Saturday, February 9, 2013

Comment-Bot Anger Is So Delicious!

Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur has chimed in at Crossroads with, 
 "it’s funny. She’s using “Discover the,” a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center as proof of the alleged “damage” to blacks that integration wrought. This is an organization/person that Hunter Wallace is also familiar with.
Wouldn't you just love to know the reasoning behind Rob's thinking that this is funny? Presumably, this is a lame attempt to follow the SPLC's tired and mendacious "links and ties" method of smearing people by association. But it takes a leap of logic light-years in length to create some sort of association between two individuals just because they happen to visit and reference the same website.

It also requires tunnel vision; it requires NOT noticing that Horowitz's website is very well-known and draws many visitors; I wonder if Bakur also finds it "funny" that the leftwingers at Media Matters are familiar with (obsessed with, atcually) Horowitz's Discover the Networks and Freedom Center. 

In case he's tempted to try linking-and-tying me to Media Matters simply because we're both familiar with Horowitz's database -- which makes as much sense as linking-and-tying me to Griffin for the same reason --  let me head that off here and now. I ain't no "progressive," Rob, and I'm a counter-jihadist, bigtime. I have no sympathy with, and no ties to, Media Matters or any other group or individual who sucks up to leftism and/or radical Islam. Capisce?

Folks, here is yet another example of these people's willingness to assassinate their own brains in order to make (or attempt to make) someone they don't like look bad. Bizarre, isn't it?


Ah, Simpson, the humor in my blog posts is not unintentional. Perhaps it seems that way to you sensahuma-impaired folks...  But not all of it is humorous. I think it's appalling that you'd characterize the references to the tragically damaging circumstances found in the black community (as a result of leftist influence on civil rights and the war on poverty) to be unintentionally funny. Interesting that you'd give us this glimpse of a side of yourself you haven't revealed before....

I recently commented to Corey Meyer,
 "With us it's not history, it's heritage? With you and your fellow floggers, it's not history, either -- it's a craving to insult and hurt people ... an unquenchable thirst to denigrate others ... an insatiable hunger for the put-down. It's about alleviating your doubts about your own questionable beliefs by lying about others. It's about inflating your own questionable and sagging moral authority by fabricating somebody "worse" than you are. Hardly anything you write is about history....."
The Crossroads comment thread I'm chronicling here is a marvelous example of the thirst to denigrate, the hunger for the put down. Don't go looking for history there, folks. That is the last thing on their minds.

James Epperson answered Simpson's question, "Guess who said this?" with "I’m thinking Connie or Eddie Inman"

Simpson's reply: "Mr. Inman’s very good at cherry-picking, cutting, and pasting, often in highly selective ways, but when left to his own devices, he’s not nearly that articulate."

An unquenchable thirst to denigrate, an insatiable hunger for the put down... and not a syllable of "history " to be found. Why does Simpson hate Mr. Inman? Simply because the latter views history and the war differently? Oh, that's a great reason.

Earlier, Simpson posted, 
"Over at Occidental Dissent, Hunter Wallace admits that the author of the quote in question might just be coming around to his view of the world after all. Of course, I believe that was always the case, and the only reason the author’s hiding her true sentiments (and not very well) is because she needs to sell a few books." 
Certain folks rarely ever say, state, or write anything, in Simpson's view. They "admit". Sometimes they "freely admit." This is manipulative terminology designed to convey the idea that the "admitter" has been hiding, obfuscating, perhaps even lying  And when Simpson uses that term, you can pretty much count on it that he's fixing to let rip a lie that will rattle the windows. Only it's his lie, not the "admitter's".  This time, he actually issues the disclaimer "I believe" before lying but that amounts to very little in the way of keister-covering.

I'm not "coming around" to Brad Griffin's world view. Far from it. So either Simpson is lying, or else he is woefully lacking in cognition and gumption. I don't like to comment on the intelligence (or lack thereof) displayed by critics and fault-finders like Simpson -- it's too much like what they do. Still, when people write things like Simpson does, you have to at least consider it sometimes. How can a person of reasonable intelligence NOT see the difference between what Griffin writes and what I write?  Between OD and Backsass?

Regarding his claim that my "true sentiments" are the same as Brad Griffin's world view, I have to repeat what I've said about Simpson before: You'd have to be incredibly stupid or maliciously dishonest to come to that conclusion -- and while I may wonder whether the perfesser's book learning has somehow atrophied his common sense, I don't think he's incredibly stupid.  That leaves --  yep -- maliciously dishonest."


The oh-so-focused-on-civil-war-history comment-thread bots at Simpson's Crossroads are throwing hissy fits because of this passage in my most recent Clowns and Jokers post, which Simpson (because HE is also soooo devoted to history) posted on his blog:
... I strongly disagree with the notion of official government segregation or any other kind of oppression, of blacks (or anyone else) in an independent South.

But because I believe government forced segregation/oppression was/is/would be wrong does not mean I approve of the the civil rights movement as it was orchestrated by leftist leaders and culture changers. Because not only was its purpose to tear down the existing culture, which was perceived as the white man's world -- it was also horribly damaging for blacks. 
True to his history of deviousness, he purposely left out this link, which starkly documents the horrible damage::


Of course, there's no guarantee that he or his myrmidons would follow the link if he'd posted it -- and certainly they would not do their own investigation to see if their concept of the overwhelmingly good effects of the civil rights/war on poverty era is accurate.

Mark Somebody offers an unnecessary translation of my comment, as if there's something about it requiring translation.  There isn't of course. My meaning is perfectly clear. The purpose of Mark's "translation," then, is to (a) lie about what I said by putting his false meaning on it or (b) show his own prejudice when he interprets something written by someone he doesn't like.

