.
So much for your cry for attention, Connie.

LOL.  You ARE skeered of me, aren't you?

Connie Chastain says:

I was talking about your being skeered to visit the Missouri Tenth. You know I’m not talking about threats against children because that isn’t mentioned in either Missouri Tenth’s post or your reply. So why’d you bring it up? Cuz you needed an excuse for gratuitous smear?

There was no threat to children in Ms. Bass’s comments It was in poor taste, but not a threat. BTW — and you know this — I am on record at my blog and on Facebook (several places) as vehemently opposing not only Pat Hines’ threats against children, but his apparent worship of violence in general. So you’re lying about me and you know it. Hard habit for you to break, iddinit?


Brooks D. Simpson says:

Yawn. Elsewhere you dismiss Hines … today, on your own blog.

Today? As I've noted elsewhere, liar...
November 6th is not today.
November 3rd is not today.
You just don’t threats of violence against children seriously and you don’t deplore those fellow travelers of yours who make those threats.

I take serious threats seriously. And I take your hate-mongering very, very seriously, even when I may respond to it with sarcasm and satire..
And, of course, you just can’t stop lying as part of your bitter rage.

Hope y’all got your Connie Chastain fix … how ’bout you, Matt Gallman? :) Back in the jar …

Yep. You're skeered of me, Simpson.  You're skeered because I'm not shy about pointing out your lies and questionable ethics.  

Other than the bare minimal respect everyone deserves simply for being humans, I have zero respect for you -- as a man, as a historian, as a professor.  Zero. That's Z-E-R-O.  In fact, I have extreme disrespect for you because of your serial lying, your questionable ethics and your toxic ego.

Rob Baker says:

Connie is too busy attempting to draw parallels between Pat Hines’s/Josephine Bass’s and Micheala Levin’s.comments on various blogs. It seems, according to her, that talking about murdering someone and being thankful for evolution are the same thing.

Michaela has expressed thankfulness for evolution somewhere?  I wouldn't know, I haven't seen that.  Nor have I attempted to draw any parallels -- I have simply showcased her orgiastic pleasure ("makes my day," she said) over the prospect of early death for Southerners.

Missouri Tenth says:

Mr. Simpson – thanks for the reply. Yes, I do know where to find your thoughts – and I have to say I enjoy your writings (even if I happen to disagree). Yes, I’ve allowed Mr. Lamb to post his thoughts, as I enjoy hearing from a variety of people on a particular subject. It’s my blog, I have that right. And if you should choose to come over and comment – I would always deal fairly in posting your thoughts as long as there is no bad language or insults.

I would throw your last comment back to you (as I personally see one individual speaking out of turn and being paraded about as the voice of Southern Nationalism to be a bit silly). But saying that, the Federal Government has certainly perpetuated a lot of violence towards children, and you seem to be afraid to confront them. Why is that?

You're showing entirely too much respect for this liar, this ethical midget, this cowardly hate-monger, IMHO, Missouri Tenth....

Brooks D. Simpson says:

See … no one paraded someone as the voice of southern nationalism … although it appears you don’t seem bothered by those threats of violence against children. You demonstrate why your forum is untrustworthy, because you can’t be honest. Fair enough.

Said the serial liar, Brooks Devious Ego Simpson... Missouri Tenth  is a Christian, so I expect he is a lot more bothered about threats of violence against children, or anybody, than you are.  You're treating threats of violence against children is simply a really cool tool for smearing proSoutherners....

Still no expression of disgust or outrage … or even dismay … at the comments made by Hines and Bass? I wonder why.

You mean, no expression ON YOUR BLOG COMMENT THREAD.  Disgust and outrage don't have to be expressed in order to be felt, ya know?  And they don't have to be expressed on your blog to have been expressed somewhere.  But leave it to you to palm off the lying notion that if somebody doesn't  express something on your blog, they don't feel it... Liar.
Good try to turn this on the feds Perhaps gun control and a ban on assault weapons would be a first step toward a more compassionate federal government. Carry on with that idea, and good luck. In the meantime, as you say, this is my blog, and you can carry on your crusade at yours. Take care.


Jimmy Dick says:

I think Dr. Simpson as well as many others have given you the facts and information you requested. You just don’t like the answers and therefore dispute the facts that you disagree with. You read what you want in the past and ignore the context because the context makes your opinions erroneous.

Or, it could be that Brooks Simpson is a liar and hate monger with a morbidly obese ego....

Bummer says:

Bummer is old school and for this guy, every day above ground is a blessing. However, the world this student comes from, you would have to be mentally unhinged to “threaten” a man or his family. The threat alone, opens the door to a reality of “what ifs” and that question alone, can generate defensive tactics. As an “old guy” whose greatest possession is his family and their well-being, the statement of “shooting someone in the face” could be taken personally and should not be just disregarded as the ramblings of some demented and tortured lost soul.

Bummer, please. Only serious threats should be taken seriously.  Josephine has been posting on the Internet for years without shooting anybody -- in the face or the arse or anywhere else, capsice?

Ken Noe says:

You left out the end of her threat: ” Ah well there is always next year.” School reopens in January.


Brooks D. Simpson says:

Yup. It’s one thing to make comments on blogs and FB pages about people they don’t like, but these folks now target innocent children, make light of such targeting, or give it a pass. Such is the mindset of certain folks.

Nobody has targeted innocent children.  There has been no making light of, or to giving a pass to, such targeting, since there has been no such targeting.  You know the threat isn't serious. That makes you a liar and a hatemonger.

