Monday, June 24, 2013

That's About Right In Indoctrinated America

(Adapted from a graphic that appeared on Facebook.)

Images: Wikimedia Commons, Creative  Commons Licensing; and Public Doman

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Great Civil War History Post...

...went up yesterday at Corey Meyer's Kindred Blood blog.  Check it out, folks!

So, okay, did you check it out?  What do you think about all the civil war history in that post? Let's have a discussion about it in the comments.

See, it is posts like that, so chock full of text-book history, that fuels the flogger claims of superiority in the area of history, while claiming Southern Heritage folks substitute heritage for history.

Corey brilliantly shows us that there's no substituting something else for history on HIS blog, nosiree. History is what really matters to him, which is why he never posts about silly, extraneous things like lies to evilize white Southerners.  This man is a true historian, as this post amply demonstrates..

Friday, June 21, 2013

Corey Meyer Supports White Genocide

(See note at end of article.)

I didn't hear Michael Cushman's speech at the League of the South convention earlier this month, so I can't speak with certainty about whether Corey Meyer's report on it is accurate. But knowing of Corey's years long animosity for white Southerners and knowing his long track record for lying about us, I don't put nuch stock it in his blog post.

For example, he puts his antipathy on display right at the beginning with the phrase "neo-confederate love fest" to describe the convention, so why would any objective reader muddle through his "report" with anything but complete skepticism?

I'm not concerned with some of what Corey wrote (his claims of historical inaccuracies in the speech, and Michael's interest in the Golden Circle) but Corey's response to Michael's claims of the genociding of Southern whites is somewhat puzzling.  Although he uses irony quotes around "genocide", as if he doesn't believe it, he doesn't do much to challenge Cushman's claim.

Maybe Corey is unaware of current demographic realities in the United States -- or maybe he is, and just doesn't care. Michael focuses on the replacement of white Southerners because the South is what he's interested in, but the fact is, white people throughout the United States are being replaced deliberately, as a result of several factors, confirmed just days ago by the Census Bureau.

Reports in Slate, the Washington Post and other media outlets focused on the Census Bureau's announcement that for the first time in the history of the United States, white deaths outnumber white births.

Right now, the margin is small -- a decrease of 12,400 out of 198 million non-Hispanic whites. But that's not a blip, not a temporary anomaly, and it will get worse with time, for the reasons pointed out in the article. Eventually, white people will completely disappear in the USA.

The Slate article touches on a few factors pertinent to this change -- for example, white women are more likely to be childless, especially college educated ones -- but the article fails to mention that this is a direct result of the feminist-pushed and government-assisted agenda of childlessness through birth control -- and especially the feminist sacrament of abortion. Thereplacing of whites by nonwhites is also the inevitable result of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act

If you want to see what the United States will look like before long, take a look at California, which is a minority-majority state. Once the "Golden State" of promise and prosperity, it is has been caught between liberal policies that are bankrupting town after town, and the costs of massive illegal immigration. The state itself is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Californians in record numbers are fleeing the state for points east. The rich, celebrity cities along the coast are doing okay for now, but areas of the state like the Central Valley are becoming unrecognizable.

Corey defines third-world immigration as "non-white" but "third world" means so much more than people's melanin content, as California's Central Valley demonstrates. You won't hear about it from the mainstream media, because the media is a leftist enterprise dedicated to the socialist policies bringing about the country's decline/demise. But Victor Davis Hanson, who lives there, has written about it extensively, and it ain't pretty. Google his name and start reading..

In one article, Hansen notes that California "... has the highest sales and income taxes, the most lavish entitlements, the near-worst public schools (based on federal test scores), and the largest number of illegal aliens in the nation, along with an overregulated private sector, a stagnant and shrinking manufacturing base, and an elite environmental ethos that restricts commerce and productivity without curbing consumption."

Federal water policy has taken thousands of prime agricultural acres out of production, creating massive unemployment.  Hansen notes, "Many of the rural trailer-house compounds I saw appear to the naked eye no different from what I have seen in the Third World. There is a Caribbean look to the junked cars, electric wires crisscrossing between various outbuildings, plastic tarps substituting for replacement shingles, lean-tos cobbled together as auxiliary housing, pit bulls unleashed, and geese, goats, and chickens roaming around the yards. The public hears about all sorts of tough California regulations that stymie business — rigid zoning laws, strict building codes, constant inspections — but apparently none of that applies out here."

Read the whole thing. Take a look, America. This is what you're becoming. It's just happening more slowly in other states.

Corey ends his muddled analysis by posting a graphic I made for Facebook and reposted here at Backsass,
and follows it with this:
Is what Connie says racist…if the ends are speeches like Michael Cushman’s at the Florida League of the South…then yes…it is.
Ah, no, it isn't, Corey.  My graphic is correct -- there is nothing bad about or wrong with the things I listed. But since you apparently think that Cushman is wrong to be concerned about the replacement of white Southerners, that means you're okay with the long, gradual, drawn-out genocide of white Southerners. But, of course, wishing for the extinction of white people, or just being blase about it, isn't racist, LOL.

Just remember, Corey, it isn't only in the South where white people are being replaced. It's the whole country.

Which logically leads to this:

Granted, I can't prove this is how it will be in the future USA (and thankfully, I won't be around to see it) but all you have to do is look at what's happening in other once white nations who are succumbing to the inevitable outcome of "multiculturalism" -- the genocide of white people.

And just using South Africa as an example, we can see that my graphic is coming true before our very eyes.  Whites in South Africa are being brutally and horribly murdered continuously. But black on black murder has skyrocketed, as well. Most blacks are worse off under the ANC than they were under apartheid (except, of course, for those IN the ANC). 

Whites in Europe are also reproducing at below replacement levels, thanks to socialist policies like feminism and abortion, and the massive rejection of Christianity. Their nonwhite replacements are African and Arab Muslims instead of illegal aliens form Mexico and legal immigrants from nearly any place but a white place, as is the case in the USA... but the result will be the same.

There are some signs that Europeans are waking up. News is leaking out that in Sweden (the rape capital of the world, and it ain't white Swedish men doing the raping), natives are starting to fight back against the savagery of immigrant behavior.

France, as well, is starting to show some backbone against socialism and Islamic immigration that has been replacing French people in their own land. Recently there was a march against gay marriage in France. Several months ago, young French people calling themselves Generation Identity stormed the mosque at Poitiers and demanded no more mosque building in France, and no more Muslim immigration. And the French government is finally catching up. News reports a few days ago say that it will to cut benefits to immigrants by 83%.

Even Britain's passivity under the Islamic onslaught might be on the verge of changing since the gruesome spectacle of Lee Rigby being hacked to death and in broad daylight in the middle of a town street by remorseless Muslims savages. 

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Europe's "awakening" is too little, too late. And we don't know whether Corey and others evilizers of Southern whites who shrug at the coming replacement (genocide) of whites in America, and thus in the South, also shrug at the replacement of Europeans in their own countries by African and Middle Eastern Islamics.

I guess for white multiculturalists, it's better to die along with everyone else in their demographic, than to decry it and show themselves to be racists.
Note: Nowhere in his blog post does Corey come out and state that he is FOR white genocide. But then, Corey and his flogger buddies have repeatedly accused me, by outright statements or hints and innuendo, of supporting things I've never supported, or even hinted that I support, based solely on their deliberate misreading of things I've said. Sometimes the insinuations are based on nothing but flogger bigotry against proSoutherners in general, and me in particular. So I'm making this observation about Corey based on flogger methods and history. And, to use the Simpson and Followers methods, I'm saying Corey does support the wiping of white people off the face of the earth -- unless he comes and states in MY BLOG COMMENTS that he doesn't.