Then we have this from R.E. Watson, showing his veneration for history:
Yup, that was Connie ! I did make the mistake of reading several of the entries and can only conclude that she is out of her ever luvin mind ! Maybe a day job would help. That would give her something to do besides writing nonsensical blog posts before they send her back to the institution for the night. It’s a good thing she uses a keyboard. A person can hurt themselves with sharp objects like pens and pencils.
Here's another "translation" from another history-lover -- Will Hickox -- who, like Mark, rejects what I actually said in favor of his own lies about it:
“Sure, the government (not white society) was a little rough on our blacks, but why did those pinko agitators have to stir ‘em up and make ‘em demand rights? Clearly, we knew what was good for our blacks better than they knew themselves.” White Southern paternalism is alive, if not well.
Then we have cc2001 weighing in -- you know, the one who extolls geriatric ex-Nazi soldiers.  She (presumably she's a she) says,
"By coincidence I watched The Loving Story on HBO OnDemand last night. It only took 9 years from the time they were dragged from their bed in the middle of the night and thrown into jail for their case to be resolved by the US Supreme Court. My state of VA fought them tooth and nail. Ms Chastain may feel “culture changers” have gone too far. But that the Lovings right to be wed was actually questioned in the radical 60′s astounded me. Maybe leftists wouldn’t get all the attention for social issues if we average folks stepped up to the plate more often."
How marvelously narrowly focused cc2001 is.  Stack the Lovings' story up against the 78% out-of-wedlock birth rate for the black community and all it entails. Children from single parent homes are among the most at-risk demographic in the former United States and the reason is well known.  But who cares about the lives of hopelessness and horror millions of kids must endure, compared to being able to marry whoever you want! This, in an era when about 70% of black mothers exhibit astounding indifference to marriage by remaining unmarried to any of the fathers of their children...

As William Raspberry noted eight years ago (and Daniel Patrick Moynihan several decades ago):
"Father absence is the bane of the black community, predisposing its children (boys especially, but increasingly girls as well) to school failure, criminal behavior and economic hardship, and to an intergenerational repetition of the grim cycle. The culprit, the ministers (led by the Rev. Eugene Rivers III of Boston, president of the Seymour Institute) agreed, is the decline of marriage." Raspberry continues, "When Moynihan issued his controversial study, roughly a quarter of black babies were born out of wedlock; moreover, it was largely a low-income phenomenon. The proportion now tops two-thirds, with little prospect of significant decline, and has moved up the socioeconomic scale." 
Read more here:

This means is that the enormous increase in fatherless black families are a civil rights/war on poverty era phenomenon.

It is astounding to me that people sooo focused on the "split up" of black families by slavery turn a completely blind eye and a callous disregard to the disintegration of the black family the last half of the 20th century in the former USA, and the almost total nonexistence of fathers in black households, since the civil rights/war on poverty era began....

Moving along, somebody named Rob Wick notes,
"it was also horribly damaging for blacks.”

As opposed to lynching and murder. You fully expect her to say “I’m not prejudiced. Some of my best friends are…”
Lynching and murder, huh?  As Walter Williams has noted,
"According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks..."
What that means is that a little better than every six months or so, the number of blacks murdered by blacks equals the number of white on black lynchings that took place over almost ninety years.... Are these black victims of blacks any less dead than those 3,446 lynching victims? Do you suppose at their funerals, their family members can take comfort in knowing they were shot by blacks instead of being lynched by whites?

I don't expect any of Simpson's comment bots to read Victims of the Left: Black Americans.
The Table of Cntents will give you a clue why:

1) How the Left Created Black Victimology and Black Rejection of American Values
2) Affirmative Action: How the Left Has Harmed Blacks through the Bigotry of Low Expectations
3) How the Left Consigns Blacks to Substandard Education
4) How the War on Poverty Devastated the Black Community
5) How the Failed Crusade of “Sex Education” Harmed the Black Community
6) The Crime Wave that Has Decimated Black America
7) How Blacks Have Been Victimized by Leftist Policies Concerning AIDS
8) How the Left Demands Black Conformity of Thought
9) Notes

These are things that haters of whites (especially haters of white Southerners) simply don't want to know....  It's a lot more fun to put down people who are simply telling the truth in order to give yourself the fake warm fuzzies of fake moral superiority, and thus not have to face your own shortcomings, or those of your ideology, mindset and worldview....

Viewing the whole of something just isn't their way. If it's something they don't like, they see only the negatives (i.e., Forrest, the Confederacy, Southern heritage, Virginia flaggers, white Southerners, etc).  If it's something they do like, they see only the positives and screen out the negatives. This is why they gloss over the north's armpit deep involvement in slavery, even after abolition in the northern states, and why they refuse to see the negative impact of civil rights/war on poverty, etc., on blacks. The politically correct lure of showcasing whitey's evil is just too mesmerizing to resist....

Photo by imagerymajestic via


  1. On Jan 30 2013, Brooks Simpson said -----
    “That said, we will return to Chastain-free programming---“
    On Feb 8th he’s back on the attack---
    Liar or memory impaired? I vote for Liar !

  2. Oh, liar, absolutely. But you hafta cut him some slack, Dave. His blog is borrrrrrrring if he and his bots aren't ripping some heritage person to bloody bits. "History" posts only keep these devotees of history occupied and satisfied for so long... Then they go deeeeep in the plak tow...

  3. LOL Connie, yeah they lose themselves in the blood fever caused by going seven years (perhaps more given the crowd) without getting laid.
    Oh Connie you come up with some great cultural references....Live Long and Prosper!


Comments are welcome, but monitored.