Michael C. Lucas says:

Another fine example of promoting your anti-Confederate prejudice again Brook’s. This is not confrontation this is bigotry, you know very well Pat Hines does not speak for the South, Southern people, Confederate heritage groups. I abhor what he said, but you are just as negligent in using his words to condemn Confederate descendants as a whole.

I would suggest, Mike, that Pat Hines talks big but doesn't mean it.  I would also suggest that Brooks Simpson means every syllable of hatred he posts on  his blog.

Brooks D. Simpson says:

But I haven’t condemned Confederate descendants as a whole. Nor did I say Pat Hines spoke for the South, southern people, or Confederate heritage groups as a whole.

You implied it.  And you've used it as a litmus test, implying that if anyone doesn't denounce it HERE on your freaking Blog of Lies, they agree with killing children.
So why do you lie about these things?

A question far better directed at you, Liar Simpson.
What else do you lie about?

A question far better directed at you, Liar Simpson.
Meanwhile, here was your chance to denounce Ms. Bass, and you appear to have failed in that regard.

Why must he denounce her on YOUR blog, and if he doesn't, he's failed?  That's just another of your lies, Simpson.
Why are you so quiet about these matters? Tell us. Are you telling us you don’t abhor what she said?

Well, he's obviously posting about SOMETHING ELSE, capisce? And no, he's not telling us that he does or does not abhor what she said.  He's not discussing that at all.  He apparently believes, as I do, that your blog is not the only place where people can -- where, indeed, people MUST -- make declarations YOU expect them to make, under penalty of being lied about.

Michael C. Lucas says:

Brooks, if you and others like you were more humble and stuck to academic disciplines rather than using your blogs as contemptuous sounding boards of anti-Confederate propaganda against Confederate descendants, you could all make a positive difference! Consider helping to preserve Confederate American history fairly, because, in truth, not everything they fought for was as you and others have propagandized and that includes Confederate Preservationists with issues of delusions, as well.

Mike, Mike, Mike.  The only reason Brooks Simpson and his fellow bloggers don't want the Confederacy totally wiped from the American memory, and all traces of it scrubbed from the Southern landscape is because they need it in order to indulge in what they love best -- trash, trash, trashing  Confederates and white Southerners, past and present, as the most evil people who have ever lived.
 But, the difference is Confederate groups are not on the offensive to attack anyone, but on the defensive to preserve the truth of what they know is being distorted by others. You’re not seeking understanding, or truth. Your blog is manifesting hate and that begets hate. The country needs to take a step back from these over-zealous attacks on Southerners, Confederate history, flags, monuments and their descendants.

Forget it, Mike.  Hate begetting hate -- that's what he WANTS.  Don't try to reason with him, or look to the "better angels" of his nature.  He don't have any better angels, and he's NOT INTERESTED in reason. You might as well try to reason with the Kraken.
It was not all one side’s thing or another thing! It was not at all about good against evil, except in the delusions of sanctimonious zealots! It was not all about slavery and African Americans, but they had something to do with it. Confederate history, black, white, and other descendants deserve the same equality of inclusiveness as any other ethnicity in this nation’s diversity. Until that happens, for all considered, it’s foundations are crumbling with malice and hypocrisy and will come to naught!

Jeffry Burden says:

Gee, Michael — I’m sorry to disturb your vision of rainbows and unicorns, but have you perused the LOS, SCV or other modern-day-wannabe-Confederate websites? Not much love and tolerance there.

The League's intolerance is for the government and the yankee mentality -- and for the hate-mongering done by Simpson and his fellow travelers.
In fact, I see a lot of bile and anger and lightly-coded racial and ethnic bias. They make Brooks and other writers of “contemptuous sounding boards of anti-Confederate propoganda” seem tame in comparison.

You may want to drop those sites a note about that whole tolerance/love/inclusiveness thing you propose.


Brooks D. Simpson says:

Thanks for reminding us of your position, Mr. Lucas. I guess that you think Ms. Bass and Mr. Hines aren’t manifesting hate, and certainly you don’t seem to mind what Ms. Bass said, so I guess it’s okay by you. Fair enough.

I don't know about Mike but, nope, I don't think they are manifesting hate.  Pat's posts about violence are the posts of a guy too old and out of shape to do anything about the destructiveness running rampant through his culture, and Josephine just let runaway emotions take hold of her keyboard. You, on the other hand, have relentlessly and consistently posted hatred for Southern heritage week after week, month after month.

Michael Bartley says:

Ms. Bass should be ashamed of herself. Here is the second part of her despicable response, “I wonder when the haters and dividers get their due in this country. Ah well there is always next year.” Apparently, it escapes her that threatening us and most importantly our children is not hateful or divisive.

She didn't threaten you or your children.  Sheesh. Get a grip.
I just wanted to add my voice from the Rocky Mountains to Prof. Simpson’s in condemnation of this irresponsible and stunningly immature potentially dangerous rhetoric. See, Michael and Connie, it’s not that hard. Please join us in a simple straightforward rejection of this madness.

As I have stated more than once, Mr. Bartley, I take serious threats seriously.  And I think Simpson's long-standing hatred of proSoutherners, expressed repeatedly on his blog, is far more damaging than some over-the-top but non-serious one-time emotionalism.

Jeffry Burden says:

Brooks, do you notice that there is still no Southron with the courage to denounce, or even express mild disapproval of, poor Josephine’s words? Bless their hearts, why is that? (Sorry if I’m being confrontational. :-) )

I said plainly on my blog that I don't agree with her sentiments.  What?  You're like Simpson and think it doesn't count unless it's said on HIS BLOG?  Gimme a freakin' break.  There's more to the world, more places to express oneself, than a comment thread on Brooks Simpson's hate blog, capisce?

