Tuesday, November 26, 2013

How a Liar Lies, Part Deux

Corey Meyer has a long history of creating fraudulent IDs on Facebook (and earlier on Yahoo Groups) in order to gain access where he is not wanted and collect info on Southern heritage folks he can lie about and/or besmirch them with on his blog.

He claims he is only interested in "correct history" but then complains about, oh, the SCV Mechanized Cavalry not showing proper respect for the Confederate flag, which he says is contrary to claims by Southern heritage advocates that the flag should be respected.

That's not history, but it does showcase Corey's leftist preoccupation with demonizing white Southerners, or a subset, Southern heritage folks. His blog is full of crap harassing and lying about Southern heritage folks that has not one iota to do with correct history.

He has made so many fake profiles and tried to friend heritage folks and join heritage groups with them, I've forgotten a lot of them. Robert Billy, Hunter South, Hunter Sounderland, and the newer ones, Fenster Henhawk,Tyler Ratke (now spelled Ty Raktee, or some such), and Max Weber. They all have certain markers and are easy to identify as (1) fake, fraudulent and (2) Corey's.

One of the frauds Corey perpetrates that I want to talk about today is the fake profile, Max Weber.  Here's a photo of Max Weber from his fake Facebook page:

 One of the interesting things is the names Corey chooses for his fake IDs. The real Max Weber, of course, was not Hispanic, as this young man seems to be, and he lived and died some time ago..  From Wikipedia:
Maximilian Karl Emil "Max" Weber was a German sociologist, philosopher, and political economist whose ideas influenced social theory, social research, and the entire discipline of sociology. 

I started wondering about this photo of "Max." It is obviously not a stock photo such as Corey has used in the past for his fake IDs, such as the elderly colored gentleman, Fenster Henhawk (whose name came from this  children's book). Here's "Fenster" at Fotosearch.

So I decided to do a reverse image search on young Max here to see what I could find. Tin Eye found nothing, but Google directed me to THIS. Scroll about halfway down the page to "Instructor and Teaching Assistants." Lo! and behold! One of the teaching assistants, who looks just like "Max Weber" is actually Dan Aremdariz.

Once I had a name, all I had to do was Google, and I found these:

THIS appears to be his personal page. Young fellow makes good pictures. Look at his courses. I think his pay grade is a little higher than a high school social studies teacher.

You can even see and hear him talk in this video (he starts at about the 30-second mark) titled Browser Walkthrough.

And here's his Facebook page. Since Facebook images are not copyrighted, I'll post a partial of the cover photo here:

And here's the fake Facebook page of Max Weber, who is using Daniel's likeness...fraudulently, presumably. Anybody wanna contact Daniel and see if he gave Corey permission to use his likeness?

And if you scroll down a ways, you will see another Corey hallmark -- a babe showing her naked buttocks.

Above the photo is a link for "Paiman Cah Bagoes". Click it at your own risk, and make sure no kids can see  your screen.

Corey has a history of posting or linking to photos of scantily clad babes, especially if there's a Confederate flag in the photo somewhere. He had an entire blog of photos denigrating the flag, with perhaps five photos of extremely lewdly posed nude women.

No wonder he wouldn't have a problem teaching "The Bluest Eye" to his unfortunate students.

Corey also said he had deleted all his fake FB profiles, but later amended that, saying the gave some of them to friends. GUFFAW!!!!!

So was he lyin' when he created the fraudulent IDs? Or was he lying when he said he got rid of them?

Lying then? Or lying now?

Ha. Both. That's how a liar lies....


Well, would you look at this! Just since I took a screen-shot Max Weber's Facebook cover pic and posted it here yesterday, Max's profile pic now says "Max Gregg Weber," although the Facebook account is still listed Max Weber -- just as Ty Raktee's account is still Tyler Ratke. 

Interesting how this got changed after Corey's lies got exposed here.

And here are some more interesting things....

Max Weber posted a pic of a girl with her posterior exposed, and above it is a link to some foreigners' timelines (Paiman Cah Bagoes, Jose Antonio Calderon, Jose Antonio Zamorano) full of pics of raunchy, nasty floozies....

Marcus Gimblee, another fake profile with Corey's MO, has a pic of a big-busted babe, and above it is a link to some foreigner's timeline (Jose A Lopez) with pics of raunchy, nasty floozies.

Marcus is friends with another Corey fraudulent profile, Jeffery Reynolds. Jeffery doesn't have photos (yet) of big-busted babes showing their be-hinds, but he does have photos of Miley Cyrus twerking (sick, and ugly). Jeffery also posted a link to Mark's Confederate Flag blog (http://marksconfederateflag.blogspot.com/) but if you follow the link, you'll see that the blog has been removed. It has not been deleted, though, because if it had been, the notice would say that the address is available. Since it isn't, that means the blog owner is still holding on to the name.

I followed a link to this blog from one of Corey's fake profiles some months back, and it was the same porno blog that he'd had up under another name. Same background wallpaper, same photos, same captions...

There are no telling how many fake profiles Corey has made going back how many years, and how many blogs he has made but has not uploaded content to.  Yet.

Slimy. Scummy. Liar.

Monday, November 25, 2013

Facts Are Not Immutable

Facts can change based on the acquisition of knowledge....
Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
Climate records from a Japanese lake are providing a more accurate timeline for dating objects as far back as 50,000 years 
This would not apply only to scientific knowledge, but historical knowledge, as well....

(Cue edumacated kneejerk response from Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur in three...two...one...)

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Still Pertinent After All These Years

The Meaning of Original Sin
by Ace

Few things are more embarrassing than getting caught in a lie. At least for most of us. And yet we are all guilty. We lie not only to others but to ourselves as well. It's at once both an obsession and a joke. How do you know a politician is lying? Watch his lips. If they're moving, he's lying. I did not inhale. I am your friend. No big deal, no problem. Except, of course, when we wake up to a lie that has personally cost us something precious. Then the practice is no longer an innocuous compulsion, but an unforgivable deception. If someone swindles us, our wrath explodes into a spectacular and indignant fury. There's nothing like being truly victimized by a confidence ploy to wake up the sleeping champion of integrity. No Lothario, it's not the sex. It's the rip off, stupid!

On a frozen January night my wife and I hopped a flight out of Missoula Montana, heading down to California. As I settled in, I rummaged around the seat pocket in front of me, and behind the barf bag I found the airline in house magazine. Past the map of the services, the advertisements for overpriced gimmicks and toys, I stumbled on an article by a linguist. Now etymology has always been one of my hobbies. You know, wondering how an Indo-European root word like sat, which means desire in Sanskrit, can become a word like satisfy, as in "I can't get no," or even Satan, as in "The late Great?" So with my curiosity aroused, I flicked on the overhead and buried my self in the article.

The author surmised that human language probably evolved about 50,000 years ago. Maybe, maybe not. But there was one dark and stunning assertion that really sticks for any of us. He also speculated that speech emerged for the sole purpose of deception. In other words, to gain a competitive advantage over our cousins, even our brothers and sisters, we invented language to deceive them. I don't know if that's true or not, and I find myself hard pressed to comment without raw presumption or hypocrisy. I mean who am I to preach? It might be unnerving to the secular humanist. It could even be offensive to the fundamentalist. But then again, there will always be the challenge of the Copernican Dilemma. And the implications to global culture and politics are so profound, it's almost impossible to hyperbolize on this one. So I've taken it on myself to think out loud. If you stay within ear shot, you're going to get an opinion that may well both stun and provoke you.

How many have agonized in conflict over the meaning of the garden story in Genesis? How did it go? Well let's see. There was Adam and Eve, and they were naked. And they weren't supposed to eat the fruit because they would "surely die." Then there was a serpent. The serpent convinced Eve that she wouldn't die if she ate the fruit. So she and Adam ate the fruit, and they were ashamed by their nakedness. Was it a sex thing then? Mmmmm...Some say so, but it's not likely. There's something more to it. Yeah, so go on. Well, then they were kicked out of paradise, and that was presumably a bad thing for them. I mean, all the rest of us are busy trying to figure out how to get back in, by almost any means we can. So, let's see now. What kind of fruit was it? It was the "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." The knowledge of good and evil...the knowledge of good and evil. Could the serpent have convinced Eve that she and Adam might take it onto themselves to determine what was good and what was evil? Well maybe so. And if so, how did he accomplish it? Well, buddy, he lied.