This is known as Turn About Is Fair Play.

How Some Minds Work

The minds I'm talking about are those of multiculturalists and champions of diversity. Recently, one of these folks, Brooks D. Simpson, professor of history at Arizona State University, posted on his personal blog some of my Facebook graphics that I brought over to Backsass. All of them reference white people, in one way or another.

(You can see these graphics full size by scrolling back through my posts to June 9 (the post titled "This Is Racist ... How?")

How he attempted to portray the message of the graphics -- as reassuring affirmations to white people -- is risible and dishonest, as I'm sure he knows that's not what they are.  Or, maybe he doesn't know and I've been giving him too much credit all this time.

In any case, the memes in my graphics aren't intended to comfort white people -- most white people already know these things and have always known them, even the multiculturalists among them who pretend to be angered or horrified by them.

My sentiments are replies to the beliefs, or at least the claims, of multiculturalism. Simpson's misunderstanding (sincere or not) took the form of attempted humor, presumably to bring a touch of levity to his otherwise stuffy, suffocating blog. His "humor" involved classifying these "affirmations" with those of Al Franken's affirmation-spouting character, Stuart Smalley, from Saturday Night Live. (I note, however, that for humor to work, it has to be funny.)

As interesting as Simpson's failed attempt at ridicule is, some of the comments by his followers are far better illustrations of kneejerk multicultural indoctrination.

The following illustrates the kind of mentality my "affirmations" were intended to defy. This is classic multiculturalist bullcrap:
    June 20, 2013
    Patrick Young

    “Professor Young, we would like you to speak to the Latino Law Students Association.”
    “Sorry Oswaldo, but I prefer to associate with white people.”

    Who could possibly be justifiably offended by that, I ask you.
The idiotic message here is, if you prefer one type of association, it is the only type you will engage in; you will reject all other associations.  Specifically, if you prefer to associate with white people, you will never, ever associate with anyone but white people. What makes otherwise (seemingly) sane and intelligent people spout this sort of nonsense? Well, what's done it in the USA was several decades of indoctrination in schools and colleges, television, movies, books, magazines and virtually every aspect of the popular culture.

If you want to see the difference between multicultural "preference" and real preference, we can learn about it from ... ice cream.

Yes. Ice cream.

I prefer butter pecan ice cream. Prefer? I love it. Does that mean I reject all other kinds of ice cream and never eat them? No, but if the multiculturalist mindset were applied to ice cream, people who expressed a preference for one type would be characterized not only as HATING all other flavors, but as attempting to get other people to stop eating all but their own favorite; and to convince ice cream makers to make only the kind they prefer. Ludicrous.

But here's a realistic, elementary and logical illustration of preference so simple even the academic multiculturalists can understand. Here's a far more accurate illustration of preference:

Let's say that over the course of a time period, say a year, you have occasion to eat ice cream twelve times -- roughly once a month. On all but one occasion, you have a choice of what kind of ice cream you eat. (The one occasion where you don't, you are dining with friends at their home, and they serve only one flavor of ice cream with desert; you have no choice but to eat that flavor, or to have no ice cream at all.)

So over the course of time you choose eleven times which flavor you will eat -- and five times you choose butter pecan.  Three times you choose Dutch chocolate.  On two occasions you choose peach and on one you choose pistachio. You obviously have a preference for butter pecan; but you don't totally reject chocolate, peach or pistachio.

If white people prefer to associate with white people, that doesn't mean, as Pat Young implies, that they refuse to associate with others.

This is one of the Big Lies of multiculturalism and anti-white-ism.

Here's another comment from one of the blog followers:
    June 20, 2013
    Michael Confoy

Pretty certain that there is a psychological term to describe this degree of tribalism. One thing for sure is that it shows fear of the future and today’s world. I can only assume that she is a first class racist. Perhaps if she spent a few years living in New York City things might change. Or working and living in place where people won’t tolerate these type of expressions.
Oh, but people do tolerate far, far worse expressions -- from non-whites. Apparently, that doesn't bother multiculturalists.

It would be interesting to see what Michael Confoy would come up with if asked to copy and paste any fear in my memes, since there isn't any there, and fear did not inspire them. Replying to schizoid multicultural ideas, like the claptrap he just posted, is what inspired them.

If there IS a psychological term for degrees of tribalism, it is far more applicable to other ethnic groups than to whites. Of course, the dishonesty of multiculturalism won't let the Mike Confoys of the world even SEE it, let alone understand and comment on it.

Since the term "racist" frequently has no objective meaning anymore, because it has been used to substitute for so many other things, the term "a first class racist" is even more meaningless.  Here's a meme sure to cause Mr. Confoy to blow a gasket.

Notice, also, how multiculturalists take upon themselves the authority for deciding for others what's good for them -- such as, where they need to live to bring about "change"? I don't know Mr. Confoy, but I reject the notion that he or any other multiculturalists are qualified to suggest to others that they need to change, particularly people they only know by way of the internet and toward whom they have exhibited deep prejudice.

Where do you suppose such arrogance originates?  And do you imagine he doesn't know that nearly any place to work has come under the influence of multiculturalist idiocy of the type Confoy spouts -- an idiocy that labels tribal identity as a wonderful thing for everyone except white folks?

Too bad they don't offer courses in humbleness. Mr. Confoy could use a couple of semesters.

Here are some lesser yappings in response to these memes:

We have this irrelevancy from Charlie: "White people such as myself, seem to be well represented in congress."

Yeah? So? What has that got to do with any of the graphics Simpson pilfered and took to his blog?

Then, from Talmadge Walker, comes this: "Never heard of her. I suspect publicity gets her dander up and makes her forget to take her meds."

LOL! Depends on the type of publicity, Mr. Walker. If it's something that will translate into book sales, I'm fine with it. If it's "publicity" on a stuffy personal blog of an arrogant academic ... eh... so-so.

To bdhamp's observation, "Ya know, if she (or they) would just let up on the ancestor worship to establish the entirety of her identity, she wouldn’t have to expend all this energy in a futile search for justification," I first note that there's not a lot of energy involved in making and posting graphic Facebook memes.

Second, as explained, it's not a search for justification, which is not needed. It's a reply to the mendacious claims of multiculturalism. And as for ancestor worship -- where do they get this hallucination?  I made it clear a long time ago, I'm under no illusions about my ancestors being all too human and thus not worthy objects of worship.

Finally, from Rob Baker, "Every time she posts that nonsense I always think of this scene." What follows is a video of a character, Uncle Ruckus, from The Boondocks animated TV series. I'd never seen or heard of him, so I had to look him up. Wikipedia describes him as, "An angrily self-hating black man, he disassociates himself from other African Americans as much as possible, and is outspoken in his support of what Huey calls the "white supremacist power structure."

Since there's nothing in any of my graphic memes that would logically bring this cartoon to mind, Rob has just given us a marvelous look at the multicultural mind, always on the lookout for white racism -- and if none can be found, it can be construed from nearly anything, by a mind that is constantly in that mode.

As for MikeD's confession, "Gotta love Uncle Ruckus. I always think of HK Edgerton," I have to say it that he genuinely associates these two in his mind, he (1) doesn't know HK and (2) is doing it just because they're both black -- which is ... dare I say it ... racist!