Brooks D. Simpson says:

Oh,I see one blog owner, as well as our dear friends Chastain and Lucas, coming over here to comment, but not a single word against Bass. The are free to carry on their continuing support elsewhere.

I said I don't agree with what she posted on Corey's blog.  The difference is that you're trying to paint it as some kind of serious, big-deal threat, and I know it isn't.

Michael C. Lucas says:

Your lie not I! As for Ms. Chastain you completely take her responses out of context!

LOL!  And he lies, too.
Brooks D. Simpson says:

You keep telling yourself that. Take care.

Why shouldn't he tell himself that? It's true.  You lie.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Feeding the Hungry Ego

The problem with Brooks Simpson and people like him is that they have such gargantuan egos that have to be fed off the denigration of others. 

This is why he likes to portray proSoutherners as diabolical and violence prone, simply for posting something a little over the top on the Internet. Most people can tell the difference between big, empty talk and seriously reprehensible comments. But he has to pretend they're all seriously reprehensible -- so he'll look like such a shining example of goodness by comparison.  Apparently, that's the tastiest ego food...

I have encountered no Southern Nationalists who agreed with Pat Hines about destroying kids in a Yankee school.  The ones I've discussed it with either denounce the notion, or believe Pat is simply talking big and doesn't literally mean the threat. 

Although I think Pat's comments about the Beslan Siege and threatening to repeat it at a "yankee school" are reprehensible, I don't think for a minute he means it or would do it. Regarding those comments, and his other posts about violence, I once told him on Facebook, "Pat, to paraphrase Ned Pepper in True Grit, 'I call that mighty bold talk for a gray-haired fat man.'"

Pat couldn't begin to carry out threats he hints at, even if he wanted to, which I seriously doubt.  He's old and out of shape -- we're not talking Che, here, folks. Besides, some of what he pretends to advocate would get him blown to pink dust by the U.S. military if he attempted them.  He knows it, everyone knows it. And I really, really don't think he wants to become a pink cloud.

But back to Brooks Simpson.  If people disagree with and denounce Pat's comments but Simpson doesn't know about it -- to him, that's the same as their agreeing with Pat, and endorsing his ideas. If he doesn't know about it, why they didn't do it!

He's exhibited this childish behavior before.  Little kids often think if they don't know about something, it never happened, but you'd expect an adult, especially one who claims to be educated, to know that he doesn't know everything.  Still, with a straight face, Simpson says things like, "... we both know southern nationalists who embrace someone who advocates such mass slaughter as part of his vision of the future....I would think that southern nationalists would move quickly to disavow what he said."

How does he know they didn't? Because he's not privy to the conversations?  Because the disavowal didn't take place in a comment thread on his blog? LOL.  Of course, by implying Southern nationalists didn't disavow what Pat said, simply because he, Simpson, wasn't in on the conversation, he can demonize them on his blog and look squeaky clean and shiny by comparison.

This is just one example.  He has a history of demonizing people in his posts and comment threads, for "infractions" he thinks he knows about -- and then "challenges" them to "redeem" themselves in comment threads on his blog.  (Never mind that the "infraction" may occur basically in his own mind.)  As if, if they don't do it there -- or somewhere where he knows about it, but preferably on his blog -- they're guilty, guilty, guilty.

And of course, that makes him saintly, saintly, saintly by comparison.  And if there's a chance you might miss how saintly he is, he tells you.  (Make sure you understand folks, that he's "horrified and repulsed by what happened at Newtown.")

There is a reason why I don't take Josephine Bass's comments on Corey's blog seriously, and here it is: a screenshot of a graphic she shared on her Facebook page. Of course, she didn't share the graphic in a comment thread on Simpson's blog, so to him, she may as well have been a cheerleader at the Connecticut shooting...

Simpson's willingness, eagerness to wrongly demonize other people for the sake of inflating his already overblown ego is what's truly reprehensible.

* * * UPDATE * * *

What did I tell ya?  Go look at this blog post and the comments following it. 
There was no threat to children in Ms. Bass’s comments It was in poor taste, but not a threat. BTW — and you know this — I am on record at my blog and on Facebook (several places) as vehemently opposing not only Pat Hines’ threats against children, but his apparent worship of violence in general. So you’re lying about me and you know it. Hard habit for you to break, iddinit?
Brooks Devious "Ego" Simpson replied, 
"Yawn. Elsewhere you dismiss Hines … today, on your own blog. You just don’t threats of violence against children seriously and you don’t deplore those fellow travelers of yours who make those threats."
The lyin' liar just keeps on lyin'.


November 6th is not today.

November 3rd is not today.

I take seriously serious threats of violence against children -- or anyone else. Pat's threats weren't serious, and although I found them deplorable, I never took them seriously.

I didn't take Josephine Bass's comments at Corey's blog seriously, either.  Why? Because she posted them on December the 18th -- and on the 14th, four days before, she shared a prayer chain post on her Facebook page for the victims, family, friends and loved ones affected by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Of course, Brooks Devious Ego Simpson makes his judgments about people only on that evidence he chooses to -- that which seems to support what he already believes, or wants to believe. 

But then, what more should you expect from a lyin' liar?

Yeah... What IS It With Some People?

Brooks Devious Simpson posts on his blog:
What Is It With Some People?