    The Devil Dances with delight,

    Upon our graves with mystic insight,

    Our hearts are wont to weep and grieve,

    For he's taught us each other to deceive. -- ACE

And today the pundits of popular culture tell us that good and evil are not absolute, but open to personal interpretation. The modern liberal believes it, and the classical liberal is adamant about it. We are encouraged to take it onto ourselves to determine what is right, and what is wrong. And on the surface, there's no denying it seems a philosophy that has logical and reasonable potential. Even the fundamental principles of the universe itself seem mathematically relative. There's just one problem. If I take it onto myself to determine what's right for me, how do you actually defend yourself if it isn't right for you? What if I decide it's right for me to deceive you in order to take advantage of you? I mean, it is relative, isn't it? And what if you don't find out until it's too late for you? Of course therein lies the rub.

If information means power, disinformation means absolute power. It may once have taken secret societies, initiation rites, and mystical knowledge of symbolic language to perfect the black art of deception. But not any longer. Much to the chagrin of those who lord it over us, everyone today knows how to cheat. If you want raw power, all you have to do is lie. And the free-for-all feeding frenzy is heating up to a boil.

But it wasn't always that way for us here in the West, especially in America. For a brief period, we flirted with a political system based on the cultural notion of integrity, of an absolute truth. One where potentially abusive power was kept in check by self control on the one hand, and careful separation of political clout on the other. And while it wasn't faultless, a semblance of balance was achieved at least for a time.

After the Constitutional Convention, a woman stepped up to the men and asked them what kind of government they had finally given the American people. "A republic, madam," replied Ben Franklin, "...if you can keep it." In his Inaugural Address, George Washington advised us that "The sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government [were deeply and irrevocably staked] on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." And as it was human, it was by no means perfect. Myopic political philosophers on the left will pound on all day long reminding us of their notion of the inequities of the classical Republican model. You know. Males and landowners only. Free, white, and twenty one. And in fact they have a point. But as a modifiable political basis, it is still probably far more perfect than its modern antithesis, the new paradigm of the authoritarian crypto-collectivist. You doubt that? Well here's an assertion to consider.

There are at least three types of individuals hell bent on the destruction of the American Republican system.

    The first suffers only from ignorance. This person means well, but just has either never heard the other side of the story, or is in denial. He's the typical Democrat.

    The second suffers from spite and envy. This person has a rough comprehension of the ramifications, but can't resist the malevolent urge to destroy what he cannot control. He's your run of the mill radical.

    The third is the most dangerous. For they know both the meaning and ramifications of what they propose. These are the progressive elite. They have no home or loyalty other than their quest for power, their urge to control labor and resources around the globe. In it's latest incarnation, this elite has taken the fruit of a false premise and morphed it into a total lie. They are well along the road of replacing our republic with a regulated totalitarian oligarchy cleverly disguised as a pseudo-egalitarian democracy. Their method is magical deception, or the distraction of the uninformed. It's pure prestidigitation. Watch the busy hand that does so little, but never the one that actually commits the act. They prosper by the division of opponents, and they have a background.

Here's a challenging bit of their history. In 1919 an Italian socialist named Antonio Gramsci began to publish a newspaper in Milan called, L'Ordine Nuovo, or "The New Order. Loosely rendered, he concluded that the average person would never voluntarily reject the faith and culture of the West. He concluded that the best way to implement a collectivist government was to use an intellectual elite to destroy traditional values by attacking fundamental Jewish and Christian beliefs.

    Gramsci envisioned a three phased assault.

First he calculated that this elite maneuver to achieve a "cultural hegemony" over the West.

    And following Gramsci with precision, his entourage did exactly that. The culture itself became a vehicle to destroy ideals by several means. It presented the young not with heroic, Apollonian or Athenian examples, but with deliberately degenerated anti-heroes—with ‘losers.’ Marriage and family were continuously attacked and subverted. People were demoralized by replacing age old doctrines and moral teachings with ‘modernized’ or diminished cultural ideas. This reduced meaningful standards to irrelevancy. It replaced genuine education with radical permissiveness, with gutted curricula and radically lowered standards. It promoted collectivism in the institutions of higher education. It gained de-facto control of the mass media. Not by Stalinist censorship, but by subtlety promoting placement of like minded thinkers in media positions in order to transform it from a news reporting mechanism to a propaganda organ. The media then manipulated, harassed, and discredited traditional institutions that clung to the notion of self control, and promoted those seeking authoritarian control.

    Morality, decency, and traditional virtues became the subject of ridicule. Marriage was portrayed as a plot by males to perpetuate a system of domination over women and children. Radical feminism worked with diligence to undermine the Republican tradition. Any larger anthropological logic in the religious cannons were abandoned as irrelevant and childish nonsense. By emphasizing the improbabilities and inconsistencies of the traditions, by blurring the historic facts with the legends, attention to their higher symbolic meaning was successfully diverted. The secular and religious zealot were encouraged to oppose each other, as they were left to wallow aimlessly defending their position in the cultural chaos.

I'm not making this up. All this is precisely as Gramsci proposed.

Gramsci envisioned that twenty or thirty years of this cultural manipulation would lead to the second phase.

    A power struggle emerging between the ‘progressive’ collectivist forces, and those trying to uphold the stabilizing traditions of the West. And along with the collapsing culture, political concerns slide into chaos. Crime explodes, disorder becomes rampant, and financial markets grow unstable. Politicians themselves become corrupt and the public looses faith in their republican system. People are set adrift in a sea of chaos. Traditional institutions are destroyed. In a deliberate deception, liberal demagogues declare war on all opposition. No quarter is without subversives and agents of the ruling elite.

    Destabilization finally brings a form of anarchy and internal terrorism. Markets may collapse. Cities are overrun with drug addiction and criminal gangs. Disgruntled individuals, largely unaware of the source of the problem, commit senseless, undirected violent acts against their own government. The organs manipulated by the cultural elite defame all efforts toward traditional common sense, and promote amelioration by federal collectivism. Citizens finally cry out for order and stability.

Finally, totalitarian collectivism is orchestrated in to solve our problems.

    It seizes power and sets into place a repressive system Gramsci called ‘normalization.’ People actually clamor for strict centralized government intervention, and willingly sacrifice their liberty, in order to end the social and political chaos. So when the talking heads on the left insist that it is war, they mean just that. When the law becomes hypocrisy, when the bodies begin to pile up, and the public is without shame, we know we are nearing the flash point. When we think on the vastly expanded power of executive order, the frightening potential become obvious.

    Gramscian liberalism in the American political duopoly was the substance and end product of the sixties movement, the default zeitgeist of the baby boomers. Those that supported the enemy in the proxy war against Chinese totalitarianism. So what did the darlings of the left give us for our money? Consider the facts.

On June 17, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court forbade Bible reading and prayer in the public schools. One of the nation's most popular magazines later echoed the spirit of this sentiment by running a cover article, entitled "Is God Dead?" It was then followed in the early 1990's by another cover entitled "The Cultural Elite," virtually exhorting the success of the Gramscian thesis. Few knew enough to even take notice. Christian bashing became the norm in popular intellectual circles. New age values became the catch morality.

And since that 1963 ruling, the number of U.S. violent crime offenses exploded upward by 700%. The U.S. now has the highest per-capita rate of felony incarceration of all the industrialized First World nations. Premarital sex among 18 year olds jumped from 30% of the population, to 70%. Tax rates for a family of four skyrocket 500% to consume a fourth of their income. Divorce rates quadrupled. Illegitimate births among the black population soared from about 23% to more than 68%, leaving mothers contained by the state and fatherless children to roam the streets in search of trouble. Illegitimacy as a whole has jumped from 5% to nearly 30% nationwide for a total rise of 600%! On July 17, 1994, the New York Times even quoted liberal Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan saying that overall American illegitimacy could rise to 50% by the year 2000! Cases of sexually transmitted disease rose 150%. Virtually lethal sexually transmitted plagues like AIDS and Hepatitis C swept through the nation, even tainting the blood supply. Teen age illegitimate pregnancies are up by several thousand percent, and teen age suicides have increased by 200%. Even the president himself is accused of sexual harassment, and having orax sex with a 21 year old intern in the Oval Office of the White House. Between 1950 and 1979, serious crime committed by children under 15 increased 11,000%! That's eleven thousand percent! Say it again: ELEVEN THOUSAND PERCENT!