All this comes just a few days after Brooks Simpson has marvelously illustrated his compulsion to "trap" people who do not focus their creative efforts solely on the civil rights era. Or, at least, that's was why he unsuccessfully attempted to entrap me. He suggested that the white teens in one of my books are comparable to the murderers of Emmett Till, and is apparently disapproving that I do not portray them that way.

He hinted that a Southern novel about false rape accusations should be about the Scottsboro boys, who were black, rather than fictional white teens. He has repeatedly exhibited the attitude (in discussing my novels, which he hasn't read) that white Southerners should not be given positive portrayals in novels, or depicted as suffering injustice.

It is this kind of deaf, blind, indoctrination-induced antipathy for white people (and, yes, exhibited by white people) is what inspires the graphic memes I have created. Since there is good reason for opposing this kind of mindless animosity I will no doubt continue to showcase it and oppose it. And I will likely continue to include graphic memes as part of that effort.

(Note, there is not one syllable of animosity for another race in any of my memes. That's why the commenters at Simpson's blog never single out and identify racism in anything I write. They can't; I don't write racism. That's why they're reduced to making nebulous, out-of-the-blue accusations.)
Image of woman from

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Watching the Fall

Floggers and their followers think that I hate the USA because I believe the feds and the yankees didn't have the moral authority to invade, make war on and lay waste the South. They wonder why I still live in a place I hate.

First of all, I live in the South, and I don't hate it. In fact, I love it profoundly. Second, I don't actually hate the USA, though I disagree with and disapprove of a lot of what its government does and I loathe certain aspects of the culture -- for example, the embrace of multiculturalism and diversity, which I believe are not what they're palmed off as being. They are insidious and pernicious.

But there is much about the USA and Americans to like and admire. Frankly, I'm not happy about its demise, and the Facebook memes I created right after the election reflect that. I was quite despondent about the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama, which I believed would hasten the fall of the country.  (Sure looks like I was right on that one.) This is one meme I created that reflects my despondency as I watched the returns come in on election night.

Since that night, the USA's plummet toward extinction has experienced a rapid increase. What's so amazing to me is the humor that has accompanied the plummet. Who knew that watching your country go down the tubes could be so FUNNY!
One of the things I loathe about the culture is the embrace of multiculturalism. People who claim all cultures are equal are either (a) blind or (b) liars (to themselves and others). Here, Mark Steyn explains why multiculturalism isn't what its proponents say.

And lastly, some discussion of what I think is the greatest threat to the United States, the West, and the entire world -- Islam.

I'll be discussing these and similar subjects more in the future; I may move the discussions, or some of them, to 180 Degrees True South. You just can't ever tell about me.
Danziger cartoon translinked from The Huffington Post

Saturday, June 15, 2013



In the comment section of this post, you can find Corey Meyer's perfect illustration of the evilize-white-southerners mindset, which proves without a doubt that it's not history with him, it's about stirring up hate for white Southerners.

He totally defineS them by slavery and slave ownership. These weren't people with families and homes they loved, they weren't people with a religious faith, they weren't farmers, workers, merchants or anything else. They had no human characteristics beyond slave owning (which most of them did not do) and fighting for slavery (which most of them did not do).

It's another example of focusing on one small aspect and trying to palm it off as the whole. When you're that willingly blind, when you are that willing to assassinate your own intellect for the sake of demonizing others, your "history" is just so much sewage.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Think This Is Wrong?

Questions, Questions....

Since Rob is ... reluctant, for whatever reason, to give his opinion on these questions I've asked, I'm inviting anyone to offer theirs.

My questions are based on a comment thread following the post,  Did the Confederates Commit Treason? at Brooks Simpson's Crossroads blog, found HERE  The portion of the comments I'm concerned with occurs near the end of the thread.
You can read the Backsass post with my questions to Rob HERE.

So, how does this statement -- Sweet Southern Boys is a fantasy: the murder of Emmett Till was the reality -- relate to the discussion about whether the Confederates were treasonous, or to the subsequent discussion begun by Mr. Huddleston's question?

In a subsequent comment, Simpson says, "For a woman who studies false accusations of sexual behavior, the fact that you can’t see how that links to the Till case suggests that history is indeed a foreign land to you."

Again, how does that statement -- the part in bold-face type -- how does that relate to anything in the entire thread up to the point that Simpson brought up the Till case?

Looking forward to seeing if anyone will take this on.

Monday, June 10, 2013

More Fun With Comments

Over on the Connie-bashing thread at Crossroads, a few more brave souls have posted, knowing, presumably, they risk having their illogic, their mendacity, and their maliciousness -- not to mention their extreme humor impairment -- exposed by yours truly.

But it can be very instructive to analyze the writings (posts and comments) at Crossroads. So let's get on with the next round.

Simpson tells Jimmy Dick, "Logic is not a Chastain strong point."  This follows Jimmy Dick's pronouncement, "Note how she advocates secession from Florida now. ... she wants to secede from the rest of the state because of those people changing things in ways she doesn’t like."

Mr. Dick's hallucination, steeped in illogic, comes from this paragraph in this blog post --
In the time I've lived here, there've been occasional "movements" for the secession of the Panhandle from Florida to either become the state of West Florida with Pensacola as its capital, or to become part of Alabama. (The idea has also been floated that south Florida break away from Tallahassee.) West Florida's secession movements are, of course, tongue-in-cheek, usually designed to show the region's displeasure with something or other going on in Tallahassee at the time, and have produced some absolutely hilarious articles and essays. But I, for one, think it is a great idea.
What do you suppose it is about "movement" being in quotes, and the term tongue-in-cheek, that Mr. Dick doesn't understand? Does his humor impairment limit him that much? Or does he really understand, but takes a page from Simpson's book and pretends not to for the sake of denigrating someone?  But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe a short remedial lesson in figures of speech would be helpful to him.

From Wikipedia: Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is humorously or otherwise not seriously intended and it should not be taken at face value.

But Blough's humor-impairment is even more pronounced. In all seriousness, apparently, she responds to humorous secession by wearily quoting the Constitution. It is possible, though, that she did not visit Backsass and see "movement" in quotes and the term tongue-in-cheek. I would expect someone as scholarly as Blough to know what that means -- but then, I would expect her to know better than to accept at face value what somebody's critics say about them, and check it out for herself.

One can only imagine how Blough and Dick and the whole humor-impaired crew at Crossroad would take Lyle Zapato's secession-for-yuks website, The Republic of Cascadia  (Zapato, btw, is the originator of the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus site and the Aluminum Foil Delfector Beanie site. They're both knee-slappers.)

The Cascadia site initially identifies Washington and Oregon (and British Columbia in Canada) as the areas that should join together as the sovereign nation of Cascadia.  It notes, "The Republic of Cascadia is not yet officially recognized by Canada, the United States of America, or the United Nations. Not that it is any of their business." 

Farther along, though, the site includes northern California, which is "...rightfully and naturally is a part of the Republic of Cascadia. The Cascade mountain range, the backbone of our nation, stretches majestically down from the head of British Columbia and seats itself in this occupied region. This land -- the Coccyx of Cascadia -- is a natural and vital extension of our nation that was robbed from us by distant Federalists who were easily bought with Californian promises of gold."

The entire site -- from the header with its UFO, to the links to the Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs and the Sasquatch Militia -- ranges from giggle to guffaw, and would no doubt render the humor impaired log-bumps at Crossroads either totally apoplectic or completely speechless.