Several months ago Crossroads reported on violent threats against schoolchildren made by southern nationalist Pat Hines, who in the past has won the approval of people such as Mike Lamb. I note that not a single southern nationalist has taken exception here to his comments. Now comes word that Josephine Bass, a.k.a “Josephine Southern,” has offered the following comment on Corey Meyer’s blog:

Bless Your Heart, I do think you are lucky that no one has shot you in the face or gone to your kids school and shot up the place.
What is wrong with these people? Is this the way advocates of Confederate heritage and southern separatism intend to go about their business?

There’s been a lot a talk about the face of evil lately. There’s also been a lot of talk about mental health and social responsibility. There’s also been a lot of talk about how schools should be safe from violence.

Yet this is what we hear from certain folks in the name of Confederate heritage and southern separatism.

Sometimes, people, confrontation is not only the right thing to do, it’s something that we all must do.
First, Simpson apparently thinks -- like children do -- that if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist. He sez, "I note that not a single southern nationalist has taken exception here to his comments."

HERE?  On his blog?  Why must it be done there?  I've heard from Southern Nationalists who do not agree with Pat's comments. I've heard from others who think his threats are empty big-talk.  But they didn't do it on Simpsons blog, and because they didn't do it there, he thinks it hasn't been done.

What kind of infantile thinking is that?

Keep in mind, folks, that the juvenile-minded Simpson is a professor of history at a major state university.

As for Josephine Bass's comments at Corey's blog, I don't agree with such sentiments, but I don't construe them to be a threat, which is how Meyer, Hall and Simpson are striving assiduously to present them, complete with feigned outrage.  (Little is more entertaining than the feigned outrage exhibited by these haters.)  I see Josephine's outburst as more empty talk, born of frustration and infuriation over the supreme dishonesty with which South-hating bloggers ply their wares on the internet.

And note how he takes the statements of TWO -- count 'em, two, (2) -- people and attempts to translate those statements into intended action by "advocates of Confederate heritage and southern separatism".  Presumably, he's attributing such "intended action" to ALL such advocates, because if it was just two, it wouldn't be worth a blog post.  (Josephine's statement, btw., had no intent or advocacy, despite Simpson's trying to fool his readers into thinking it did.)

And I can't help but wonder, where were Brooks, Andy, Corey, etc., when Michaela Levin was posting orgiastic joy over the early deaths of Southerners?  It "made her day," to think of it, remember?  And as long as these hate-bloggers ignore that, their "outrage" over Hines and Bass (two out of hundreds of thousands of Southerners, and tens of thousands of Southern heritage advocates) brand them as colossal hypocrites, not worthy of any respect, or even attention.

There's a great deal of  hatred for white Southerners, past and present, lurking in the blog posts of Kevin Levin, Brooks Devious Simpson, Andy Hall and Corey Meyer.  Hatred, as we know, begets hatred -- and it is from such hatred that violence grows.  Is that the end result these bashers of white Southerners have in mind?  Violence against white Southerners?  Or white Southerners provoked to violence against others? Who knows... But as long as they indirectly promote hatred of white Southerners (or at least of Confederate heritage folks) and don't advocate violence outright, I guess they think their asses are covered....

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Military Chefs????

So Corey has been making a worry wart of himself, sending irrelevant comments, and now he's been joined by Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur.  I'm not sure why this sudden interest in my blog.  In any case, they're still stuck on the notion that if a feller ain't a soldier on paper, he ain't a soldier, period.  I'm of the opinion that if you behave like a soldier, if you act like one, if you DO what a soldier DOES, those actions should be acknowledged, whether there's a paper saying "Soldier" or not.

In other words, Corey, Rob, Andy Hall, Kevin Levin and, presumably, Brooks Devious Simpson, believe only in de jure soldiers -- that is, soldiers on paper that "legalizes" their standing a soldiers. Where as I believe in de facto soldiers -- at least, in so far as recognizing an individual's service to the Confederate cause.

Presumably, because there are papers that identify Louis Napoleon Nelson as a cook, he cannot be honored as a soldier. I think his service to the Confederate military should be acknowledged, and if some folks want to consider it soldierly service, so what? I'm not sure why that sticks in the craw of these Confederacy-hating bloggers. Would that they rooted out error that really matters with the same enthusiasm that they show when trashing Southern heritage....

In any case, perhaps the modern army needs to rethink is Soldier Chefs... and remove from them their "soldier" status, and make them just plain cooks, lest they run afoul of our cooks-can't-be-soldiers bloggers....

Monday, December 17, 2012

What Is a Soldier?

Speaking of the black men recently commemorated in Charlotte, NC for their service to the Confederate Army, Kevin Levin throws a tantrum on his Civil War Memory blog. The WBTV news report, he says, begins with this: “Ten black military soldiers finally got the honor they deserve 150 years later.”  He responds:  Not one of these men served as a soldier.

He italicized it.  For emphasis, in case somebody might miss it...

I would say that depends on what you mean by soldier. They weren't officially mustered into the Confederate Army, but that isn't the only definition of "soldier."

[sohl-jer] Show IPA

1. a person who serves in an army; a person engaged in military service.
2. an enlisted man or woman, as distinguished from a commissioned officer:
3. a person of military skill or experience:
4. a person who contends or serves in any cause:
Sounds like these men could have been soldiers by more than one of these definitions.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Explaining "Casualties"....

For folks who seem to think the definition of "casualties" doesn't include "deaths" I paste the following from

[kazh-oo-uh l-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural cas·u·al·ties.

1. Military .
~  a. a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.
~  b.casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.