Yeah, I know. Some will argue that it doesn't follow. Did all this come from that single court decision? Obviously not. It was simply the codification of the Gramscian, New Age secular trend. Does this mean that the Judeo-Christian tradition is without fault, or that intelligent people will not find anomalies, contradictions, and implausibility in its historic cannons? Clearly not. Does it mean that we won't find hypocrites among its followers? Again, it doesn't. Well then what does it mean?

It means that if a culture is built around a value system that emphasizes individual accountability as opposed to authoritarian repression, all an enemy has to do is jerk the belief system out from underneath its people to demolish that culture. Destroy the pillars supporting the value system of the West, and have your way with the slaves that remain after the bloodbath. Divide and conquer becomes chaos and conquer.

We don't live in an intellectual or political vacuum. The parameters of prosperity, liberty, and population are clearly limited by our circumstances. We will either be ruled by authority, or by self control. The witch doctor, the tribal chief, the king, the dictator, the warlord, the junta, the elitist oligarchy, the tribunal, even the majority, will rule over us if we can't successfully rule ourselves. Those on both extremes of the secular/spiritual argument often fail to see the logic inherent in the traditional view. The idea of a king of kings prevented any ruling official from rising above the law. It's a perfect cultural ideal that even the king himself must bow before. The myth of virgin birth describes the moment that conscience ignites in a person's own soul. Even the secular philosopher Joseph Campbell acknowledged the value and importance of that idea, even as only a myth. No free republic can exist without some form of these two principles. Why is it that we either tear away at the logic in the myth, or cling to the myth in the logic, neither side able to settle on common ground? Could it be because of the willful actions of a group of cultural spoilers? Could it be that they know exactly how to ruffle our feathers, push our buttons, render our defense against them helpless and ineffective?

For any culture, the law consists of both the statute and the behavioral norm. Without the middle ground of morality, which for us is bound in the mythical marvel of Western Culture, there are only two other alternatives. Either tyranny, or anarchy. The truth is that for all our rant and rave, only the psychopathic among us actually wishes either extreme on ourselves as individuals. But if we open our eyes, we can clearly see significant evidence to support the notion of a clique working incessantly to reduce us to the savage level, to further their own aim of monopolizing ruling authority.

One more place this argument has come to a head is in the infamous values free movement. The result is so bad that even the cofounder, Dr. William Coulson, has totally repudiated the concept. Coulson was one of famed psychologist Carl Rogers' closest colleagues. Coulson, Rogers and Abraham Maslow became pioneers of a theory they called "Humanistic psychology," later to become codified in the ideas of Outcome Based Education, otherwise known as OBE. "This non-theory of evil," notes Coulson, "is one peculiar version of the 'value-free' disease (which is the same as ethical relativism, of Rousseauistic optimism, of amorality, i.e. nothing is wrong or bad enough to fight against)...What kind of educational philosophy is it that is unprepared for ill will? It's a philosophy in which nothing is bad or sick or wrong or evil."

Liberals under the Clinton administration attempted to push this to its extreme in with their "Goals 2000" programs. Frederick Close, director of education for the Ethics Resource Center in Washington, D.C., described the situation pretty well when he said that, "The fundamental tragedy of American education is not that we are [just] turning out ignoramuses but that we are turning out savages." We could sit in denial and argue that this has nothing to do with the Gramscian politics of the democratic left. But then we would be wrong. Here's why.

Radical British Marxist, Anne Showstack Sassoon, raves about Gramsci in her book, Gramsci's Politics. She notes that Gramsci saw the transition to authoritarian socialism accomplished by "a new type of party" that would not govern in the formal sense, but rather by "directing the course of policy toward hegemony." She specifically refers to this form of government as "Liberal Democracy," and argued for a "contemporary Machiavelli," whose role is to build a "collective will" and "acceptance for the process of change." Liberal Democracy—the system presently hailed by many in our culture as the liberating philosophy of our future—is to Sassoon little more than ‘Machiavellian Marxism.’ In The Keys of This Blood, Malachi Martin wrote that, "Gramsci meant that Marxists must change the residually Christian mind...so that it would become not merely a non-Christian mind, but an anti-Christian mind." Our purpose," Gramsci wrote, "is not to change the course of history but to change the nature of man."

    "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State." ...President Harry S. Truman

But human nature is tenacious. We can only guess at what draconian measures will have to be employed to effect our new man. We've forgotten that the National Socialists also tried to create a "New Man." And we're too busy to think much about the Stalinists, the Maoists, and the Khmer Rouge. And of course implicit in engineering our new man is the elevation of the creating elites to a position of dominant power, as more and more clamor to jump on a very profitable bandwagon of selling liberty down the road. Media moguls, lawyers, bureaucrats, and educators have all now got something to loose. The selfish nature of those elites are assumed to be either non-existent, or to be otherwise ignored by collectivist sympathizers in both principal American political parties. Worse—much, much worse—is the fact that by all sensible methods of evaluation, it seems that we're sitting on the very eve of the third phase of the Gramscian plan of destruction. We're certainly right at then end of the second. Dare to look around you, and then turn around and take another look. What will it take? An emergency situation? A terrorist act using a biological agent? How about a contrived constitutional crisis surrounding a corrupt presidency?

The mentality behind this phenomenon reveals the true potential dangers in centralizing power.

Machiavelli's main concern was obsequious ingratiation with the Fourteenth Century Italian monarchy by providing strategies to help the state gain and keep political control over all possible competition and dissention. Max Lerner wrote that the tyrant, Joseph Stalin, was very well schooled in Machiavelli. Solzhenitsyn asserts that he was responsible for 60 million deaths. In the introduction of the Mentor publication of Machiavelli's, The Prince, Christian Gauss tells us that it was Hitler's bedside reading, and that Benito Mussolini selected it for his doctoral thesis. We all know how many they killed. And to one degree or another, all of them considered Gramsci in their methodology.

So the Liberal Democratic vanguards and the extremely influential semi-obscure councils, descended roundtables, and the various commissions, general assemblies, and fraternal organizations surrounding them, ask us to follow the political example of some of the bloodiest, most obscene autocrats of human history. In his book, Democide, professor R. J. Rummel wrote that, "Pol Pot (and his socialist Angka Loeu comrades in the "Killing Fields") defined new concepts of what is good or bad...and in less than four years of governing they exterminated 31% of their men, women and children." In Murder of a Gentle Land, John Barron and Anthony Paul record the UN's response to the Cambodian blood bath: "After the desolation of the cities, the early massacres and in the midst of the first famine, one of the Angka Loeu leaders, Ieng Sary, in his incarnation as foreign minister, flew to a special session of the Untied Nations General Assembly. Upon landing in New York, he boasted, 'We have cleansed the cities,' and when he appeared at the United Nations, the delegates from around the world warmly applauded."

So suck it up, children. In consideration of conquering new kingdoms, here's what Machiavelli himself tells the prince.

    "When cities or provinces have been accustomed to live under a prince... they do not know how to live in freedom...and a prince can win them over with greater faculty and establish himself securely. But in republics, there is greater life...they do not and cannot cast aside the memory of their ancient liberty, so that the surest way [to conquer them] is to lay them waste." ...Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

If you don't see that this applies to the Western cultural elite, you haven't been paying attention. There seem to be those who would lay waste to your republic by destroying its culture. If the myth of original sin has any meaning at all, it may be telling us that morality is in fact an absolute, at least in relation to individual human rights. My apology and understanding to those who don't consider it a myth. I'm not even saying you aren't right. I'm only speaking figuratively here, so that everyone from the atheist to the fundamentalist can comprehend the basic logic of this assertion without caving in to petty dissention.