Simpson notes, "I don’t see where it pays to get into a discussion with Connie on anything. She avoids questions, makes insinuations (and then declared them as fact), and, when you grow exasperated with her nonsense, she decides you’re scared of her. In short, she’s boring and predictable, and it’s child’s play to set her off in a tirade where she reveals her barely-concealed ugliness. She’s a very bitter person.

"Watch her blog about this. :)

"I think she’s a fine representative of the Confederate Hysteria Movement. No wonder she works with the Virginia Flaggers and is embraced by the leadership of the League of the South."

What this really means is that he doesn't like my pointing out the foibles, the contradictions, the sheer nastiness and meanness exhibited by him and his followers, not to mention the humor-impairment.  What's fascinating to note is that everything he said about me applies to him (and some of his sycophants).

Simpson and crew...
Avoids questions? Check. (Andy Hall, how frequently do you hear heritage folks claim slaves were like family? Simpson, do you believe white Southerners should not be portrayed positively in fiction? Do you believe they should not be portrayed as suffering injustice?)
Makes insinuations? Check (sometimes, that's all Simpson does)
Boring? Check (Vivarin, anyone?)
Predictable? Double Check.
Child's play to set him/them off in a tirade?  Check, check, check, check, check, check...  That's what the whole post about me, and the comments following, are -- an odious, ugly tirade.
Bitter? Check. In fact, bitter enough to attempt smears of me and my novels numerous times...

And, yep. I'm bloggin' about it.

I'm proud to be affiliated with the Virginia Flaggers, even if the extent of it is just to help with their blog.

All of which, or none of which, changes the fact that you are skeered of me. All you floggers are. That's why you and Levin disallow all but a handful of comments from me, and Andy never lets them through. He claims he banned me from his comments because I "...question the motives, or agenda, or character..." of Southern heritage critics rather than contributing anything of substance. Andy conveniently fails to notice that he (and his fellow floggers) continuously question the motives, agenda or character (and intelligence) of Southern heritage folks (while pretending it's about "history."). What's okay for him isn't okay for other folks, presumably.

I understand people don't like having their motives question and character questioned -- but in that case, don't do it to others.

Simpson: "The only time there’s much traffic on her site is when someone else calls attention to it. In truth, Connie can’t generate any traffic on her own, and she’s unable to create any conversation on her own."

Once again, this is hilarous. I do most of my conversing on Facebook, but when it comes to my blogs, I indeed get the readers I want. You should see my hit counter -- see just who visits, and how often. Oh, I could get huge numbers of visitors/readers if I would but trash and lie about the good people of my region (just as I could sell tons of books if I'd do the same thing in my novels), but I'm not going to do that. I love my region and my people. I'll leave the lying and trashing to the floggers, the Mississippi anti-racists and all the others who hate us.

Rob, buddy, obviously, if I asked you a question, I will post your answers. You're always complaining about being banned.  Well, here's your chance.  Skeered to take it? 

Stew? In our own juices?  LOL~ I'm cool as a cucumber, Simpson -- and that's yet another thing that sticks in your craw -- which has to be really, really full by now. No wonder you're so cranky.

Photo: C. Ward

A Question for Rob Baker ...

... the Logical Fallacy King

So there's this blog comment thread about treason. People are just posting away at it. Then, although it has no direct connection to the discussion, one of the commenters poses a question to me (and a couple of other folks) by name.

To summarize, the other commenter, Mr. Huddleston,  asks supporters of secession to explain their support of a Cause which condoned incidents such as the one he described (a physical assault on a black woman). I explain that I do it by recognizing the good and the bad, and not condoning the bad. I show that Americans do the same thing -- they recognize the good and bad in the USA's history and do not condone the bad.

This prompts another commenter to attempt to restrict what should be considered to just the founding of the USA (good) and CSA (foul). My reply to that includes a quote from an essay by Douglas Harper comparing the founding of the USA and the CSA, which includes the term "southerners."

Brooks D. Simpson makes it a race issue by saying that when I say "southerners" I mean white Southerners. That is irrelevant to either question by the other commenters, and it's irrelevant to my answers. Nevertheless, I explain that "Southerner" has traditionally referred to whites in the South, and that blacks collectively don't usually prefer any sort of regional label. He comes back with this:
I’m sure you converse with a lot of black people, Connie.
Sweet Southern Boys is a fantasy: the murder of Emmett Till was the reality.
The first sentence is irony -- a statement used to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning. The conveyed meaning is that I do not converse with many black people, which is intended by Simpson to portray me as a racist. Thus, it is a personal attack which is also irrelevant to the questions put to me, and irrelevant to my answers.

As interesting as that is, though, it is the second statement I really want to focus on.

In your opinion, how does this statement -- Sweet Southern Boys is a fantasy: the murder of Emmett Till was the reality -- relate to the discussion about whether the Confederates were treasonous, or to the subsequent discussion begun by Mr. Huddleston's question?

In a subsequent comment, Simpson says, "For a woman who studies false accusations of sexual behavior, the fact that you can’t see how that links to the Till case suggests that history is indeed a foreign land to you."

In your opinion, Rob, how does that statement -- the part in bold-face type -- how does that relate to anything in the entire thread up to the point that Simpson brought up the Till case?

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Fun With Comments

The self-aggrandizing, part-smart comments at Crossroads just keep a-coming.

Somebody named Mark sez, "A few more defenses of “southern heritage” like this might destroy the whole rickety project. Wow."
A few more defenses like what, Mark? The discussion was about whether Confederates committed treason when out of the clear blue -- boom -- Simpson brings up my novel, Sweet Southern Boys, and Emmett Till -- which have nothing to do with each other, and neither one had anything to do with the subject of the thread.

Why do you suppose he did that, Mark? He eventually admitted he was laying a trap for me. Why do you suppose he would lay a trap for me? Why do you suppose he attempted to equate my three fictional characters with Till's murderers?  And why do you equate my refusal to be entrapped, and my defense against Simpson's lies, as a defense of Southern heritage?

Buck Buchanan sez, "WOW! I live in rural Virginia and I do not see such blatant racism. What a terrible existence to be so close minded and cheap."
You're not seeing here, either, Buck. What you're seeing is Simpson's current effort in his ongoing mission of demonizing white Southerners. Take what he says about me with a huge grain of salt. He has a long track-record of lying about me on his blog.

The really terrible existence we're seeing, Buck, is a man's having to puff up his own ego by lying about others and attempting entrapment (even when it doesn't work). Of course, it may be impossible for you to see the truth, if you've swallowed the progressive indoctrination that has blanketed the US for the last 60 years or so.

Simpson sez, "Chastain excels at being vile. She’s also off on her usual series of obsessive rants salted with bizarre speculations about what makes other people tick. Such is the world of a Confederate hysteria advocate."
In his progressivism-inspired mission of demonizing white Southerners, Simpson routinely speculates about what makes them tick, in order to find things he can palm off as evidence of racism. And if he can't find it, he makes it up -- like his attempt to connect Sweet Southern Boys with the Emmett Till case in order to trump up some "racism" to entrap me with.

But lying about people is not the best way to entrap them it, It undermines the entrapper's moral authority. And he calls my defense against his lies, and my pointing them out, "vile." Obviously, he doesn't like it when somebody (a) stands up to him and (b) tells the truth about him.