World English Dictionary

— n  , pl -ties
1.     a serviceman who is killed, wounded, captured, or missing as a result of enemy action

Friday, December 14, 2012

Honor To Whom Honor Is Due

Kevin Levin thinks slaves should be honored not for service to the Confederate Army but for "surviving the Confederacy." Honor, in this sense, means "a source of credit or distinction..." (per

Frankly, Levin's assertion makes no sense. To survive means "to get along or remain healthy, happy, and unaffected in spite of some occurrence ... to endure or live through (an affliction, adversity, misery, etc.)..."

There was nothing about the Confederacy that made it a greater affliction, adversity or misery for slaves than the USA had been. Surviving slavery and/or war is worthy of honor, but the Confederacy was not slavery or war any more than the USA was slavery or war. Surviving slavery in the Confederacy for four years was no more honor-worthy than surviving it in the USA for several generations.

The condition of slaves in the Confederacy was no different than it had been in the USA. It was the military invasion of the south and the depredation of the invading army -- creating affliction, adversity and misery -- that made the difference between the two. Everyone in the Confederacy who survived that, slave and free, (and many did not survive it) deserves honor. Those who fought the invaders, slave and free, deserve special recognition and honor.

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that a blogger motivated to evilize white Southerners refuses to see that.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Just In Time for Christmas

Read about this anti-white film from the King of Cinema Carnage, Quentin Tarantino here:
Tarantino states that negative depictions of white people in the movie are "educational." Tarantino goes on to say that white people did "a lot worse sh-t actually."

Tarantino makes no secret that he is a hardcore supporter of left-wing politics. Besides giving tens of thousands to the Democratic party, he has given large donations to far-left politicians.
White folks did a lot worse sh-t?  They also did a lot of great stuff that has benefited the whole world.

That's a lesson Shelby Kincaid has to teach his little sister, Ainsley, after a councilor at her day camp attempts to instill in her and her little camper friends a mountain of white guilt and self-hatred.  But the councilor had no way of knowing about Shelby's devotion to his little sister's wellbeing.
“Ainsley. Your ancestors couldn't have done what that woman said because they didn't live here then."


"Our grandfather still lived in Fannin County, up by North Carolina, when that happened. None of our Kincaid kin lived here then, and our Shelbys have always lived in Alabama."

"But white people..."

"Let me explain something to you. White people aren't evil because they're white. People -- whatever color they are -- do evil things because sin is in the world. I think you know this from church. People who tell you white Southerners are somehow specially evil because of how blacks have been treated here are trying to mess with your mind. Yes, blacks have been treated badly by white folks down here -- they've been treated badly everywhere, and they've been treated decently everywhere, too – including in the South. And they treat each other bad, just as whites do."

"That's not what Miss Nora said."

"I know what she told you. And I'm telling you, I know different. And I'm gonna teach you. It's important for you to learn. I don't want you to grow up ashamed of being Southern and white, even if that's what that yankee witch wanted you to feel.

"Listen, you can't look at just the bad stuff white people have done; you have to look at the good stuff, too. And if you do that, you will see that white people have done more to help the whole human race than any other group. I'll prove that to you. I'll show you what good things white folks have done for the world. So we're going to be learning about this a long time, okay?"

It wasn't easy, and it took a while. Another three months passed and spring descended upon south Georgia, its fresh green and pastel blossoms bringing another kind of magic to the landscape, before he finally convinced her. And despite all the words, all the arguments, the history, the psychology, the Bible passages and prayers, the explanations, the cajoling ... what really did it, finally, was when he asked her, "Look, who're you going to believe? Some damnyankee? Or me?"

As she looked into the depth of his eyes, a smile crept across her face and her arms went around his neck in a tight hug.

"Well, when you put it that way...."
 Shelby Kincaid is right. If you want to look only at the bad things white people have done, you have to look only at the bad things all groups, races, ethnicities and nationalities have done. But if you're going to showcase the contributions and accomplishments of minorities and women, you have to acknowledge the  contributions and accomplishments of white people, particularly white men.

Quentin Tarantino, Morris Dees and a host of bigoted folks on the left will never acknowledge the good white people, especially white men, have done that benefited those who hate them.  But I will.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Ron Wilson Sentenced

Ron Wilson sentenced to nearly 20 years in federal prison

— Before he was led out in handcuffs, Ponzi schemer and former Anderson County Council member Ron Wilson said he had cleared his conscience.

Wilson, 65, was sentenced Tuesday in a Greenville federal courtroom and he will spend the next 19 and a half years behind bars for running a decade-long scam that ended with $57.4 million lost from nearly 800 investors.

“I took from my brother and from my daughter,” Wilson said before he was sentenced. “I am extremely sorry for what I have done. My conscience is clearer now than it has been in years.”

Full story:

 There are people in the Dixie-bashin' "civil war memory/era" blogosphere who will no doubt be very disappointed that this report mentions nothing about the SCV.  Awwww.....

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Possible Early Death for Southerners Pleases Northeastern Elitist

(Edited December 7 for length and organization, 
and to give the title a more Brooks-D.-Simpsonesque feel.)

On October 24, 2012, Kevin Levin posted at Civil War Memory a screenshot of a few comments from the Southern Heritage Preservation Group (Facebook).  The comments were about a Confederate flag with Obama's face to the side.  Here's the SHPG screen shot:

One side of Obama's face is bright red, and an SHPG commenter said, "It does appear that Obama has been bloodied by it."   Another rejoins, "Not bloodied enough."