It's really very simple. Truth is not relative if I lie to take advantage of you. From your point of view, that's always an absolute given. No matter who you are, no matter what your faith or view, you're going to keep that gem in your hip pocket, exempt from relative interpretation. Moral relativists are usually the most shocked, and exhort the loudest cry of foul, after suffering the theft of their confidence by intentional deception. C.S. Lewis made that eloquently clear for anyone who cares to listen. But then once burned, twice shy. The reformed relativist is often the greatest champion of liberty by moral principle. If your next door neighbor looses his savings to a shyster selling him a bogus texture coating for his house, you will sympathize but little more. If you loose your savings to the scam, you're likely to be a much more aggressive witness.

    "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." ...George Washington, The Great Quotations, Citadel Press

Original Sin may also be telling us that we are all subject to both lying and denying the consequences. Deception is the initiate's means to power. But power by deception will get you and everyone around you kicked right out of paradise. Your dependable partner, neighbor, spouse or even your children, will become suspicious subjects of the battle of distrust. There won't be much harmony in your life if you can't even trust your blood relatives. Both the Stalinists and the National Socialists used children in the public school system to turn in dissident parents to the authorities. Propaganda, disinformation, attempted coups, assassinations, reprisals and purges of diabolical magnitude plagued all modern examples of collectivist political order. And to anyone paying the least attention, this methodology is on the rise right here in America as we approach the millenium.

So don't look now, but if you are an American, you live in what's left of an advanced and seriously weakened Constitutional Republic. By every measure of reason, there would seem to be those who are abusing your trust to intentionally destroy your republic to their own ends. Even at its worst, with all its faults, it's a paradise compared to the concentration camp culture of the Gramscian, Machiavellian Marxists.

And if you're a follower or apologist for today's political and social multi-culturalism, an adherent of liberal democracy, or believe that our culture can continue without a basis in moral absolutes, which camp do you suppose you belong in? Are you a cynical but clever elitist intoxicated on power? Are you onto the deception but support it out of pathological spite? Or are you simply ignorant of your role in the intentional destruction of your culture, even if you think you stand on the relative right? Of course it's just one more opinion distilled from digested evidence. One more perspective on the notion of truth. You may have your own.

Still, it should haunt you, you know.

Remember their very own creed? "In republics...lay them waste."

If you still value whatever liberty you have, it's probably time you reconsidered any interest in supporting the ideologies of those who would have you and your children ‘wasted’ for their own advantage. The hour is growing late. And if I've been preaching to the choir, you might want to pass this along to the person on your left.

ACE © 1998 Provincial Proverbs

Silent Simpson

Well, well, well....

The reasons for Brooks Simpson's recent bullying, and lying about, Border Ruffian, has suddenly become clear to me. Crystal clear.

What happened was that I was tiptoeing through the floggosphere, and I happened upon a post at Crossroads from November 12 that I had not noticed at the time.

Titled, Research Exercise: Twelve Years a Slave … Edwin Epps’s Slaves, the post explains that Simp hasn't seen the movie yet (same excuse Corey has used) but invites people to offer explanations for why the slave schedule from the 1850 census doesn't match Northrup's narrative. 

I notice that Levin hasn't done a review of the movie since he saw it, Al Mackey posted in October that he wanted to see it, but apparently has not, as of this writing, because there have been no more posts about it at his blog.  And I couldn't find a syllable about it at Andy's Dead Confederates.

There was quite a bit of speculation at Crossroads in response to Simpson's post, but for some reason, when Border Ruffian posted the reasons why Northrup's narrative is suspect, nobody else posted on the thread. I mean dead, ringing silence, folks. Not even Simpson responded to it....

Silent Simpson.

The next time Simpson does mention Border Ruffian is to rake him over the coals, lie about BR's post, ignore BR's use of the word "camp" and to refuse to post BR's comments, save one.  http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/there-he-goes-again-but-hell-be-right-back/#comments

Now we know why, don't we? Aside from the fact that Border Ruffian's research casts doubts on what should be a deliciously potent tool for evilizing white Southerners, it appears that nobody in the floggerette peanut gallery noticed these glaring inconsistencies in Northrup's narrative, preferring to speculate on the nefarious motives of slave owner Epps...  In other words, he showed them up.... After that, the attack post by Silent Simpson was inevitable.

Well done, Border Ruffian. Well done.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Coming Soon!

(Well... after I finish writing the three that are ahead of it....)

The Links and Ties Method of Lying

(perfected by the Southern Poverty Law Center)

Simpson posts,
 "Here’s the real question, however: aren’t the differences between Brad, Michael Givens, Matthew Heimbach, Connie Chastain, and the Virginia Flaggers simply tactical? Do we really think they entertain substantial differences when it comes to core beliefs, including racial attitudes? In fact, Brad’s the only one who has publicly placed some distance between Heimbach and himself, although I hear that Givens claims he does not know who Heimbach is … although we have a photograph to suggest otherwise."
For Simpson (as already noted elsewhere),  "...publicly placed some distance between Heimbach and himself..." means doing so in a comment on his blog. In his view, reminiscent of a three-year-old's, if it hasn't been done there, it hasn't been done. However, to be a truthful and honest statement, he would have to know that no "distancing" has happened on any public venue, not just his blog, and I don't think  he knows that. I don't think he even cares about it. He just focuses on "links and ties" --  even if fabricated -- in order to demonize innocent people as evil white supremacists.

And does this professor at a major state university really not understand that public figures like Givens frequently have their photo made with people they don't know, and the snap of the shutter doesn't automatically and magically bestow upon them total knowledge of the person posing with them? (This is yet another example of the bewildering willingness floggers sometime exhibit to shrink their own intelligence for the opportunity to wield the put-down of people they don't like.)

Obviously, when people are willing to lie, and to dumb themselves down to do it, what they "really think" is of no consequence.

So then we have the misnomer'd LibertyLamp, Conspiracy Theorist Extraordinaire, weighing in.  He sez, "The Confederate fetish movement is very much like the dress up neo-Nazi movement. Both groups have made up fantasies about that certain time period where there was racial inequality and domination."

Um... has there ever been a time when there WASN'T racial inequality and domination? Besides, there is no such thing as a "Confederate fetish" movement.

"They both work very hard at creating denial stories about the atrocities that were committed during those time periods."

I wouldn't know about neo-Nazis, who LibertyLamp is apparently quite cozy with, but I've been an observer of, and participant in, proSouthernism (both heritage and independence branches) since about 1999 (and was a proud Southerners long before that) and I have encountered no "denial stories about atrocities." As it should be, there is resistance to the attempts by Simpson, Lamp and other flogger-types to totally define white Southerners, the South, and the Confederacy by atrocities, or negatives (while, significantly, glossing over, perfuming or otherwise ignoring atrocities and negatives of the north and the USA). But that's not the same thing as denying atrocities. And if, perchance, some do that, all do not. The wish to portray them all by the traits of a few is a marvelous illustration of the clone-like leftist mentality itself.

They both like to dress up and cos play with their childish fantasies about being in those time periods and having that upper racial hand.

Have no idea what he's talking about. Re-enacting? It's a hobby. Not everyone who does that is a Confederate activist. Sometimes people wear period attire as part of living history events, or celebrations and commemorations, but that's hardly "fantasizing." So what you have here is yet another example of fudging the truth in order to demonize.

On Connie’s website is an ad to “help save white genocide in South Africa”. That campaign was started and is based with Aryan Nations, who BTW fly confederate flags during their rallies.

SAVE white genocide? My graphic advocates STOPPING it. And it's not an "ad." It's simply a statement, a graphic that *I* made and did not acquire from the 'net. I have seen no evidence that it is a campaign that started and is based with Aryan Nations, although I admit, since I know next-to-nothing about Aryan Nations, and LibertyLamp is apparently quite cozy with them, I don't know whether it started with them or not.

However, that's not where I learned about it. I developed a mild interest in South Africa because two of the models I chose for my book covers are South Africans. I read a little about it, and was horrified to discover the horrific murder rate of white farmers in SA. I read more about it at WorldNetDaily, Front Page Magazine, the UK Telegraph and other news sources. And, if memory serves, in some articles by Ilana Mercer.  I've never encountered the idea that the campaign to call attention to the murders of white farmers in South Africa is the work of Aryan Nations -- until I read LibertyLamp's comment. I have to take it with lotsa grains of salt since LibertyLamp is a leftist in the business of demonizing ordinary, decent folks.