The Foskett bot says, "The best thing about Connie is that the veneer is very, very thin. It doesn’t take much for her core values to come barreling out, despite all the spin she tosses around."
I don't have a veneer, but it's interesting to note that people who do often attribute the same thing to others. One of my core values, Bot, is the defense of my people from the ongoing demonization campaign, of which Simpson is such a willing and happy participant. Of course  you won't like my defense and counter-attack, since you're a participant, too. In fact, your comment is part of that effort.

Simpson sez, "Her short fuse is easily lit."
It depends on who's playing with the matches. But it is interesting that Simpson would admit, indirectly, that he likes lighting fuses -- which implies liking to blow things up. Wonder if he played with matches a lot as a kid....

Rob Baker sez,
"You must have really pissed her off Brooks. Her rants are go on and on. As usual rather than answer accusations, she responds by pointing to how white it is where Corey lives etc. etc. Her thin veneer revealed once more I guess, though it isn’t the first time.
By the way, is it not interesting that Connie proclaims this loud love for the South, yet lives in a state and a town that many Southerners regard as a part of the North, because of the “Snow Bird” population.
Expect a post from her on the population of Florida soon, with some polls and an argument of semantics over the word “many.”
Rob, don't say "pissed." You'll offend the professor's delicate widdle sensibilities.

My "rants" are, simply, truth, and when Simpson starts confabulating a similarity between my fictional characters and murderers solely for the purpose of smearing me with the tar-brush of racism, I will point it out.

If you disagree, give me your take on why he tried to entrap me (his admission) by fabricating out of thin air a similarity between my characters Shelby, Randy and John Mark with the killers of Emmett Till?

BTW, I did answer the accusations and refuted them, and commented on the motivations of the accusers.

Oh, and the whiteness of the locations where demonizers of white Southerners live is legitimate information.

You evidently don't know much about Florida.  Let me recommend Gloria Jahoda's book, "The Other Florida." It was written in 1967 and much has changed since then -- much has changed since I read it in 1980 or so after moving to Pensacola -- but much remains the same.

There are still two Floridas. The "snow-bird" area is primarily south Florida. Even central Florida -- Rawlings country -- retains much of its Southern identity despite Disney World and Orlando sprawl.  But west Florida, the Panhandle, where I live -- it's nickname is "L.A.," Lower Alabama.  And the term "Redneck Riviera," which originally applied to Gulf Shores, Alabama, is gradually moving east to include west Florida. Pensacola  has its share of transplants, but it is still very much a Southern town. And there are many, many, many Southerners who know this. (I've known it since I was five, when my family came to Pensacola Beach for a short vacation).

In the time I've lived here, there've been occasional "movements" for the secession of the Panhandle from Florida to either become the state of West Florida with Pensacola as its capital, or to become part of Alabama. (The idea has also been floated that south Florida break away from Tallahassee.) West Florida's secession movements are, of course, tongue-in-cheek, usually designed to show the region's displeasure with something or other going on in Tallahassee at the time, and have produced some absolutely hilarious articles and essays. But I, for one, think it is a great idea.

We'll end with this topper from Simpson: "I hope she enjoys her weekend. It is always rewarding to give someone a purpose in life." 

Self-aggrandizement. Next to demonizing white Southerners, it's Simpson's favorite thing.

Odious, Counterfeit Moral Superiority at Crossroads

Some comments from Crossroads.
By Nick Hudson

I was going to be more charitable and say that Ms. Chastain simply was pointing out that Emmet Till wasn’t accused of rape–he was brutally murdered and thus not relevant to whatever her book is about. However, I then read her blog posts and quickly lost any sympathy when she compared Emmett Till to cases like the murder of Antonio West and apparently thinks that false rape accusations are a huge problem, equal to if not more so than actual rape. So frankly, I don’t care what she meant. I’m sure it was vile.
So you're not interested in truth, huh? An assumption of vileness, with no effort made to find out if it's true, is par for the course from people like you (i.e., Simpson bots). How's about you save your "sympathy" for somebody who needs it.

To me, what's comparable between the Till and West cases is that both victims were murdered and both murders were tragedies. Apparently you think Till's life was more valuable than little Antonio's .The difference between you and me is that I think they were equally valuable -- and the murders were equally tragic. Yep, that's vile, all right.

You didn't mention the other cases  -- Wichita, Knoxville, the murdered coeds in Georgia and Alabama...

My interest is in pointing out liberal/leftist/progressive hypocrisy about such subjects. That's what sticks in a progressives' craw -- and that is what's really vile to them.

False accusation involves reports to authority -- the police in the case of rape, or the EEOC or similar authority in the case of sexual harassment on the job.

I'm no expert on the Till case, but my understanding is that he did nothing that warranted reporting to the authorities -- and nobody made anything up to report (a false accusation). What happened was that he was kidnapped and murdered.

For some reason, Brooks Simpson thinks that because this brutal murder happened, my novel shouldn't have been written as is. He evidently thinks that Southern white boy characters in novels should be portrayed as racist killers, and not as honorable, decent or heroic. And Southern whites should NEVER be portrayed as suffering injustice.

Hudson, I don't have a million dollars to offer you to copy and paste anything in my post that proves, or even indicates, that I think false rape accusations are a huge problem, equal to if not more so than actual rape.  But if I did have it to offer, you wouldn't get it because you can't copy and paste what's not there. Capsice?
Brooks Simpson:

No one said that Emmett Till was accused of rape. The whites involved in his murder, however, made claims about his behavior that are disputed. She took them at face value.

I didn't take anything at face value. I simply repeated what's been said about the case. I don't know everything that happened, and neither do you.
Corey Meyer

What I see as one of the main failures of Connie’s understanding of history is that in many cases…like the South’s secession and the murder of Emmett Till…is that it is these actions that bring about the greatest change in the country. Then she and the other Southern Hystarians cry foul when others claim the south is backwards and behind the times. Amazing.

Corey, I cry foul when there is foul.

The only reason the South is behind the rest of the country (and it isn't all that far behind anymore) is because it was devastated by an illegal and brutal war (by the oh-so-advanced and civilized north) a mere 150 years ago (there are people living today who are children of the soldiers that fought in that war). And after the war, it was kept in grinding poverty by economic peonage for the financial benefit of the north for several generations. Remember, the discriminatory freight rates that kept Southern industry artificially suppressed did not end until 1952 (and only under the threat of a Supreme Court suit). Every cloud has a silver lining, though, and all those generations, few yankees moved South. Today, there's a flood of 'em -- a change we could do without, in most cases.

If the change you're talking about involves racial conflict in the South -- the reason there was more of it here was because this is where the vast, vast majority of black people live. 

 It's not because Southern whites are inherently more racist or violent than any other whites. If blacks were spread evenly across the country, the racial conflict would be spread evenly across the country. We know this because the few areas of the north (mainly cities) where there are (relatively) large black populations, there is a history of racial conflict that goes back to the early migrations of blacks in the South to northern cities. There were race riots (which is an almost exclusively northern-city occurrance) that saw whites invade black communities and kill the inhabitants. Blacks fought back and whites died, too; but most of the dead were black.

There were occasional lynchings, also -- even in ultra-Blue Minnesota (though some of the victims were not black).

One of the most repugnant things about the north is its self-congratulatory racial righteousness -- based not on northern white "goodness" but on a small black population confined mostly to (highly segregated) cities. Anybody can pretend racial righteousness when they're basically the only race in town and, as a result, have no racial conflicts.

You live in Putnam County, Illinios, do you not, which has a population that's almost 97% white (5803 people), which is also home to a whopping 32 black people (less than 1%, or 0.53%).