Apparently this stirred Kevin Levin's righteous northeastern elitist indignation (and that of several of his comment thread myrmidons) to an extremely pleasurable level.  He wrote: 
"I hesitate sharing this with you, but it is another wonderful example why the Confederate flag is slowly receding from public view.  It should come as no surprise that this screenshot comes from the Southern Heritage Preservation (facebook) Group.  The image was posted by Gary Adams, whose commentary is unintelligible.  Now I have no idea who is responsible for this sick image, but what I find incredible about the comments that follow is that these are the same people who claim with a straight face that the flag does not have racial overtones." 
 Of course, the flag, being an inanimate object, has absolutely no overtones of any kind.  Overtones are supplied by the minds of human beings. I'm sure someone as intelligent as Kevin Levin knows this, but why let a little thing like truth and logic get in the way of throwing a pleasureable conniption fit of righteous indignation aimed at the scummy South and it scummy denizens?

Levin says, "Now I have no idea who is responsible for this sick image..."  He must not want to know, because it's easy to find out who is responsible for it. I found out within about ten seconds of starting a Google search that the flag is available from 

Here's an enlarged shot of the flag for sale on their site.

I note two things -- this is not a photo of an actual flag.  There are no hem-stitched edges, etc.  It is possible that the flag exists only as a digital design, and none will be manufactured unless they are ordered and purchased.  In any case, if you look carefully at Obama's face, it is not a normally colored photo/image with red smeared on one side (the perceived blood).  The colors of Obama's face, in addition to the red, are dark maroon, greenish/brown, pink and white.

What this appears to be -- what these colors indicate -- is that this is somebody's very bad photoshopping attempt to duplicate the colors of the Shepard Fairey "Hope" poster.

Let me emphasize that.

What this appears to be -- what these colors indicate -- is that this is somebody's very bad photoshopping attempt to duplicate the colors of the Shepard Fairey "Hope" poster.

Of course, acknowledging that robs righteous northeastern elitists of the pleasurable activity of verbally excoriating Southern sinners. Much better to go along with the mistaken impression that Obama's face looks bloodied and work oneself up into a pleasurable, racial righteousness fit...

Interesting that  Kevin Levin's myopic view of history focuses so intently on "the dark story of lynching and organized violence against African Americans during the 1950s and 60s – often in full view of a Confederate flag." This is a focus that ignores organized (government) violence aimed at white Southerners during the War Between the States... and that ignores organized (government) violence aimed at American Indians for generations.

Apparently, organized violence is not Levin's actual concern.  It only becomes important depending on who it is organized against.
Why is some organized violence not worthy of mention?   Well, pointing out the government's brutal war on white Southerners does NOTHING to give northeastern elitists the warm fuzzies they get when they evilize Southerners, which I'm convinced is the actual motive underlying these race-focused "civil war" blogs.  How does looking at the brutality suffered by white Southerners showcase Southern white evil?  It doesn't.  It showcases the evil of the government.

Ditto the government's oppression of and brutality toward American Indians -- totally USELESS in evilizing white Southerners. Therefore, it is ignored, downplayed, in blogs devoted to the evilization of white Southerners.

Said evilization is best accomplished by painting the fate suffered by Southern blacks, during and after slavery, as the worst thing any humans have ever suffered since the dawn of time. Because, you see, Southern white evil exists in EXACT INVERSE PROPORTION to black misery and suffering.

This is why I have grown convinced that elitist historian-bloggers who so enjoy evilizing white Southerners don't really care about black folks themselves.  Their "concern" for actual black folks is vague, nebulous, impersonal. They see black folks as tools or weapons for beating white Southerners over the head with.

This comes from the hammer-beaten meme that anti-black racism is the worst motive any human being can have. That's because the South's slaves were black, and they are the weapon of choice for eviling Southern whites, whom northeastern elitists simply cannot stand.

This explains why the establishment media (and Southern-hating "civil-war-haha" bloggers) can go into an orgiastic frenzy over Trayvon Martin ("white-hispanic" on black racism and violence), but virtually ignore black on white racism and violence...

For example, the Knoxville Horror  

Ditto the Wichita Massacre...

Wikipedia and the mainstream press usually do not show images of the men that tortured and murdered these white kids.  No, you have to go to private blogs, some of them overtly racially conscious (like that of certain civil war bloggers, but in reverse), to find pictures of the torturers and murderers:

And these are just two cases, chosen for inclusion in this post to illustrate mainstream media indifference to reporting black-on-white crime, even at this level of brutality and horror. There are many more -- and their number is growing -- given grudging coverage in news media, when covered at all.

Pardon me for noticing, but I wonder whether, to Kevin Levin, the horrific, skyrocketing level of violent crimes committed by black perps (against both white and black victims) is not also a "dark story"? Notice that when the crime is homicide, white offenders comprise the smallest number of murderers, and white on black murder the lowest on the charts, hovering in all of them just above zero.

This horror is happening all around us, from border to border and coast to coast (except, possibly, in the lily white enclaves where these evilizers of white Southerners live) and getting worse all the time. But what do these righteous northeastern elitist civil war bloggers focus on?

Digital images of the Confederate flag on the Internet.

While Levin's blog post is interesting, but not surprising -- it's a theme he's hammered over and over -- I have to admit I found the words of one of his commenters truly shocking.  I reproduce it here. (It references  a comment by John Hall that was apparently removed from the SHPG screenshot.)

Keep in mind that this woman's career is in the healing/medical field.