What is so horrific about the attacks and murders of white farmers and their families is not just the racial aspects -- though the murderers are black and the victims are white -- but the incomprehensible brutality involved. I'm no expert on apartheid, far from it, but I've read some about it, and while there's no mistake that there was stark inequality based on race, and government forced (something I rarely if ever approve of) -- I found nothing about it that justifies these murders and particularly the brutality of them.

Lamp notes that the Aryan Nations "...BTW fly confederate flags during their rallies." Yet another transparent and phony "links and ties" attempt, apparently to convince people that anyone who flies the flag is a secret, or at least wannabe, Aryan.  This is what happens when you put demonization of people you don't like above maintaining your  own integrity.

Other of these so called “flagger/Confederate patriots” support plugs for the Political Cesspool radio show, which is white supremacist.  Again, I wouldn't know, since I don't listen to the Political Cesspool, or read books by its spokesman. However, if LibertyLamp says it's white supremacist, I'll have to take that with many more grains of salt, since he is in the business of seeing white supremacy here, there and everywhere -- even where it doesn't exist -- or calling things white supremacy that aren't.

I do honestly believe that while these “flagger/Confederate patriots” work so hard at their “the war was not about slavery” montra, that slavery is one of the primary attractions for their being in that movement because they want an upper hand in society based on their white skin color.

Honestly? LOL!

Would love to see where he has found flaggers saying "the war was not about slavery." The people I've encountered who huff and puff, "The war was NOT about slavery!!!!" are usually anonymous posters on comment threads following negatively biased news reports about the Confederate flag and such. Not a lot of in-depth discussion in that venue.

However, I do honestly think it is a dishonest characterization of people such as myself, who make a distinction between the causes  of secession (slavery was the  primary, but not the only, one) and the causes of the war, of the fighting (defense against an army that had come South to kill Southerners).

And the claims about "skin color" are some of the lamest in the leftist arsenal -- as if the amount of melanin in skin cells is the only thing that differentiates people, or is the only basis for classifying them into groups. I know this is a made-up argument, because even leftists who have voluntarily and deliberately dumbed themselves down are not THAT dumb.

(A note to B. Parks, who is so turned on by calling into question people's intelligence and mental states... Honey, if you want to see some evidence of deranged thinking, look at these death-obsession images I got off LibertyLamp's Twitter feed: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/more-tiptoein-and-pogo-stickin.html. Remember, he's on your side -- a self-trumpeted "anti-racist.")


Have y'all read the white nationalist convention going on at Crossroads? What a scream! 
It's in the comment thread following the Clint Lacy post...

Lamp and Brad Griffin (ostensibly a proSoutherners who insults Southerners with names like Rainbow Confederate and Confederate Cryptkeeper) are chattering about some white nationalist who got "outed" on TV as having some race-mixing in his ancestry. Apparently, they find that fascinating.

I can't imagine why. I'm fascinated by, and proud of, my Cherokee ancestry, although by my calculations, I'm only 1/64th Cherokee, going by those in my lineage that we know were Cherokee, or part-Cherokee. It's possible there were other Cherokees in my direct lineage, and if so, that would change the number some... although I look, you know, plain vanilla, Elizabeth-Warren white.

There's also been speculation that one of our family mystery men may have been a Melungeon. i.e., an Appalachian "tri-racial isolate" group -- the three races being European, sub-Saharan African and Native American. I guess, to fit the stereotype, I should pretzel up and agonize over my possible non-lily-white origins, but frankly, I really don't care. Whether I am, or whether I ain't makes absolutely no difference in my life ... and I know no one in my family that it would matter to.

But I want to point out one thing... Lamp sez, "Brook asked how well connected these common flaggers are with the more heavy hitting white nationalists. It’s obvious there is some behind the scenes footsie being played under the table."

It's obvious? How can something happening behind the scenes and under the table be obvious? LOL!

When leftist anti-wacist floggerettes are in slander mode, do they even pay attention to what they're saying?

Thursday, November 21, 2013

I Stand Corrected

Simpson has posted a comment at Crossroads, "One example will have to suffice for evidence that Connie Chastain is a malicious liar: she says that I accused Tripp Lewis of child abuse. There’s a reason she’s never offered proof for that claim: there isn’t any."

Well, there is proof that he IMPLIED it, with this statement, which accompanied videos of Tripp at Crossroads:
"Yesterday several bloggers (see here and here) highlighted the following video ... That a child was present was no accident, as we see from this picture..."

So actually, it was simply an inaccurate description on my part, since he just implied it, and did not directly state an accusation, as Corey, Al Mackey and some peanut gallery floggerettes did. But an inaccurate description is far from a malicious lie -- and absolutely nothing like the malicious lies he tells.

However, I do note that he didn't correct or refute accusations that appeared in his blog comments so he must have agreed with them. After all, Simpson has a history of implying that someone agrees with something unless they say, in a comment thread ON HIS BLOG, that they don't agree with it. (The reverse also applies; he implies they disagree with something unless they say, in a comment thread ON HIS BLOG, that they do agree with it.)

And what WAS the purpose of  pointing out, "That a child was present was no accident..."? Hmmmm/????

Eight Questions

Corey Meyer -- Liar, Leftist, Harasser,
Demonizer, Collaborator, Communist Sympathizer

1.  What business is it of yours what the Virginia Flaggers (or anyone else, for that matter) believe, or do?

2. Why is Brooks Simpson so addicted to persecuting the Virginia Flaggers (or attempting to).

3. Why are leftist/liberal academics so addicted to demonizing innocent people as racists?

4. Are you and/or your flogger buddies educated and experienced in Child Protective Services?

5. If not, what qualified any of you to accuse Tripp Lewis of child abuse based on a few seconds of  video of an incident at which you were not present?

6. If you sincerely believe Lewis was guilty of child abuse, what authorities did you notify, what was the response, and if you did not notify the authorities, why not?

7. Given that that communism murdered over 100 million people in the 20th Century, men, women and children, with another 30 million killed in its aggressive wars, why would you give someone friendly or indifferent to that incomprehensible horror a voice in your blog comments, since that means you also support communist murders (by your own logic)?

8. Why is LibertyLamp skeered to identify himself, and thus has to hide behind an alias?


Why did you say I refused to answer your questions when, in fact, I did answer them, after a fashion, here: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4211529354680229185&postID=530975115852156256
The six questions, btw, are not some universal litmus test for racism, some standard handed down by the Almighty. They are questions YOU made up out of YOUR desire to DEMONIZE people with the racist label. Shall I tell you what you can do with your six questions?


Anybody have any idea what the Virginia Flaggers ever did to Brooks D. Simpson that would account for this level of obsession, harassment, slander (or libel, actually, since it's in print), defamation, attempted character assassination andpersecution? Why does he hate the VaFlaggers so much he even complains about Susan's clothing?

(Note, the numbers have changed since I first documented Simpson's obsession in a Backsass post here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/10/disturbing-flagger-obsession.html  There have been seven new Crossroads posts about, or mentioning, the VaFlaggers since the beginning of November.)

What accounts for this obsession? For this relentless barrage of attempted harassment and persecution? Is he clinically obsessed? I somebody paying him? What explains it?

Let's hear your opinions in answer to this question: What have the Virginia Flaggers done to Brooks D. Simpson that would justify, or even account for, his obsessive posting about them? (Extra points given for those who also explain the negatives in his post -- for example, his lies, accusations and generally being out of touch with reality -- "disturbing Confederate graves," Tripp Lewis child abuse, Susan's "red tops"...)

(Note: I've permanently put this list of Simpson obsession posts at the bottom of the left sidebar.)

* * * * *

104  "flagger" posts at Crossroads blog between December 29, 2011 and November 18, 2013 -- 36 posted before the I-95 flag announcement, 68 after...

