Can Brooks Simpson Post About Me ... WITHOUT Lyin'?

Two posts full of idiocy and lies at Crossroads. What are we to make of the interest a professor of history at a major state university takes in a private citizen, a little ol' gray-haired blogger from  Dixie?

His most recent posts are so full of lies, it's breathtaking.  I wonder what the parents of his students would think if they knew their sons and daughters are being indoctrinated by such a bearer of false witness.

As an aside, I also note that he apparently doesn't have an original thought in his head, and if he didn't have moi to inspire him, his blog would be a rehash of Levin and Hall posts and old YouTube videos.

From News and Notes: March 27, 2012
Lie 001: "Here’s a protest against lumping people together offered by a person who lumps people together."

My post about lumping people together was clearly about folks who LIE about people in order to lump them together. I don't do that. Perfesser Simpson does. 

Lie 002: "Ironically, the author’s also been lumped with me by Hunter Wallace, but she’s too skeered of confronting him. Indeed, she has yet to challenge any of his posts about southern and Confederate history as history."

I challenged Hunter Wallace on a very long thread, over 400 posts, at the League of the South Facebook group. The thread was taken down, but the perfesser knew about -- blogged about it, even -- proving that his "yet to challenge" BS is yet another deliberate lie.

Besides, what does he care who I challenge and don't challenge? Why is it any of his business? There are white supremacists all over the freakin' internet I don't "challenge". What's it to Simpson?  Because the perfesser himself has a fixation with Hunter Wallace? Because he cozies up to Hunter, linking to his abominable blog, letting  him freely post on Crossroads comment threads? Because he does that, I should, too?  Sorry, no. 

Lie 003: "This may be because she doesn’t know any history: she admits she doesn’t care about it.  That’s exactly the sort of thing you want to hear from someone who wants to restore southern pride and protect southern heritage: a confession of complete ignorance about what actually happened."

Never admitted I don't care about history. He couldn't link to such an admission if he were offered a million dollar or threatened with a season in a Siberian gulag because... said admission doesn't exist, never has, was never made. That's why he doesn't link to it.  He links to all sorts of things, but he's made this claim with no link -- because he can't. It doesn't exist.

Lie 004: It’s fascinating (and entertaining) to watch one Confederate heritage advocate press the claim that slaves were citizens on Kevin Levin’s blog.  As I’ve told you before, it’s heritage, not history. 

It's even more fascinating to watch Perfesser Simpson ignore said Confederate heritage advocate's explanation of his use of that term -- in order to lie about him. You'll note the perfesser again includes no link, because he doesn't want his readers to see the truth. He'd rather they believe his lies. 

Idiocy 001: Thanks for another stunning display of ignorance.  As someone once said, “I do know people should really know a little more about the reality of things before they spout off, because their spouting off has the potential for making them look real, real stupid.”  Now if she’d only practice what she preaches …

There's no display of ignorance from me or any Southern heritage advocate that comes close to the breathtaking displays the sheer, hate-filled untruths from the perfesser.

Idiocy 002: And from that group … “The Jews already run just about everything. When you run the financial behemoth and the media, you don’t need much else.”  Love Connie’s public!  Waiting for someone to observe that Judah Benjamin was Jewish.

Wait a minute. Perfesser, do you think that acknowledging that Judah Benjamin was Jewish somehow disproves that Jews disproportionately own, work in and influence the media and the financial establishment in this country?  Do you imagine that one even has anything to do with the other? What kind of cockamamie logic is that?  You wanna provide some substantiation that Jews today don't disproportionately own, work in and influence the media and the financial establishment in this country?

Idiocy 003: Want an idea where some Flaggers come from?  Try this.  Methinks they forgot who won.

Typical Simpson irrelevancy. They know who won -- and they know an attempt to evilize their ancestors when they see it, made by people far less honorable than those ancestors. 

Lie 004 and Idiocy 004 combined: Then again, perhaps the Museum of the Confederacy went a little too far in the eyes of some.  So, is this bad …… but this is okay?