For several years in the 1970s, I lived in a town in central Illinois. Demographics today are about what they were then. Total population, 18,555. White, 17,342. Black 433. Before moving to Illinois, I lived in six locations (tiny unincorporated communities to small cities) in three states of the South (Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana) and since leaving Illinois, I've lived in one city, in one state, in the South (Florida). The central Illinois town was the whitest place I've ever lived. In one place in Alabama, the population was about 73% black.There are several places across the South with similar demographics.

The north's dirty little secret is its history of violent racial conflict despite such a small black population. I don't care what aspect you consider, the north had no moral authority to invade and lay waste the South -- not because of slavery or secession or any other reason -- and the lily white states and rural areas of the north today have no basis for their odious racial self-righteousness and counterfeit moral superiority.

(It will be interesting to see  how long it will take Simpson to jump through this hoop and produce some piddly little "evidence" totally absolving the north of the slightest racial hiccough.)


Regarding that graphic; filth such as the Chastain entity need to understand that, like it or not, the world will be a better place when all of the white people like her are indeed “gone.” I spit on their graves.

The graphic that inspired Mike's odious post is this one:

Mike has embraced the multicultural/diversity meme that white people are responsible for all the worlds evils. Certainly they're responsible for their share, but so is everybody else.  But what multiculturalism and diversity puts forth is this:

White people are responsible for all the world's evils.
White people have done nothing good whatever.
Non-white people have accomplished all the world's good.
They have done nothing evil whatever.

Simply isn't true.

If MikeD wants to spit on some white graves, he should go to South Africa. They're increasing at a breathtaking pace.  And if you want to see what the world will look like without white people (or with so few they won't have an impact, good or bad), follow MikeD to South Africa and take a look around.  Whites are being genocided out of existence, evidently as payback for apartheid.  They're being murdered in horrific ways. The place is degenerating into dark and bloody hellhole that's appalling in its savagery.

Stories about the genocide are starting to get a little attention in the west. But one thing western news sources are continuing to ignore so far is that the number of blacks murdered is horrifically high, as well and their "quality of life" is appalling. As it turns out, blacks were much better off under apartheid than they are under the ANC.

Of course, it is racist to know this. It's racist to even notice it, and certainly racist to say something about it. But people are starting to say something about it. The hysterically thrown label, racist, is losing its power, it has been misused for so long. 

Be sure and let us know how your grave-spitting expedition works out, MikeD...

This Is Racist ... How?


Saturday, June 8, 2013

Boy, I Have Ticked Him Off Now!

 I would say I've pissed him off but I don't want to offend his delicate widdle professorial sensibilities.

In my most recent post, The Bitch is Back, I posted a table with a series of comments between Simpson and me from his blog. The last comment in the table was written by me -- a comment I posted that he refused to allow through moderation. (He called it a "tirade" and an "abusive rant." *Smirk* But you can read it for yourself and decide.)

However, he did cherry-pick it and used the cherries in a post about me. An entire post! About widdle ol' moi! He hasn't done that in months!

Here it is:
Connie Chastain on Emmett Till
Posted on June 8, 2013 by Brooks D. Simpson

Sometimes there’s a reason why it’s heritage, not history, with some folks. That’s because they aren’t very good at history.

Take the case of Confederate heritage advocate Connie Chastain. In her recent e-novel, Sweet Southern Boys, Connie combined her interest in white southerners with another one of her preoccupations: false rape accusations (no word on whether she plans to write another story addressing what happened recently in Steubenville, Ohio). I reminded her of the Emmett Till case as another instance of false accusations:
For a woman who studies false accusations of sexual behavior, the fact that you can’t see how that links to the Till case suggests that history is indeed a foreign land to you. The difference, of course, is that Till was black, not white … and his case is history, not fantasy fiction.
Connie’s abusive rant in reply showed that she had lost control of her emotions, a conclusion reinforced by a recent vile post on her blog that uses language unsuitable for reproduction here (this from a woman who whines about name-calling and complains that she’s being denigrated). In blocking her reply, I had to omit what she had to say about what I said about Till. However, it’s now worth reprinting in light of her newest tirade, which includes the blocked comment:
Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the was brutally murdered for it.
Of course, the facts were a bit more complex than that. But I guess she trusts the accounts of the sweet southern boys who killed Till, who was 14 at the time of his death. You just keep on defending southern heritage, Connie. 

Before I get to the crux of my response, I would just inform everyone that Sweet Southern Boys is both an e-book and a dead-tree book:

Kindle Edition
Trade Paperback

Now, with that out of the way, here's a comment I left on the thread  following his clap-trap posted above:
Lie, lie, lie.  Lying by omission is still lying.
What I said was, "Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the was brutally murdered for it. The murder was an atrocity, but it has absolutely no connection whatever to the story in my novel."
I said, "The murder was an atrocity...."  Why did you leave that out?
Never mind, I know why.
He didn't even use any ellipses to show he had edited out part of my comment. Do you suppose a professor at a major state university, who has presumably written books, doesn't know this?
"An ellipsis is a series of three points with spaces between them (. . .) inserted into a quotation to indicate the omission of material from the original quotation."
Of course he knows, but the idea is to mislead his readers into believing that what he posted was the entire quote.

We find this little gem of professorial illogic in his rant about me:
"... In her recent e-novel, Sweet Southern Boys, Connie combined her interest in white southerners with another one of her preoccupations: false rape accusations (no word on whether she plans to write another story addressing what happened recently in Steubenville, Ohio).
Not sure why he brought this up. Does he really think the Steubenville case is the ultimate conversation-stopper about rape? The categorical shutter-upper?

Ah, no. It isn't.

If he wonders whether I plan to write about Steubenville, I wonder whether he'll write on his blog about the Tawana Brawley case... or the Duke Lacrosse case... or the Hofstra University case ... or the Tucker Carlson case.

Do you suppose maybe he thinks that because rape does occur that false accusations don't matter?   Or because some men rape, it doesn't matter that men who do not rape have their lives ruined by false accusation -- particularly if the men whose lives are ruined are ... dare I say it? ... white Southerners?

As I have mentioned before, I have to wonder if Simpson rooted for Mike Nifong and whether he agrees with feminist Catherine Comins, who argued (in Time Magazine in 2001) that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience.
"They have a lot of pain," she said, "but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them."
And since he brought up the Emmett Till murder, I wonder if he will also bring up the Wichita Horror case ... or the Christian-Newsome murders ... or the murder of Eve Carson ... or the murder of Lauren Burk ... or the murder of Antonio West ... Silly question. Hell will likely freeze over before Simpson acknowledges any of these atrocities. (On those very, very rare occasions when progressive reverse-racists are backed into a corner and have to say something about cases like this, they almost always blame white racism and poverty, not the scumbags who committed the murders.)

 But back to the lies in Simpson's post:
Of course, the facts were a bit more complex than that. But I guess she trusts the accounts of the sweet southern boys who killed Till, who was 14 at the time of his death.
Yes, the facts were more complex than that, but significantly, Simpson made no claim that my un-complex statement was not factual. I wasn't writing a book, or even an essay or term paper. I was simply pointing out the difference between the Till case and my novel, because Simpson was dishonestly attempting to equate or connect them.

I trust the account of the murderers? No. And as I understand it, there were several conflicting accounts, and, also significantly, Simpson doesn't tell us which one(s) to believe. Moreover, I have never referred to the murderers  as sweet Southern boys, and for him to use the title of my book to imply that I consider murderers to be believable or that I approve of them and their appalling act -- well, that demonstrates with crystal clarity Simpson's desire to denigrate and love of lying and the sheer depths of his ethical insufficiency.