    2011    --    2 POSTS

    12/29  Who Supports “Flagging” the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts?
    12/29  Stirring the Pot

    2012    --    22 POSTS

    1/4   News on Southern Heritage
    1/15 The Lexington Controversy Considered
    3/18 Museums, History, Politics, and "Heritage"
    3/22 News and Notes March 22
    3/24 News and Notes March 24
    3/25 Deconstructing Confederate Heritage
    3/27 News and Notes March 27
    3/30 Be On Your Best Behavior
    3/31 Manufactured Outrage
    4/11 Flagging the Lincoln Memorial
    4/16 Support for Southern Separatism
    4/22 Once More...It's Not About You...Or Me
    5/27 And So What
    6/6   News and Notes, June 6
    6/13 News and Notes, June 13
    6/15 A Setback for Certain People
    7/23 Is Connie Chastain a Rainbow Confederate?
    8/3  Karen Cooper Speaks Out
    8/6  The Racist Confederate Flag Case
    10/14 Edgerton's March
    10/18 Risky Business at the Southern Heritage Preservation Group
    10/16 The Rise of Ulysses S. Grant

    2013    --   80 POSTS

    1/14  And the Law Won
    2/28  Confederate Marksmanship
    2/2    News and Notes, February 2
    2/7    Memphis: In the Footsteps of Lexington?
    3/30  An Expression of Total Indifference
    4/19  News and Notes April 19
    5/12  Unanswered Questions About Taser-Wielding Rob Walker on Monument Avenue
    5/13  The Richmond Police Weigh In on Taser-Wielding Rob Walker
    5/13  Rob Walker: At the Center of Controversy
    5/14  Better Late Than Never; Susan Hathaway Apologizes
    5/14 Turn Out the Lights
    8/3  A Fitting Tribute to the SHPG

    (Note: 68 of the 80 posts in 2013 occur after this one announcing the I-95 Flag)

    8/4  Another Really Big Confederate Flag
    8/6  Popular Response: The Virginia Flaggers and Their (Proposed) New Flag
    8/7  The Flaggers Explain Their Reasoning For Their Big Flag
    8/8  Flags and Billboards Along I-95 South of Richmond
    8/9  The Gift That Keeps On Giving Strikes Again
    8/11 Update on Virginia Flagger Follies
    8/13 The Underbelly of Flagger Support
    8/16 Tripp Lewis Fulfills His Community Service Obligations
    8/18 Have the Virginia Flaggers Overreached?
    8/19 Flagger PR Needs Work
    8/21 The Fantasy World of Flagger Supporters
    8/21 Happy Birthday Rob Walker
    8/22 The Flagger Imagination
    8/23 Flags Across Virginia
    8/24 Connie Chastain Is Right
    8/25 The Flagger Proposal Disrupting and Disrespecting the Confederate Dead
    8/27 Flagger Hysteria Neither Heritage Nor History
    8/28 Another Troubling Flagger Link
    8/31 Matthew Heimbach and the Virginia Flaggers
    8/31 The Flaggers Fall Silent
    9/1  Is This How Flaggers Support Heritage?
    9/1  You Know How the Story Goes
    9/2  A Weak Non-denial Denial from the Flaggers
    9/2  A Reasonable Proposition
    9/3  Meet Matthew Heimbach, Virginia Flagger
    9/5  Happy Birthday, Virginia Flaggers                    (26)
    9/6  To Be or Not To Be, Connie Chastain and the Virginia Flaggers
    9/7  The silence and Disappearance of Susan Hathatway of the Virginia Flaggers
    9/7  You Must Be Kidding
    9/7  Are the Flaggers Their Own Worst Enemy?
    9/7  Let's Make a Deal
    9/8  Susan Hathaway's Silence Explained
    9/10 Flaggers Free Speech and Frustration
    9/13 Guess Who's Been Invited to the Flaggers Picnic? Matthew Heimbach
    9/14 The Flaggers Resort to Intimidation, How Desperate Are They?
    9/14 Who's Friends with Matthew Heimbach? Flaggers Grayson Jennings and Tripp Lewis
    9/15 A Flagger Explains American History
    9/15 Which Do You Prefer?
    9/17 What's Next for the Virginia Flaggers?
    9/18 Notes from the Black Confederate Front
    9/18 Ten Days to Go
    9/20 The Flaggers Follow My Advice
    9/21 Just One More Week
    9/22 The Sunday Question; What Would YOu Build In Confederate Heritage Disneyland?
    9/28 All That Fuss For This
    9/28 Meanwhile, Elsewhere in Richmond
    9/28 The Flaggers' Big Moment in Historical and Hysterical Perspective
    9/28 Lessons in Photography
    9/29 A Day Almost Like Any Other
    9/29 The Humiliation of Heritage, The Flaggers' Big Fail
    10/1 The Klan at Gettysburg 2013 Or Not
    10/3 Photoshopping Flagger Fantasies
    10/4 Flagger Fizzle Fallout
    10/5 How to Handle the Press and Protestors the Confederate Heritage Way
    10/6 The Southern Heritage Preservation Group Strikes Back
    10/6 Birds of a Feather Flag Together
    10/7 Fiction and Fact About the Flaggers
    10/9 News and Notes October 8, 2013
    10/10 Oops, the Flaggers Did It Again
    10/13 Connie Chastain, Bigot
    10/26 The Virginia Flaggers Crash a VMFA Event
  11/2 An Amusing Curiosity and A Fascinating Oddity  
  11/3 “It’s my flag now. Now what are you going to do?” 
 11/4 It Should Come as No Surprise … 
 11/5 More Trouble for the Virginia Flaggers … Tripp Lewis Runs Afoul of the SCV 
 11/12 Another Denunciation of the League of the South … and Virginia Flagger Favorite Matthew Heimbach 
 11/14 Plans for the Robinson House at the VMFA 
 11/18 Matthew Heimbach and the Virginia Flaggers: A Reminder

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

More Lessons on Leftist Lying

Here's an example of what I mentioned earlier -- Simpson's smear of the VaFlaggers using Matt Heimbach.  And another stark example of yet another method of Simpson lying.
Recently Corey Meyer asked three simple questions of Virginia Flaggers spokesperson Connie Chastain.

Question 1. Is Tripp Lewis a Virginia Flagger?

Question 2. Did Tripp Lewis call Matt Heimbach a “Good Guy”?

Question 3. Since Matt’s opinions have been discovered, has the Va. Flaggers refuted Matt for those opinion or have they continued to embrace him as a Friend on FB?

Connie declined to answer the questions.
Lie, lie, lie.  I answered the question. You can go here:
and read my answer.

Here is my answer:  "Nothing the VaFlaggers have done indicates he is a favorite (i.e., regarded with special favor or preference). They have never "embraced" him. He attended a couple of VaFlagger events. That's pretty much the extent of their contact with him. Simpson is a liar."

Then Simpson continues his relentless harassment -- actually, his attempted persecution -- of Susan Hathaway, although he ostensibly is referring to me: "Nor did she have any information on when we can next expect to see Susan Hathaway flagging in front of the VMFA, although she knows Susan’s speaking schedule."

What I know of Susan's schedule comes to me in dispatches from the VaFlaggers for me to upload to their website but I'm pretty sure she does a lot more than is listed on the blog.

Maybe Simpson would like to explain why he's asking about Susan flagging the VMFA. Maybe he'd like to explain why he thinks it's any of his business. Because it isn't -- unless he has interests in the VMFA he's deliberately hiding?

C'mon, Simp. What's your interest in all this? Somebody paying you? Or is it to get back at Virginia for some imagined slight you experienced when you resided there? C'mon, fess up. The  depth and type of interest you're exhibiting begs for some explanation.

He continues, "This is proof that at times she can be quiet."  She, meaning me.

Except I haven't been quiet.

"However, we soon expect a tenth post this month attacking “a total nobody.”

Yup. To the VaFlaggers, you are a total nobody, Simpson. They don't even read your flog.

As much fun as that was, it gets more fun in the comments.

Kristen "Schroeder" Konate -- she who put her own address on Facebook and then accused Barry and Grayson of doing it -- sez, "The Flaffers are floundering out of their element – they have managed to create a circus image for themselves here in RVA."

