His Lips Are Movin' Again....

Brooks Simpson has copy-pasted comments between myself and Dr. Hill from my blog to Crossroads and concluded that we are "squabbling" about whether we're friends or acquaintances.

I'm not makin' this up. Do you suppose he knows better and just can't help himself? Or can he really not tell when he's lying?

When Michael Cushman of the Southern Nationalist Network dropped by Crossroads to enlighten the professor about the guests on SNN podcasts in the past, Simpson pops out with this lie:

"... it is Ms. Chastain who suggests that by mentioning your support of the flagging of the VMFA that I am associating that protest with racism. You might want to take that up with her."

Ah, no. That's not true and Simpson knows it is not true because I told him exactly how he was attempting to tar people with the phony-racism brush; told him in a comment which he sent to the Crossroads Cornfield. What a surprise, huh?

Since he is determined not only to run from owning up to his attempted smears, but from his cover-up of them, I have no choice but to address the issue here.

Remember, after I commented about his attempted smear of the flaggers with the phony racism brush, he posted, "Now, how did I tar the SNN with the 'racist brush'? By mentioning that the flaggers were endorsed by SNN? By quoting Ms. Chastain’s good friend Dr. Hill? By mentioning that Ms. Chastain’s own blog heads the link list at SNN? By pointing to a flagger podcast with SNN? How is any of that racist? "

Here's how you attempted to smear the flaggers, perfesser. You wrote:

The ''flaggers," ...have support … from the Southern Nationalist Network. ... The ones who claim that southerners "are a people. Our ancestors came from Europe but we long ago ceased to be Europeans." In short, no blacks allowed.

"In short, no blacks allowed."

YOU said that, perfesser, not the SNN. You -- Y. O. U -- said it. Nowhere does the SNN say "no blacks allowed" simply because Southern culture was created by white Europeans. That's your spin, for the sole purpose of creating a phony racism brush and then attempting to smear good, decent people with it.

You continued,

Interesting that for all this talk about black Confederates supporting the CSA that these southern nationalists explicitly exclude African Americans from their definition of "southerner." Wonder what went wrong?

What went wrong, Professor, is your ability to tell truth from falsehood. Southern nationalists don't explicitly exclude blacks from their definition of Southerners. Oh, you may run into the occasional nutcase who does, but that doesn't mean all of them do. Nutcases are everywhere -- including state university faculty, staff, and administration -- so there's bound to be one or two who wander into Southern nationalism.

However, if you do a little surfing at the Dixienet, website of the best-known Southern nationalist organization, you'll find the following:

Frequently Asked Questions About The LS

Q: What is the LS position regarding blacks in the South?

A: The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South.

...and...

From League of the South Statement on "Racism."

We believe that all Southerners - black and white - want and need the same things: a safe country for their families, liberty, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We believe that the last thing the South's enemies want is to see black and white Southerners sitting down together to determine their common destiny and work for authentic harmony, a just social and economic order, and an independent South.

Folks, that doesn't sound like excluding blacks from the definition of Southerner to me. If it sounds that way to Simpson, he's got bigger problems than a little part-time proSouthern blogger can do anything about.

Simpson reminds me of a fellow -- let's call him Benton -- I had the misfortune of meeting online a number of years ago. This was back when the League had an article on Dixienet titled, "Southern Cultural Defense -- A League of the South Approach".

The statement said the League championed "...the traditional core Southern culture that has defined the national character of Dixie for generations. That dominant culture was historically handed down to us by the Anglo-Celtic peoples of the British Isles who settled the South and formed its original political community."

Somehow, Benton had construed this to mean that the League was "...presenting a monolithic view of the South's settlers as Anglo-Celtic," and thus wanting to keep Southern culture "monolithically Anglo-Celtic (i.e., white)". Sound familiar? Sounds suspiciously like the "No blacks allowed" spin, doesn't it? The problem is, that was not what the League was saying. That was the view of a Fudd-like, self-styled anti-racist hunting "wacists." ("Be vehwy, vehwy quiet.")

I tried to explain to him what Anglo-Celtic cultural dominance meant... it meant things like not having to pay an extra bribe to a county official to get a permit to add a room to your house, as is the case in many countries in Central and South America. It meant not getting your hand cut off if you were caught stealing (let the punishment fit the crime). It meant -- but you get the idea.

Benton didn't get the idea. My explanation fell on deaf ears. Of course. He didn't have an Anthony Freemont-style cornfield where he sent information he didn't want to know but he exhibited the same attitude as Brooks Simpson -- his mind was made up, and facts to the contrary were fodder for the memory hole.

I even posted the difference between the operative words -- dominant: Exercising the most influence or control; monolithic: characterized by massiveness and rigidity and total uniformity -- and added this note: "As an aside, I would like to point out something before you fall down and have a seizure over the subject of Anglo-Celtic cultural dominance.... Exercising the MOST influence or control does not mean exercising TOTAL influence or control."

For good measure, I quoted the entire paragraph that was giving Benton trouble, with some clarifying remarks from me:

"The League of the South champions without apology the traditional core (NOT "monolithic" --cw) Southern culture that has defined the national character of Dixie for generations. That dominant (NOT "monolithic") culture was historically handed down to us by the Anglo-Celtic peoples of the British Isles who settled the South and formed its original political community. Over the centuries, our culture has been enriched in subtle ways by the influences of other non-dominant, cultural groups, particularly by black Southerners and the French-speaking Cajuns of Louisiana, but at its essence, the South has always remained a predominantly (NOT "monolithically") Anglo-Celtic civilisation."
From: "Southern Cultural Defense -- A League of the South Approach"

"Just in case you missed it," I told Benton, "the League says that the South's traditional (not monolithic) culture, handed down by Anglo-Celtic people who settled the south, has been enriched by the influences of non-dominant Southern groups, particularly (though not only ) blacks and Cajuns."

Did no good, of course. Wasted cyber-breath....

Benton exhibited the same kind of self-imposed blindness, this same deliberate distortion, you see over and over in Professor Simpson's blog posts and comments, on his own blog and elsewhere. What does truth matter, when it can't be used to demonize people? Lies are lots, lots better for that....