He makes a point of mentioning the victim's age -- which presumably makes the crime more reprehensible. But since he mentioned that Till was 14 when he was murdered, I will mention that Antonio West was thirteen months old when he was shot and killed by 17-year-old De'Marquise Elkins and 15-year-old Dominique Lang because his mother had no money to give them.

Of course, we know that this was an unfortunate incident, but not really heinous, not like the Till murder, (and not really the fault of the teen murderers), just as we know that murders like Till's and other crimes against blacks by whites up to, and especially including, the civil rights era, were the most heinous crimes in all of human history (except, of course, that slavery was the most heinous crime in all of human history).

 At the time of this writing, there aren't many comments following the blog post about little ol' moi, and currently, only one is worth responding to. M.D. Blough writes:
Till’s murderers were quite explicit what they did and why and quite proud of it. The only explanation for the acquittal is jury nullification (even pre-Civil Rights Mississippi did not make it legal to kill a black child for whistling at a white woman). BTW, apparently Ms. Chastain did not bother to find out that Emmett Till was born and raised in Chicago, IL (his mother was born in Mississippi but moved with her family to Illinois when she was two) and had been in Mississippi for only 3 days at the time he went with relatives to the store.
Remarkably, this is an extremely childish viewpoint that Simpson and his followers have exhibited numerous time on his blog -- that if they don't know it, it doesn't exist (or never happened). Specifically, the form that takes is, if somebody doesn't mention it in a Crossroads comment they don't know it, don't believe it, don't support it, never did it, etc. Information that doesn't make it onto a comment thread at Crossroads doesn't exist. All of anything that anyone knows is what they post on a Crossroads comment thread.

Thus, to M.D. Blough, the 24 words I posted about it was everything I know about the Emmett Till case. I know. I know. Hard to believe, but I think I know what lies behind this attitude, or at least part of it.

Some people -- progressives, especially -- are so dedicated to their cause they do whatever they think is required to support it, including jettisoning common sense (and in Simpson's case, also jettisoning integrity) when necessary.  And because they are willing to do that, they assume everyone dedicated to a cause will also jettison common sense and integrity to support their cause. Our cause is Southern heritage, so they assume all Southern heritage folks will abandon cognition and ethics to support it -- just the way they do the same thing to support their cause -- the demonization of white Southerners.

This is, apparently, why Simpson  and M.D. Blough think I know so little about the Till case -- they have to think we've tossed out common sense and integrity because as far as they can tell (and from their own experience) that's what you do if you're dedicated to a cause. So because I'm a dedicated Southern heritage advocate, I can't possibly know anything about Emmett Till. Thus, Simpson suggests I will have to "search" it and Blough sets out to "educate" me with her comment. I know, like I said, it's hard to believe.

I grew up during the civil rights era. I know about Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney.  I know about Viola Liuzzo.  I know about Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Denise McNair. I was 14 - 16 years old and saw reports about these events on television, and read about them in the newspaper and magazines, when they happened.

I have to admit, though, my familiarity with the Till case is fairly recent, though, because I was only seven when it happened, and it sort of slipped past me. I didn't learn about it until the early 1970s, so I've only known about it for the last forty-flippin'-years.

Yes, Simpson, I knew his age. Yes, M.D., I knew he was from Chicago. Yes, I know some people said he just whistled at the woman; some said he tried to flirt with her, and some said he reached around her from behind. Yes, I know some accounts of the case say nobody knows for sure what happened. Yes, it was an atrocity. They were all atrocities.

But so are the Wichita Horror case ... and the Christian-Newsome murders ... and the murder of Eve Carson ... and the murder of Lauren Burk ... and the murder of Antonio West.  And countless other black-on-white murders.

In the future, Simpson, M.D. and any other white demonizers, please, don't think you have to abandon common sense and integrity on my account.

Before I end this post, one more thing, which also falls under tossing-your-common-sense-out-the-window. This one is thanks to the progressive meme regarding discrimination and preference -- that is, if you prefer one thing, that means you hate its opposite -- and sometimes, anything in between.  And, if you are against something, that means you are FOR its opposite  -- and vice versa.

Thus, if you are against false rape accusation, that MUST mean you are FOR rape ... or you're not as against it as you SHOULD be.  It is this idiotic meme that prompts ridiculous assumptions like Simpson's comment about Steubenville, Ohio. Because I oppose women falsely accusing men of rape, that means I somehow defend men who actually rape, like the gang who raped a 15-year-old girl in Richmond, California for two freakin' hours? Ah, no. And yet that is what Brooks Simpson would have people believe about me.



He can't seem to post about me without lying.  In one fairly new comment thread, Simpson posts, "Let me ask you a simple question: do those statistics of enlistment by region discriminate according to race? Or do they could African Americans as southerners? Do you? Connie Chastain doesn’t."

Assuming that the word "could" highlighted above is a typo and Simpson meant "count" -- this is a lie. He is saying I don't count blacks as Southerners. Nope. Wrong. Lie.  I've simply explained that they don't wear that regional label.Here's what his lie comes from:
SIMPSON:  “The four-year history of the CSA is not necessarily the place to seek an example of the values Southerners sought to uphold.” Black southerners would agree with this assertion. But Ms. Chastain has a blind spot when it comes to this issue. When she says “southerners,” she means white southerners.

CONNIE:  "Well, Mr. Harper, a Pennsylvanian, wrote that. However, traditionally, the term 'Southerner' has always applied to whites. Black Southerners don’t usually call themselves that but prefer 'blacks' or 'African American' without reference to region. I haven’t often heard blacks refer to themselves as yankees, or northerners or mid-westerners, etc., either."
This snippet was about what people are called; what collective name they go by; and the term "Southerner" has always been applied to whites. It seems that for blacks, their community is not their state or region, but their race and ethnicity.  (And note: I didn't start the tradition of applying the term "Southerners" to whites. It's been that way for generations.) 

To understand exactly how this equates to saying they "don't count," one would have to be able to relate to Simpson's misuse of the language to do what he seems to love best -- denigrate and lie about people.

Friday, June 7, 2013

The Bitch Is Back


Over at Crossroads, Simpson writes:
NOTE: Connie Chastain clearly never actually understood the lyrics of the song she cited in attacking me … such as … “… ’cause I’m better than you It’s the way that I move, the things that I do …” As I’m the “I” in question, perhaps she’s right. After all, she’s never wrong. Just ask her. 
Oh, I know you're a lot better at the things you do. Lying, for example You're better at it because you do it a lot, and I don't do it at all. You're better at denigrating people's intelligence if you disagree with them, which I rarely ever do. (I'm much, much better at denigrating people's questionable integrity.) You're better at censoring people and sending their comments to oblivion. (The only person whose comments I block is Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur.)  (Oh, and see? He DOES understand the use of ellipses! That means he deliberately left them out of my Emmett Till quote to deceive his readers into thinking he'd posted the whole thing.)

I don't know where he went for several days. I just know that for some reason, my comments at the bitch's blog were being allowed through. Then, this happened.