Oh, dear readers. I wish I could tell you how absurdly hilarious that is, and why. Let's just say increases in membership and donations undeniably refute Konate's claim. Although, she may be right that her leftist, all-emotion, little-cognition "unity" crowd see the VaFlaggers that way. (Flaffers? She's not real good at making up parody nicknames, is she?)  But regular folks know better.

Then we have several WONDERFUL posts from "B. Parks," who first hallucinates right there on WordPress for all to see. Apparently, she thinks insulting me and the VaFlaggers elevates herself in some manner. In fact, she gives us a sharply focused look at what "tolerance" and "unity" are really all about -- hatefulness and insults. The VaFlaggers are not mentally challenged or embarrassed. Neither am I. We are only the butt of humor-impaired (and decency-impaired) people's jokes, and the VaFlaggers have done more for the strengthening of Confederate heritage than any other group in a long time. If B. Parks was right, Simpson wouldn't have to fabricate so much crap to try to embarrass the Flaggers with.

Don't you love the hateful "hillbilly stereotype" accusation? I have to say, though, as one who comes from a long line of true Appalachian hillbillies, I believe yer average hillbilly is several rungs above B. Parks and her ilk on the ladder of sheer decency and integrity.

But I relish her second post more than the first. Sez B Parks, "I wanted to add that Chastain calling you a ‘nobody’ is hysterical as she is the one who writes make believe books and pretends to he some kind of romance novelist."

Well, I wrote a romance novel, so I'm not pretending. And it was published by a small, indie publisher in California, so it's not make believe, is it? In fact, all three of my published novels (one romance, one YA coming of age tale, and one mainstream novel) are available as real, tangible paperbacks that you can hold in your hand, not just e-books. Maybe she's confusing "fiction" and "make-believe." Do you reckon she doesn't know that some of the greatest works of literature to come from the pen, and the mind, of humanity, were fiction?

"Only thing she seems to able to create are offensive web banners..."

Well, they weren't offensive to my customers. Perhaps she's confusing my Facebook memes -- which can certainly be offensive to leftists and haters -- with the advertising web banners I've done for my customers.

"...and mediocre book covers that look like they were done by middle schoolers with a pirated copy of Kids Paintbrush!"

Oh, B. Parks.  Show me book covers YOU have created, sweetheart. Show us some you created for paying customers, doll-face.  Like these: http://wordslingerboutique.biz/customercovers.html

Put your money where your blabbering mouth is.  Show us your covers.

Then Corey makes a fool of himself with this: "...Connie is the internet voice of the Flaggers…which I have always found odd…that the Va. Flaggers cannot maintain their own website since Tripp Lewis is a paid internet hacker. Odd indeed."

Corey, you have a blog. You should know the difference between creating content and uploading it. I receive info, i.e., content, from the VaFlaggers and I upload it to their blog. I don't create it. I create content for MY blog. I do blog about the VaFlaggers quite a bit, and sometimes I ask for, and receive, information to blog about. But I try not to bother them much because they're busy people, so as much as I can, I make do with what I find on Facebook. (Corey, Tripp is busy; he has a job, he has a family, and he already has an Internet enterprise that requires a lot of time to keep up, so he doesn't have much time. I do. Is understanding dawning yet?)

Then we have some more scrumptious insults from B. Parks, who gives us a truly breathtaking look at the inner workings of the hateful leftist mindset. Some hick?  Great, wonderful B. Parks.  What lovely intolerance! Leftist name-calling at its best. "...makes Cooter look like a brainchild..." Isn't it hilarious that this woman -- has to be a woman -- is putting down other people's mental capacities for no other reason than that she hates them (and she doesn't even know them!) while she doesn't know the meaning of "brainchild"?

(BTW, B. Parks, their Confederate ancestors failed because an army of barbarians made war on civilians in the South. Same army that made brutal war on American Indians. Proud of that, too, are you? That's increasingly what being an American means -- pride in our national brutality carried out under our flag, Old Gory....)

How I would love for James Knox to produce some of the "racist rhetoric" he believes the VaFlaggers are "indoctrinating children" with, but you know he can't produce it, because it doesn't exist. Everything these haters and critics "know" about the VaFlaggers comes not from reality, but from what the voices in their heads tell them. Or from what the read on Simpson's blog, which is pretty much the same thing.

How Liars Lie ... and Why

There are lots of way, of course, and Simpson is an expert at quite a few. I want to focus now on just one of them. complete with example.

He recently blogged about Clint Lacy's "falling out" with the League of the South. (Simpson, as he is wont to do, inserted his currently favorite lie about those people he hates so much, the Virginia Flaggers, although it's totally irrelevant to the subject of the blog post... to wit: "... that favorite of so many Virginia Flaggers, Matthew Heimback..." but more on that in a minute).

Lacy responded with this comment: "Never said I was a critic of activists, just how the League is going about it and to call Mathew Heimbach a favorite of the Virginia Flaggers is inaccurate. You seem to take a lot of 'creative liberty' with your coverage."

Now watch carefully, children, and see just one of the many ways a consummate liar lies.

Sed Simpson, "Ah, so your are simply criticizing their approach, not the substance of their racism."

Lacy neither states nor implies that. It is a deliberate lie on Simpson's part.

Then the liar says, "The association between the Virginia Flaggers and Matthew Heimbach has been clearly documented." 

Depends. There is no association between them, and I have documented that.

What Simpson has done is to take a molehill (Heimbach's attending a couple of Flagger events) and create an Everest of Lies about. He has done this because he hates the VaFlaggers, though I have no idea why. They have done absolutely nothing to him.

Simpson later says, "Mr. Lacy is not bound by notions of historical accuracy when it comes to advancing his beliefs..." Funny, coming from a man whose notions of truth and accuracy are nonexistent when advancing his hatred of the VaFlaggers ... and other Southern heritage folks.

Then LibertyLamp gives us a stark view of his, shall we call it, insider knowledge of the white nationalist community... At least, I think that's what it is. I'm neither interested in nor knowledgeable about those folks, but LibertyLamp seems fascinated by them... I wonder why... why are self-professed "anti-racists" so utterly mesmerized by what they conceptualize as "racism" and "racists."

I have a prediction -- the more Matt Heimbach associates himself with Neo-Nazi ideology or whatever it is, the more Simpson will lie and try to smear the VaFlaggers with it, although there is no connection, and he knows it. He is lying to make the connection, to fabricate it, at least in the minds of people he has sway over, in the hope of hurting the Flaggers, damaging them (especially the core group, Susan, Tripp, Barry and Grayson) -- for no good reason anybody can present. They certainly have never done anything even remotely hateful and hurtful to him (unless you want to count ignoring his blog).

Sunday, November 17, 2013

The Merger


As of Wednesday, November 20, there are six comments following Simpson's post about the merger.

Four of 'em are about moi.



James Knox
Connie Asstain is already blogging her displeasure with another poorly photoshopped pic.

Brooks D. Simpson
Let’s not emulate the crudeness of Connie and her friends.
LOL!  The crude photoshoppin' is none of my doing. I only changed three words. Here's the graphic as it appeared  on Kevin Levin's ha-ha "memory" flog:

It's not there now. Good thing I grabbed it when I did.

As for crudeness, that's nothing compared to the flogger desire to denigrate, evilize, hurt and harm, which is routinely exhibited by Simpson and his floggerette peanut gallery.

This comment by James Knox is a perfect illustration. Facts don't matter to these people. The fact that I did not photoshop this image, except for the text in the brown box -- that I did not design or create it, matters not. What matters to James Knox is the put down, the denigration, of people he hates, truth and facts be hanged....

Friday, November 15, 2013

Brooks M. Simpson

M. for Megalomaniac.

Simpson sez, "It’s far from clear to me that the Virginia Flaggers have accomplished anything with the VMFA, but I’d be quite open to an argument that an appropriate flag might fly on the grounds in connection with the renovation of the Robinson House. I simply haven’t seen the argument."

Isn't that a SCREAM?

HE would be open to an argument?  HE would be open to an argument?

Who the heck cares WHAT he would be open to -- or NOT be open to, for that matter.

He is not a Virginia Flagger. He is not even a Virginian.  And as far as I know, he has no affiliation with the VMFA.