 If you find that screenshot difficult to read, here it is in text form:
Michaela Levin October 25, 2012 at 10:09 am 16
Actually the translation of the German sentence is: “Black man does not belong in the vicinity of our flag”. Of course, as the “elite” minds of the SHPG go, the grammar in the German sentence is wrong. However, I am not surprised to see that they use the German language for racial slurs. If they were in Germany they probably would still find many arguments why Hitler was such a “success”…all in the “gentle” spirit of “heritage”, excluding Jews, commies and the rest of “them”. The only thing that makes my day is that the overall education these people enjoy and their general attitude to life, especially their choice of diet will statistically make enough a difference that they croak earlier than the average person in the US. Bless their heart!
They use?  John Hall is a THEY?  I thought he was a HE.  This is typical, transparent verbal trickery often used by Southern-hating bloggers (Simpson seems especially fond of it)  -- attributing the comments of one or a few to the many, presumably to make the "Confederate menace" look dangerous, and vastly larger than it really is.

I next note her baseless charge about what "they" would do if "they" were in Germany. She doesn't say how she knows this, but I have to assume she doesn't hang out on proSouthern groups and sites, as I do, because if she did, she would know, as I do, that references to Hitler and Nazis are miniscule in number and hardly positive.

But what truly took my breath away when I first read this was the sheer hatred in this smartass observation,
"The only thing that makes my day is that the overall education these people enjoy and their general attitude to life, especially their choice of diet will statistically make enough a difference that they croak earlier than the average person in the US. Bless their heart!" 
 It makes her day to think "these people" will "croak early."

Look closer at her comment. She implies that human worth (i.e., worthiness to live a normal lifespan) is determined at least in part by their educational level and "general attitude to life" -- though we have no idea how she knows what that attitude is --  and then expresses joy ('makes my day") in the possible early death of "these people" due to their diet.

It's unclear whether she means the four people named in the screen shot or all 1,837 members of the Southern Heritage Preservation Group. It is also unclear whether she extends her hatred and death-wish to the groups her husband loves to hate (the SCV, Virginia Flaggers, etc.) -- or just all white Southerners.

Regardless of who she includes in her death wish, are there others among my readers who see wishing early death on anyone blatant overkill (pardon the pun) as a response to the comments on the SHPG screenshot? Even the "not bloody enough" comment is not an outright death wish for Obama  the way Levin's is for "these people.". 

As for John Hall's purported German-language wish to protect the flag from blacks (identified by Michaela Levin as a "racial slur") -- well, it IS the NAACP, not the Huguenot Society or the Mayflower Descendants,  who's been crusading for the removal of the flag since before the 2000 South Carolina boycott.

What is there about those sentiments that would cause reasonable, decent human beings to joy in someone's early death, even hypothetically?

My last question is, why are political criticisms of Obama, including tasteless but non-serious threats of violence toward him, so awful for these folks, but these tasteless but (presumably) non-serious threats toward George Bush weren't worthy of mention?

Scroll down through these horrific photos and tell me that ANYTHING in that little SHPG screen shot comes close to this hatred and violence.

Why are these ignored by "civil war" bloggers and northeastern elites who post on them?  Because Bush's Administration has nothing to do with "civil war memory"?  But-but-but ... isn't civil war memory whatever Levin SAYS it is? Interesting that Levin found reason to mention Bush in several posts on his blog, so he perceives SOME kind of connection...  But not enough of one to deplore the hatred for Bush exhibited in these images, apparently.

Yep, double-standards abound in the worlds of anti-Confederate bloggers and their commenters. Whatever reprehensible sentiments were expressed in the SHPG screenshot, for sheer, visceral hatred, they were thoroughly neutralized and far overshadowed by the comment by Michaela Levin.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Things "historians" overlook...

Winning Beats Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll


On August 20, 2011, Steely Dan performed at the Tuscaloosa (Alabama) Amphitheater. A report at the blog said the crowd filled the amphitheater "except for the far corners of the 200-level seats."  The facility's capacity is 7,470.

Fourteen days after the Steely Dan concert, on September 3rd, the Alabama Crimson Tide played Kent State at Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa. reported attendance at 101,821 -- which would be a sell-out crowd because the seating capacity of the stadium is 101,821.

Crimson Tide games fill the stands at Bryant-Denny Stadium several weekends each fall.

By contrast, is there anybody out there who thinks a Steely Dan concert could fill Bryant Denny stadium to capacity seven times in the fall?  How about even once? I suspect Steely Dan couldn't fill the amphitheater seven times in the fall.

There's a reason why these "cracker a**holes," as Steely Dan's northeastern elitist a**hole Walter Becker called the team in 1977, has the grandiose name Crimson Tide, and Steely Dan's name is far from grandiose. The Crimson Tide really ARE winners in the world, and their grandiose name is well deserved.

Steely Dan's name -- derived from a fictional dildo in William S. Burroughs' novel, Naked Lunch -- is also entirely appropriate ...  for a New York elitist, has-been boomer musical duo with drug-addled brains whose songs pay homage to the degenerate sex-drugs-rock and roll culture they helped to create. also reports that more than eight million fans have witnessed the Tide play 105 home games in Bryant-Denny over the last 19 seasons.  That doesn't count the people who watched them play in away games -- or the literal millions who watch them on TV.

The gray, balding, 20th century vintage rockers may make fine music to accompany getting drunk or high -- I don't know, I don't drink or do drugs -- but the Alabama Crimson Tide inspires fans to strive for excellence, to aim for victory, to bring forth the winner's outlook in themselves. And they'll be doing it long after Walter Becker and Donald Fagen are eating broth, mashed potatoes and banana jello in a left coast nursing home somewhere....

