See, Andy won't deal with me directly. He has long since banned me from posting comments at his blog. He doesn't reply to me on my blog -- but he will reply to me, not by name, of course, but to things I've written ... in the comment sections of OTHER flogger flogs... Why?
Here's a little background. Way back in August 2011, I wrote a blog titled Academic leftism and the Civil War. You can read it here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2011/08/academic-leftism-and-civil-war.html
For some reason, that -- in combination with some stuff I put in comments at Dead Confederates, like those in this thread http://deadconfederates.com/2011/08/08/famous-negro-cooks-regiment-found-in-my-own-backyard/ -- really pissed Andy off and he put his foot down and banned me from his blog. You can read the comment thread where he did that here:
And my recap of the whole thing, here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/12/pusillanimous-pooltroons.html
I've never made a secret of the fact that I examine the motives, or agenda, or character of critics of Southerners, the South, and Southern heritage. What you have here is odious hypocrisy. Andy, and all the floggers, for that matter, don't like having their motives, or agenda, or character questioned, or even examined -- but they do love to do the same to those they deem historically inaccurate, ignorant, stupid, evil and Southern/white/racist.
So, Andy is skeered to tangle with me directly but I often say things he really, really wants to answer, so he answers me at Kindred Blood or Crossroads or CW Memory, maybe even in the comments of flogs I am unfamiliar with...
Look at how he words his reply. "I seem to recall..." instead of "Chastain said..." But, enough quibbling. Let's get to his argument.
__________... I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach just happened to get his picture taken with the Flaggers at Richmond in 2012 — until he showed up on video, marching in the parade with them, front-and-center.
Same event, Andy. Sheesh.
I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach wasn’t a Flagger at all — until it turned out that the Flaggers sent out an announcement congratulating him as one of “our own Va. Flaggers,” along with Hathaway, Jennings and others, winning a national award from the SCV.
It was a mistake, probably made because he was one of the 500 who, according to a quote in the Times-Dispatch, attended events put on by the group.
I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach’s presence at that parade was probably a chance encounter at that one event — until it was acknowledged there were other flagging events he participated in, too.
Name them, Andy. Dates, places, events. Name them all. Unless we have the total picture, we can't draw conclusions. And since you know so much about it, name the flagging events he participated in, Andy. Name them all.
I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach’s involvement with the Flaggers was a long time ago — except that one of the more prominent and high-profile Virginia Flaggers goes on the record that Heimbach is “a good guy” whose “white pride” graffiti then and current Nazi fetish is, even now, an “other issue” that’s irrelevant to the Flaggers, because he embraces Confederate heritage.
Well, Andy, your two statements separated by "except" are neither mutually exclusive or mutually reinforcing. And Tripp's comment did not mention "white pride graffiti and current Nazi fetish," so basically you're lying. The "other issue" was probably considered irrelevant at the time of the Heritage Rally, and even later, likely because nobody knew Heimbach's beliefs about race, or didn't know him. Or both. Unlike floggers, who zero in on such matters looking for something to generate the warm fuzzies of moral superiority and righteous indignation in themselves, most normal people, including Flaggers and other Southern heritage folks, aren't zeroed in on wacist-witch hunts.
No single one of these drip-drip-drip revelations about Heimbach is especially significant by itself. Taken together, though, they reveal a loose but real and ongoing affiliation between Matt Heimbach and the Virginia Flaggers, that seems plenty substantive given his previous situation as a full-time student in another state.
The reality of the "affiliation" is gossamer, the bulk of it imaginary. As for ongoing -- events, dates, places, Andy....
It also shows that while they really dislike being associated with the guy who goes around in swastika t-shirts, they also can’t quite publicly come to terms with who he was in 2012 when they were publicly praising him, who he’s become since, even as a leading Virginia Flagger continues to publicly embrace him.
Nah, it's just not that important. Again, I doubt most of them have ever seen Heimbach in the flesh, or even in a picture, and likely never in a swastika T-shirt. Personally, as a supporter of Southern heritage in general, and the Virginia Flaggers in particular, it is of monumental indifference to me (1) who Heimbach is, (2) what he believes (3) his imaginary "affiliation" with the Flaggers. He hasn't influenced them in any way.
I understand Heimbach is (or certainly should be) an embarrassment to the Virginia Flaggers, but this could have been cauterized two weeks ago, when it was first widely known, with a little bit of candor and direct, unambiguous language on their part, acknowledging who Matt Heimbach is and what he believes.
No. That supposes there was an actual, substantive connection, not some phantom connection dreamed up by people who hate the Flaggers, have had it in for them since their beginning, and have lied about them over and over. Repeatedly over and over.
They could have drawn a bright, shining line between themselves and Heimbach, but haven’t.
No need. Nobody cares except people who hate the Flaggers anyway.