He has no legitimate connection to the I-95 battle flag or the flaggings of the VMFA; he his irrelevant. A total nobody.

Found On Facebook

Source Unknown.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

More Simpson Obsession

In Simpson's bizarro world, "no word" means he's trolled the internet with a fine-toothed comb and hasn't turned up anything.  (He calls this  tiptoeing through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War, but what he's doing is trolling for anything he thinks will trash Southern heritage advocates or damage their cause). 

Do you suppose it really doesn't occur to him that "word" exists -- in fact, many "words" --  in places he has no access to -- or even knowledge of?

Simpson sez,
Finally, it’s worth noting that many Union veterans and veterans’ organization contributed to the Confederate soldiers’ home on this site* … the very veterans now being mocked by so-called advocates of Confederate heritage. For people with such long memories, it’s amazing how quickly they forgot this. But are we surprised?
Re: the union veterans and their orgs that contributed to the Confederate soldiers home -- where are they being mocked? I must have missed it. And were they being mocked for contributing to the Confederate soldiers home?

More idiocy from the same blog post:

No word yet from Susan Hathaway as to what she makes of the project.

Maybe she doesn't make anything of it. Have ya thought of that, Simp?

Indeed, the Virginia Flaggers are very quiet about this project, which is surprising given their well-known opposition to the VMFA’s position on the flying of the Confederate flag at the nearby Confederate Memorial Chapel.

Why is it surprising? Stating the obvious, the Robinson House is not the Chapel.

Nor have we heard any explanation as to the cause of Hathaway’s silence or the silence of her loyal followers concerning the plans for the Robinson House.

Really. But-but-but you "explained" her silence on your blog. You didn't HEAR your own explanation?

Then again, although this mock cover of Time magazine shows Hathaway with the question, “Is the Confederate Chapel Next?” (next for what, one might ask, after the Flaggers’ funny fiasco along I-95), we haven’t seen Hathaway personally working to “restore the honor” at the Confederate chapel lately, either.

'We" who -- YOU? You're not in Richmond, are ya, Simp? And you aren't a VaFlagger, so you obviously do not know everything that's involved in "personally working" to restore the honor at the Confederate chapel.

And, of course, no word on what happened to that piece of machinery along I-95.

Well, uh, it was stolen. Didja miss that? No word? It was reported in the flippin' media.

No word on what happened to the original flag, either.

Yes, there has been "word" on what happened to the original flag. You don't know? You're out of the loop on this?  Listen, One Who Acts Like A Three Year Old. Just because you haven't heard doesn't mean there has been no word.

*The Robinson House in Richmond, VA

Silent Susan?

Found on the Virginia Flaggers blog:

Monday, June 24th 6:30 p.m. -- Susan and Barry will be traveling to Va Beach to speak....
Thursday, August 15th: Susan will be traveling to Emporia to speak.... 
Saturday, August 17th -- Susan will travel to Tampa, FL to speak....
Saturday, September 14th:  Susan will be traveling to Tampa, FL to speak....
Thursday, November 7th:  Susan will be speaking....
Saturday, February 1st, 2014: Susan will travel to Statesboro, GA to speak....
Saturday, February 22nd, 2014: Susan will be speaking....
Tuesday, March 4th, 2014: Susan will be speaking....
April 19, 2014, 2014: Susan will be traveling to Quincy, FL to speak....

Proving once again that Brooks Simpson is a liar and a cyber-bully....

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Brooks D. Simpson, Liar


 Now we have this exchange at Crossroads:
Let me clarify- By “camp” I mean among those who regularly post on your blogs. Typically the types who give gushing approval to everything you write.
My post at deadconfederates did not denigrate US veterans. Just an observation of the reaction from the “camp.”
Brooks D. Simpson
Let’s note that you then whined elsewhere:
“Please note that Border Ruffian doesn’t say Simpson (or Levin or Hall) has done that. He referred to members of the Simpson/Levin/Hall camp.”

Thats the explanation I gave to Simpson at his flog.
He hasn’t posted it so I suppose he sent it to the cornfield.
Now you know that’s not true, and yet you didn’t correct that claim, either. So you’ve lied again. What a pathetic piece of work you are. No wonder Chastain supports you.
Nope, at the time he posted it here, he was telling the truth. If later information requires one to post a correction or be a liar, then my title for this post applies to Simpson dozens of times over.

Simpson has been notified on this blog numerous times of errors he needs to correct, and didn't correct them. For example, when lying to his peanut gallery about my views on Emmett Till, he deliberately left out my statement that Till's murder was an atrocity.When called on it here on Backsass, he did nothing,

Similarly, when I stated that the heroes and heroines in my novels are white Southerners, he changed that to ALL my characters in ALL my writing. Big lie, because they're not. I've said so here on Backsass, and he know it, but refused to correct his "error" (deliberate lie).

And, of course, every statement he's ever made about my novels has been made from sheer ignorance and sheer hatred of the author, since he hasn't read them.

Numerous lies he's told about me have been identified here on Backsass, but he has refused to correct them, which, by his own, uh, standard, makes him a liar.

Another sneaky, patootie-covering tactic by this liar is the disabling of timestamps from his posts and comments. Without that, I can't prove that he posted Border Ruffian's comment after I posted the scorching observations in Update 1 below, but then, he can't prove that it was posted earlier than my observations.

Border Ruffian is the soul of integrity compared to Brooks Simson, Liar.

Another interesting thing is to see is the floggerette response to my "camp" comments. I guess I shamed and embarrassed them (except for those who are incapable of feeling shame).. I'm quite certain they all know what "camp" meant in BR's comment, but ignored it in order to lie about him. When called on it, some have attempted to cover their butts by fleeing into attempted comedic ridicule, rather that face up to their slimy mendacity. Doesn't work. They're just making themselves look stupider, and more hateful.

Simpson has posted about Border Ruffian, who sometimes comments here, and at other blogs. Simp sez, "He’s prone to make claims that all too often he can’t support..."

Actually, Simpson does that far, far more than Border Ruffian.

But I want to point something out that I've blogged about recently -- the willingness of these ... academics ... to diminish their own intellect in order to do what they love best -- denigrate somebody they don't like.

To continue Simpson's post:
Recently in the comments section of Andy Hall’s Dead Confederates BR/B made the following assertion in an effort to defend the denigration of United States veterans:

How many times have I seen members of the Simpson/Levin/Hall camp refer to the Confederates of the 1860s as “terrorists.” And how many times have I seen them refer to Confederate heritage groups as “Nazis,” the “Taliban,” etc.

Well, BR/B, please cite a single time when I’ve done this.
Please note that Border Ruffian doesn't say Simpson (or Levin or Hall) has done that. He referred to members of the Simpson/Levin/Hall camp.

Camp. Camp. CAMP.

Do you suppose a man with advanced degrees, a professor at a major state university DOESN'T KNOW THE MEANING OF "CAMP" as Border Ruffian used it? Well, maybe he needs some remedial edu-ma-cation. So here ya' go, um, uh, Learned Professor:
From Dictionary.com, World English Dictionary --
1 [kamp] noun
6. a group supporting a given doctrine or theory
One more time, so you don't miss it: 

Camp -- a group supporting a given doctrine or theory
Or do you suppose he ignored Camp Camp CAMP  in order to manipulate his readers into THINKING Border Ruffian said that about Simpson/Levin/Hall specifically? I mean, even though the word is right there for anyone to see... Camp Camp CAMP. Maybe he thinks his floggerette peanut gallery is easy to persuade and will believe him before they believe their own lyin' eyes?

And flogger hate just keeps on comin'.....

Seeking Someone Who Follows Crossroads

I'm looking for someone who reads pretty much everything Simpson posts.  I don't. I monitor his blog for lies about and hostility to Southern heritage, and those are the only posts I read.

I'm looking for someone who does read him to tell me how often he has posted honors and thanks to contemporary American military members.

His post deriding Tim Manning for his position on the U.S. military includes a pathetic excuse for a thank you tacked on to the end, afterthought-like.  It made me realize I've never seen him write posts honoring today's armed forces. Of course, he may have, and I missed it, since I only read his attacks on Southern heritage.

If you know that he has, please post a link in the comments.  Thanks.