Perfect, stunning, stark example of lying to lump!  Let's look at the differences the perfesser refuses to see in order to lump Ru Paul and Jacqueline Duty and make them "the same":

(1) Ru Paul is a public figure engaging in activites designed to degrade morals and decency in our culture and his "flag dress" was designed to insult.
(2) Jacqueline Duty was a private citizen who wanted to wear her Confederate flag dress to a private event, her school prom. There's no indication she did it as a display of disrespect for the flag or for Southern heritage or for anyone else. Quite the opposite: she wanted to celebrate her Southern heritage, as she so stated to the media. http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28137/
(3)  No indication the prom dress was going to be a display at the Museum of the Confederacy.

Keep in mind that this petty, vindictive little man is a professor at a major state university... 

From "So It’s Heritage, Not History … A Candid Admission"
Lie 001: Connie Chastain has announced that in her mind Confederate heritage has virtually nothing to do with Confederate history.

No such announcement exists. I never made it. He totally fabricated this. If you don't believe me, scroll back through my recent blog posts and try to find it.  Use the search function. Ain't there, folks. Never has been.

Lie 002: Rather, as she now freely admits, for her it’s a process of picking and choosing what one wants to “honor”; it’s also imposing her present-day values and preferences on the historical record, wrenching evidence out of context to satisfy her inclinations.

Not only does this "free admission" also not exist. What he's accusing me of in this fabrication is simply not true.

Lie 003: It’s a wonderful essay in which Connie, who has complained about lumping people together, does that once more … although, in a way, she has a point.  All the people she lumps together are interested in historical accuracy. "

My blog post doesn't lie about people in order to lump them together. It doesn't lump them together at all. Lying is your bailiwick, Perfesser.

Lie 004: She’ll just cherry-pick what she wants to remember and honor.  She wants to honor service, period.  She wants to honor sacrifice, period.  And to her it doesn’t matter what leaders say … it matters to her why men fought (although, if she’s to be consistent, only when she approves of their motives … otherwise she’ll turn a blind eye to them).

Whew! Where to begin! I also honor the valor and sacrifices of American servicemen in the Iraq and Afghanistan, though I don't approve of what their leaders over here say because said leaders are a bunch of liars (you ought to love 'em, perfesser, they're your kinda folks). Are we over there to stop terrorism? To protect Israel? To secure oil? The individual servicemen themselves may even have motives I disagree with; that doesn't mean I dishonor their valor and sacrifice. 

Lie 005: Connie wants to honor her ancestors in terms those very ancestors would not recognize …

I'm certain they would recognize honor for valor and bravery. I'm certain they would recognize honor for their valiant defense of their homes, families, communities and territories. 

Lie 006: So what we have here is someone who freely admits to distorting the past in order to satisfy her beliefs and prejudices behind some ill-defined notion of “heritage” and “honor.”

Again, no such admission exists. Search my site, see for yourself. 

Lie 007:  Given how she also distorts the views of others in her never-ending struggle to try to score debating points (ever see Connie engage in a sustained argument about historical issues? Of course not), this should come as no surprise.  That must be why she finds fiction so attractive … she lives it.

I don't distort the views of others. Some of those views, I disagree with, but distort? Some folks do a fine job of distorting their views themselves. And Perfesser, you are far more apt to distort my views... I mean, you continually lies about them; what is that but distortion? 

Lie 008: I must admit that I’ve never seen anyone make a public proclamation of their intellectual bankruptcy before.

And you haven't seen it from me, Perfesser. It is a total fabrication ... very likely with malice.

Lie 009: At least now we know why she refused to debate Hunter Wallace: she’s basically conceding that he’s right about the history of white supremacy in the South as expressed by prominent southern leaders. 

I did debate him. That you missed it is your tough luck.  That you're lying about it is par for the course for you.

Idiocy 001: If this is what passes for Confederate heritage, then we know why it’s in trouble … because it has nothing to do with the Confederacy and everything to do with one’s need to seek justification for their views and philosophy by misrepresenting history and selectively culling and twisting whatever can be used to validate one’s beliefs. 

Confederate heritage is in trouble because it has been targeted for extinction by the left in this country. Out of the loop on that, are ya?  It's all over the Internet.  I guess you overlook that when you go jackbooting -- I mean, tiptoing -- throught the Internet looking for heritage advocates to lie about on your blog.  Huh.