-- Alabama crackers are better than New Yuck elitists --


Tuesday, December 4, 2012

The Winners of the World

(Advisory -- This blog essay contains language some would find offensive.)

When the Alabama Crimson Tide defeated the Georgia Bulldogs for the Southeastern Conference title and a shot at the national championship, I posted on Facebook a YouTube video of Steely Dan's Deacon Blues -- dedicated to the Tide because of the lines, "They've got a name for the winners in the world ... they call Alabama the Crimson Tide."

I've always loved Deacon Blues not only for that line, but because it's a great song.  Had a whole bunch of Steely Dan favorites back in the day -- FM, Hey Nineteen, Peg, Josie, Reelin' In the Years, and so forth. But I never knew much about the band until now.  That's why I love the Internet -- between Google and Wikipedia, you can find out all kinds of things.

I found out that the two movers and shakers of Steely Dan were Donald Fagen and Walter Becker and that they're from New York. Curious about the Alabama Crimson Tide line in Deacon Blues, I found the song's entry on Wikipedia where I read this very, very typical Yankee put-down...
The song, while contrasting winning and losing in life, does so by taking as an image the perennial powerhouse, Crimson Tide football team. Group member Donald Fagen said, "Walter (Becker) and I had been working on that song at a house in Malibu. I played him that line, and he said, 'You mean it's like, they call these cracker assholes this grandiose name like the Crimson Tide, and I'm this loser, so they call me this other grandiose name, Deacon Blues?' And I said, 'Yeah!' He said, 'Cool! Let's finish it!'"[2]
Need I say that Steely Dan and Deacon Blues have been relegated to the same black hole of contempt where I keep Neil Young and his Southern Man? The major difference is that I've always hated Southern Man -- and I liked Deacon Blues up until last night.

Couldn't resist following up my Facebook post with this note to Fagen and Becker.  They'll never see it, but my Facebook friends will. Here's an edit of that Facebook post:
But it's all right, fellas. You're a couple of gray haired, balding boomer-music has-beens approaching retirement and your adult-diaper years, while the Alabama Crimson Tide is as young as it was when you wrote the song. And the Tide is still winning, and stands on the threshold of yet another national championship.
You've won six Grammy awards, the last one in 2001? The Crimson Tide has won 12 national championships, made 58 bowl appearances, has 98 first team all Americans and in 2009 Tide player Mark Ingram won the Heisman Trophy.
In Deacon Blues, you may have intended parody, but the fact remains, these crackers with the grandiose name, Crimson Tide, are indeed among the winners in the world, you losers... Meaning "crackerjack" fits the typical Crimson Tide player far better than the snide "cracker assholes."
When I say "Yankee," I don't mean every single person north of the Mason Dixon line. There are a great many people in the north who are wonderful folks -- good neighbors, good Americans, generous and kind. I'm not talking about those folks. I'm talking about people with the Yankee mentality, which comprises, among other things, arrogance and snide.

What is it that compels people with the Yankee mentality to stereotype Southerners like Fagen and Becker did? It seems to be automatic, without much thought, just something that's expected when you're talking about Southerners. From whence does such bigotry originate?

In 1977, the year Walter Becker and Donald Fagen penned, recorded and released Deacon Blues, the same year Becker called the Crimson Tide "cracker assholes", these fellows were among those on the Tide roster: 
Ozzie Newsome, E.J. Junior, Tony Nathan, Neil Callaway, Marty Lyons, Barry Krauss, Tom Jordan, Johnny Davis, Jeff Rutledge, Dwight Stephenson. 
 Anyone want to point out some trait or characteristic of these athletes that made them deserve to be called "cracker assholes" by drug-drenched rock musician Becker, whose narcotic use contributed to the dissolving of the band four years later, Becker's own descent into addiction, and the death of his girlfriend by drug overdose that led to a 17 million dollar wrongful death suit against Becker (eventually settled in his favor)?

Certainly the South is populated with crackers -- nothing wrong with that; crackers are no worse than arrogant Yankees --  and it has its share of assholes (Just like New York), both of which, on the morality ladder, are several rungs above degenerate rock musicians whose glorification of drugs, alcohol, and promiscuous sex in their music has contributed to the drug culture that caused wasted lives, early deaths, crime and untold misery.

Fast forward thirty-five years after the release of Deacon Blues. Take a look quarterback AJ McCarron and Jeremy Shelley, place kicker with a perfect record for Alabama this year.  Good-lookin' sweet Southern boys with a winner's mentality.
Given their appearance these days, and their history of automatic northeastern-elitist contempt for Southerners, Fagan and Becker, on the other hand, could easly pass for Yankee Civil War "historian" bloggers. You can almost see them at a Gettysburg symposium er something.
Let's wrap this up with an observation...

-- Southern crackers are better than northeastern elitists -- 

... and another music video -- but nothing from Steely Dan.  Instead, sit back and enjoy the Crimson Tide's fight song played by the University of Alabama Million Dollar Band!

"Yea, Alabama!" 

Yea, Alabama! Drown 'em Tide!
Every 'Bama man's behind you;
Hit your stride!
Go teach the Bulldogs to behave,
Send the Yellow Jackets to a watery grave!
And if a man starts to weaken,
That's a shame!
For 'Bama's pluck and grit
Have writ her name in crimson flame!
Fight on, fight on, fight on, men!
Remember the Rose Bowl we'll win then!
Go, roll to victory,
Hit your stride,
You're Dixie's Football Pride, Crimson Tide!

Note: I will very likely return to this subject, i.e., the differences between Southern crackers and northeaster elitist a**holes, in future blog posts.