Friday, September 6, 2013

Oh, Crap. Here We Go Again...

Simpson must really, really be mad at me. I have a knack for turning his face red and making his neck veins bulge, I guess. Wonder what it was this time. The Tweets? Y'all lemme know what you think. Was it the tweets? Or is it that he just cain't quit me?

So he's mad at me and he posts about me .... again! What is there about a little retired insurance claims secretary in Florida that can get this highly placed, famous, appears-on-C-SPAN professor in such a tizzy? Anyhoo, here's the latest, with my comments embedded....

To Be or Not To Be: Connie Chastain and the Virginia Flaggers
Posted on September 6, 2013 by Brooks D. Simpson   

Connie Chastain has declared that she’s not a Virginia Flagger.
I'm not. I'd love to be, but I'm not. Maybe they can make me an honorary Virginia Flagger, since I have roots in Virginia way on back yonder, and since I support their mission. If I become an honorary Virginia Flagger, Simp, I'll let you know immediately. But for now, I am not a Virginia Flagger.

Really? Really.

After all, she’s managed (and helped create) the Virginia Flaggers’ blog. Even after her declaration, she was still posting material there.  Yes, I enthusiastically support them and their mission, and help them as I can, in whatever way I can. Doesn't make me a Flagger, alas.

One also notices that she’s still declaring that white supremacist Matthew Heimbach’s not a Virginia Flagger. How would she know, if she isn’t a Flagger? I've researched it and drawn that conclusion.

Here I take Susan Hathaway’s willingness to claim Matthew Heimbach as a Flagger to heart. She’s a Flagger, so she ought to know. I have declared in public posts that including him on the list was probably a simple mistake. I've been in communication with the Flaggers since then, and nobody has corrected me, so it appears that my conclusion that it was a mistake is correct.

Indeed, for someone who claims she’s not a Flagger and neither is Heimbach, it now appears that Chastain’s willing to admit to more than a single instance of contact between Heimbach and the Flaggers. 

Still doesn't make him a flagger. As I've written in an earlier post:
  From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

    The Flaggers have a core group of about 50 active members in the Richmond area, but more than 500 people have attended events put on by the group, Jones said.

At most, Matt Heimbach is one of the 500 who attended events put on by the Flaggers. He is not part of the core group of active members, as they are identified as being in the Richmond area and Heimbach is from Maryland.
In a recent comment on another blog she admitted that Heimbach attended  ”two or three” Flagger events. So someone claiming she’s not a Flagger knows who attends multiple Flagger events. We’ll overlook her previous claim that Heimbach attended only one event.

Well, one of them wasn't a Flagger event (the opening of the MOC at Appomattox) so it was my mistake to call that a Flagger event, as several organizations were represented there. If you know of Flagger events Heimbach has attended, Simpson, identify the place and date. Otherwise, STHU.

Here again I trust Susan Hathaway, who claims Heimbach as a fellow Flagger.  Why do you all of a sudden trust Susan when you have repeatedly claimed and implied she is a liar?

Of course, Hathaway also accepts Chastain as a spokesperson, having proclaimed that she leaves the “heavy hitting” to her spokesperson.

Wonder why Brooks insist on lying about things that have already been made clear for most people of common sense and integrity?  Susan has never accepted me or designated me as a spokesperson.

 As noted in an earlier Backsass post:
Susan Hathaway's statement that she leaves the "heavy hitting" to me was simply a jocular Facebook acknowledgement that (a) she doesn't read blog entries, Facebook posts, Tweets, etc., from critics and attackers and (b) she knows that I not only read them, but defend or counter-attack.

Why Brooks Simpson, presumably an intelligent, educated adult, would attempt to give this frivolity serious significance is mystifying. (Edit: Well, on second thought, it's not mystifying at all. It is just another trademark Simpson distortion, a function of his gooey glibness.--cw). In fact, why he, Andy Hall, Kevin Levin and their followers would pay any attention at all to Southern heritage groups on Facebook and heritage activists like the Virginia Flaggers is itself a mystery.

My posts at Backsass, all my other blogs and websites, and on Facebook, Twitter and anywhere else, are my own. Unless otherwise noted, I am always speaking for myself only. Nobody else.
Is Connie Chastain calling Susan Hathaway a liar?

Nope. I'm calling you a liar -- and possibly a fraud. Susan's comment:
Quit reading his garbage! Every click gives him site visits and more "clout". I have not read ANY of these Floggers' troughs in over a year and it has been a very blissful year. I leave the heavy hitting to Ms. Connie!
Note that Susan didn't use the term spokesperson so that shows Simpson to be a lair right there. How much plainer does it have to be? Leaving the "heavy hitting" to someone who is going to do it anyway is not assigning them to be a spokesperson. Sheesh...

Incidentally, Susan made that "heavy hitting" remark on a closed Facebook group, Due South, where Brooks Simpson is not a member. Or isn't supposed to be. Only members can see posts, so he obtained the quote by fraud -- by having a mole-member copy it and send it to him, or by joining the group himself under a fake profile -- which Facebook prohibits.

If he obtained the quote ethically, he can explain how and if I find it reasonable and believable, I will not only withdraw my accusation, but I will issue an apology. I await the explanation.

Of course, Chastain also announced the following on September 3:

    So I’m going to try  … TRY … to scale back on defense and counter-attack in my writings when they involve critics and attackers targeting the Virginia Flaggers.
After the appearance of that statement on September 3 to today, September 6, she’s posted four more times attacking people who deplore the associations between white supremacists and the Virginia Flaggers.

Four posts, huh? Isn't that interesting. It just so happens that yesterday, I was counting posts, too. At Crossroads.

According to the search function at Crossroads, the term "Virginia Flaggers" appears in 47 posts. I don't think it searches comments, so the term may have appeared in a comment when it was not used in the post itself.

I also counted posts manually, starting with the first post about the I-95 flag on August 4, and ending with the one about me. (Well, the most current one about me.) There are 28 of them since August 4th.  Twenty-eight posts in thirty-three days....

Here's a list:

Meanwhile, she continued to remain silent when it comes to responding to calls to repudiate Matthew Heimbach’s views.

Na, it's just a matter of who is makin' the calls. If someone I like, respect and care about asks, that's different from somebody making the call who hates me, lies about me, harasses me...  See the difference?

I guess for once she decided not to lie.

Well, no doubt about it, I don't take to lying the way you do, Simpson, sure enough.


  1. Judging from the comments the white-guys at Crossroads are making, they are upset that the Flaggers have not repudiated the views of one Matthew Heimbach, who is a loopy 22 year old know-nothing kid. The views the white-guys at Crossroads want repudiated are, evidently, white supremacist in nature. Under these circumstances, and notwithstanding the fact that the Flaggers scarcely know who the hell Heimbach is, I think the Flaggers should consider acceding to the demands of the white guys at Crossroads. This, of course, is PROVIDED that the white-guys at Crossroads repudiate the racist and white-supremacist views of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Between Heimbach, Grant, and Lincoln, Heimbach's brand of white-supremacy is decidedly less virulent, hateful, and malevolent. I think that is a sensible and fair comprise.

  2. If you're a leftist, Austin, especially an academic leftist, if you blog sympathetically about blacks and put their pictures on your blog, especially if you do this a lot, you can keep your liberal racial credentials WITHOUT HAVING TO ASSOCIATE WITH BLACKS.

  3. Agreed. And to that end, you may remember that years ago there was a sports television program on "ABC", called "The Wide Wide World of Sports". In the same spirit, I think Simpson can be summed up in the phrase, "The White, White, World of Brooks".


Comments are welcome, but monitored.