I posted an excerpt from one of Douglas Harper's excellent essays, which included this:
 The four-year history of the CSA is not necessarily the place to seek an example of the values Southerners sought to uphold. Any nation fighting for survival from the cradle, invaded and blockaded all its life, doesn’t get a chance to express the finer points of democracy and civil culture. If all we knew of Americans was how they actually behaved from 1776 to 1783, we wouldn’t think much of our sense of “democracy” or commitment to “personal freedom.”
Simpson replied:
“The four-year history of the CSA is not necessarily the place to seek an example of the values Southerners sought to uphold.”
Black southerners would agree with this assertion. But Ms. Chastain has a blind spot when it comes to this issue. When she says “southerners,” she means white southerners.
My response:

Well, Mr. Harper, a Pennsylvanian, wrote that. However, traditionally, the term “Southerner” has always applied to whites. Black Southerners don’t usually call themselves that but prefer “blacks” or “African American” without reference to region. I haven’t often heard blacks refer to themselves as yankees, or northerners or mid-westerners, etc., either.
I’m sure you converse with a lot of black people, Connie.

Sweet Southern Boys is a fantasy: the murder of Emmett Till was the reality.

Notice how he brings up my novel, Sweet Southern Boys, out of the blue?  It has nothing to do with the conversation, it has not been mentioned but he brings it up. One reason is because he's obsessed with it. He's done that before, and I blogged about it here: The Desire to Denigrate. The other reason is to tar the novel (and me) with a fraudulent connection to the Emmett Till case.

 Mr. Simpson, yes, as a matter of fact I have conversed with a lot of black people all my life, particularly as an adult — at school, at work, at church, etc.

Sweet Southern Boys is fiction, not fantasy, inspired by an actual event. I’m not sure what the murder of Emmett Till has to do with it. Are you implying that fiction should be banned because of reprehensible acts that occur in reality? If not, what is your point in trying to connect the two? There is no connection, you know, except, perhaps, in your imagination.

It is a truly vivid imagination that conjures up the connections you attempt to make. 

You’re the one who put them together in the same sentence, not I. Perhaps if you told us your reason for doing that, conjuring wouldn’t be necessary.

I linked them together for reasons that to explain would be to belabor the obvious and imply a disrespect for your level of knowledge and intelligence.

But some times I guess giving someone the benefit of the doubt doesn’t pay off.

Perhaps you don’t know what happened to Emmett Till or why it offers an instructive comparison to your fictional tale. At least your sweet southern boys weren’t murdered. Now hurry off to a search engine and return with something that you’ve snipped to suggest otherwise.

As for your “conjuring,” I’d say it is illustrative of how your mind works. Thanks for providing it.

I understand perfectly why you attempted to link my novel and the Till case. You pulled up a deplorable but completely irrelevant event from the past and implied a connection where none exists in a vain effort to shame me and disparage my novel.

Yes, I know what happened to Emmett Till, and I know it offers no instructive comparison to my novel — in fact, no comparison whatsoever.

No, my sweet Southern boys weren’t murdered. Do you think they should have been? Do you think all fictional Southern white boys should be murdered in the novels they’re featured in? …that they should not be portrayed admirably … or that they should not be portrayed as suffering injustice?

My conjuring was not the result of vivid imagination but of deliberate facetiousness. It makes as much sense for me to suggest you’re implying that fiction should be banned because of reprehensible acts that occur in reality as it does for you to imply a connection between my novel and the Till case.


Wrong again, Connie. I’m not disparaging your novel. That’s merely a virtual artifact.

For a woman who studies false accusations of sexual behavior, the fact that you can’t see how that links to the Till case suggests that history is indeed a foreign land to you. The difference, of course, is that Till was black, not white … and his case is history, not fantasy fiction.

That you think I want fictional characters murdered suggests just how bizarre your mind is. Who cares about the contents of a book no one reads and which you have to give away for free? No one cares about your characters. I just wanted to see where your twisted line of “reasoning” would lead, and you fell into that trap so easily. Thank you. At least you admit that you also write fiction when you write about me and what you think I’m thinking … which is, after all, really about what goes on in the deep, dark, and dim corners of your mind.

Thus endeth the lesson for today. Have a nice weekend. After all, you have yet to come up with a single positive feature of the Confederacy, and it’s time to shut you down so that you can concentrate on that. I wouldn’t want to distract you.


It's par for the sleazy course with you, to lie about me and then block my responses. For someone who is so convinced of his own superiority, you sure are scared of letting me speak.

I've described your absurd behavior. That is not fiction.

Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the was brutally murdered for it. The murder was an atrocity, but it has absolutely no connection whatever to the story in my novel.

Just out of curiosity, did you agree with those folks who said the Duke Lacrosse defendants deserved their persecution (and worse), even if innocent, because they were "privileged" white boys?

Sorry, no, your denials don't get it. You've shown way too much interest in my novels in the past to pretend you have no interest in them now. Your interest is well documented in a number of comments you've made on this very blog -- some of them out of the blue, in threads I didn't post in, about subjects that are totally irrelevant to them. You've "reviewed" them without having read them and you've made false judgments about me based on your fraudulent reviews. Certainly you care about my characters, because it sticks in your craw that white Southerners are portrayed positively, even in fiction, even by little ol' moi.

Your comments in this thread are just more of the same -- the latest chapter in your well-established desire to denigrate.

Notice, too, how he fraudulently labels the the Till case as an example of  "false accusation.," for the purpose of claiming that my novel and a brutal murder are somehow related, or at least similar.  And remember that this man holds a highly responsible position at a major state university.

Just to clarify, I don't blog about Simpson and his attacks on me and my novels just to be whining, or as a bid for sympathy. People who know me, or even those who have simply read my blogs and Facebook posts, know I'm no simpering whiner. My purpose is not to say, "Poor widdle me," but, "Can you believe what a jerk this guy is?" My aim is to display his obsession with unethically throwing the "racist" tar bucket at Southern heritage folks -- and to show the mentality, the verbal methods, and the demonstrations of, um, ethics by a major critic of Southern heritage blogging in the disguise of a historian...

Thursday, June 6, 2013

One of My Recent Facebook Graphics

Al Mackey Can't Tell the Difference...

... between a person and a group: The SHPG Defends Slavery

Methinks he needs to clean his own house before upbraiding folks about "unilateral" secession....

The stench of hypocrisy that sometimes drifts from the flogger corner of cyberspace can burn the rhinal cavaties raw....

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

A Monarchy Minus the King

I have always had tremendous respect for the Founders of this country. But if, as people claim today, they created a federal government which states and their citizens have no right to leave (i.e., via secession) then they deserve no respect -- because they fought a war to become free of the British crown, only to create a federal government with the same tyrannical hold on the states.

Now, see, I don't think they did that. The Declaration of Independence identifies the right of the people to alter or abolish their government and create one better suited to them as a right endowed by the Creator, and that government is supposed to secure. Not only that, secession is not listed among the powers prohibited to the states in the Constitution, and prohibiting secession is not listed among the powers delegated to the federal government.

They wanted their experiment in self-government to work, of course they did. But I don't believe they wanted that so much that they re-created  the same tyrannical government, minus the monarch, as the one they'd fought so long and hard to be free of.

If they did, they were frauds, and we might as well have remained subjects of the crown.  But the government they created is not -- or is not supposed to be, at least -- a prison for states that they must fight to be free of.

That means the people who portray the country as indivisible, and the Confederates as traitors, are the real frauds -- or, at best, mistaken. A federal republic you can't leave is a monarchy without a king. If this is not a monarchy minus the king, the states  have the right to secede without being militarily invaded, laid waste, put under a military dictatorship, and held in economic peonage for several generations.

The South, My Home