(The formal response from the Flaggers doesn’t mention Heimbach by name, and only indicates he’s been called a white supremacist, as if there’s really legitimate doubt on that point.)
No, it indicates they (1) they don't know the particulars of the charge and (2) have more important things to do than jump through flogger hoops for people who won't be satisfied with anything they say.
(Andy's mention of a "line" gives a glimpse into what he WISHES he had -- a brand new, bright, shining verbal whip to flog the Flaggers with -- I mean, only an idiot believes a critic and hater hundreds or thousands of miles away can diagnose child abuse from a few seconds of video, so that particular cat-o-nine-tails is getting very worn; the Rob Walker thing went away for everybody except Simpson when it was explained by Susan's statement. And the disturbing of imaginary Confederate graves never got off the ground ... so to speak. So if they couldn't inflate the Heimbach blow-up doll all out of proportion, far beyond truth and reality, their Hate-the-Flaggers Express would out of gas and sputter to an ignominious stop.)
Instead, they’ve spent the last two weeks denying and making arguments — several of which have been subsequently contradicted by the evidence — that Heimbach’s involvement with the Flaggers wasn’t what the Flaggers themselves actually claimed it was before, and the really horrible people in this business are the wicked, wicked bloggers who used the Flaggers’ own photographs, videos and blog posts to document it. The real bad guy is not the “white pride” activist the Flaggers claim as one of “our own,” but the bloggers who talk about it.
No, no, no, Andy, that opener is NOT correct. The Flaggers have issued ONE STATEMENT. You can read it HERE. http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/2013/09/our-time-is-now.html
Most of the arguments made have come from ME, CONNIE CHASTAIN WARD, on Facebook and my blog, Backsass. I am not a Virginia Flagger, although I have achieved a sort of honorary Flagger status through my defense of them. Although I am in limited communication with some of the Flaggers, most of my arguments in their defense have been made from information I found researching online. The core group of Flaggers are busy folks, have jobs, families and other responsibilities; I'm reluctant to encroach on their time. I am retired and have a lot more time to spend in online research.
Moreover, my arguments and explanations blew away every one of the arguments in your comment BEFORE YOU MADE THEM. As I'm sure you know, considering how much you lurk at Backsass.
The long history of attacks on and lies about the Flaggers -- the animosity, the jealousy, the drumming up hatred for them by you floggers is INDEED WICKED. (I still can't get over the "child abuse" accusations, considering the silent acceptance of some of the long-term, regular peanut gallery floggerettes warmly welcomed at flog comment sections.)
But it won't stop the I-95 flag from going up, and it won't stop the flaggings of the VMFA.
Let me ax you a question, Andy Hall. What do you have to say about Brooks Simpson posting Susan's private sector job information in the midst of a blizzard of attack posts at Crossroads? I mean, besides, "That's awkward and look what Bobby Edwards said..."
I have said that the floggers are tying to take "an incidental, gossamer 'connection' and morph it into the anchor chain of the Emma Maersk." Maritime-Andy will certainly understand that reference, but maybe I need to dumb it down a little for flogger readers. Pictures, maybe.
What Andy is trying to do is take some ripples in a rain-puddle ....
and morph them into a tsunami about to swallow up Richmond...
or maybe just the Flaggers.
But only gullible leftists, anti-racists, and evilizers of Southern white people buy that. Everyone else knows a puddle when they see it.
P.S. LibertyLip has made a blog post about the I-95 flag showing the usual intellectual vacuity of ultra-leftists resulting from narrow obsessiveness... I left a comment. Likely it won't get through moderation, so here it is:
Very amateurish and unrefined, LibertyLip. You got a long way to go before your snark gets as snot-slick as Simpson's. But keep trying. And in the meantime, thank you for making yourself the poster-kid for lies and filth. I love to see lies and filth coming from your side. Shows your true ... colors... LOL!What really gets me is how much he IGNORED me. I mean, in a rather schizoid approach, he mentioned me in an article that claims I'm not article-worthy (obviously in disagreement with Simpson), but he didn't use my name. Hmmm. Anyway, he said, "We could start pointing fingers and naming names of some of the more moronic individuals in the group, like some mentally unbalanced trash novelist out of Pensacola FL, but demented histrionics– however embarassingly funny– are not article worthy.
How come no coverage, if my "demented" histronics (note, dear readers, that I used "demented" in this ongoing blog fracas before this copy-cat did) are funny? Funny is always article-worthy. I suspect he doesn't know how to do genuine humor, just derision.
Anyhoo, if anybody can help me come up with methods for parlaying this non-mention into trashy novel sales, please leave a comment. Thanks!
Update Update UpdateSo, what do y'all think? Should I change the name of this post to The Texas Scalawag Squeaketh?
Images: Malene Thyssen, and unknown photographer, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license; and the Public Domain.