Wednesday, November 20, 2013

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).


  1. Well Connie, I was ask, not demand, my questions to you again...

    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?

    I will even add another few more questions...

    Question 4. Have the Virginia Flaggers ever been photographed with Matt Heimbach?

    5. Has SCV CIC Michael Givens, a Va. Flagger Supporter who has Flagged the VMFA with the Virginia Flaggers, ever been photographed with Matt Heimbach?

    6. Has the SCV's ever awarded any SCV award to Matt Heimbach?

    Again Connie, these questions are not demand. Answer them or not. I don't really care. But I will draw conclusions from not answering them that you will not like and so with other who read this blog as well as The Blood of My Kindred.

  2. Connie says: " I wonder why... why are self-professed "anti-racists" so utterly mesmerized by what they conceptualize as "racism" and "racists."

    Do you not believe what Matt Heimbach is saying and doing as racist?

  3. Corey, your conclusions don't amount to a hill of beans to me, capisce? None of your questions are pertinent to my refutation of the Simpson lie that Heimbach is a "VaFlagger Favorite."

    My observations about leftist obsession with racism and racists has nothing to do with Heimbach. You floggers were bullying the VaFlaggers, lying about them, calling them racists, etc., months before Heimbach showed up on the flogger radar.

    You all are leftists. Putting others down is the only way you can feel good about yourselves. In the leftist mindset, the worst thing anybody can be is racist, so you falsely label other people racists in order to generate the warm fuzzies in yourself. It's disgusting.

    And you know what? I've had just about all of you and your lies that I can take.

  4. There were two additional comments I sent to Simpson that he did not publish.

    He cherry picks what he wants then manipulates what he has cherry picked.

    Historical accuracy? That's the last thing Simpson should be criticizing anyone else about.

  5. Clint, send me your comments Simpson didn't post, and I'll make them the subject of a Backsass post.

  6. Hey Connie, why don't you ask Clint Lacy about Communism and Marx. He once posted a letter Marx wrote thinking Marx was making a claim that he Civil War was a Tariff war. However, when you read the letter closely, you will find that where Marx is saying it is a Tariff war his is quoting the London Papers.

    Marx actually knew the war was about slavery. In the end Lincoln never responded to Marx's letter to Lincoln because Lincoln did not believe in Marx's ideology.

    A hard pill for Neo-confederates to swallow.

  7. Corey, I don't care about what Marx thought of anything -- tariff, slavery, anything.. The political system he codified murdered one hundred million men, women and children in less than a century. He was an evil man.

  8. Connie,

    You are correct...what does any of that have to do with me or the Civil War?

    What I am pointing out again is the lack of reading comprehension and historical understanding. Lacy fails in both...just like you comment lifted from Robert Mastes on if the North was not fighing to free the slaves then the south was not fighting to keep them.

    Still the dumbest thing I have heard you or anyone ever say.

  9. I dunno, Corey. You brung him up.

    Everybody misreads things sometimes. You are willing -- because of your animosity for Southern heritage folks -- to take one misreading, and claim that the person misreads everything, has no historical understanding, etc.

    I didn't lift anything from Mr. Mastas. I've been saying that for years, before I ever got on Facebook, which is were I became acquainted with Mr. Mastas. See how your prejudice causes you to make wrong assumptions?

    Well, if you can explain how you can fight to keep something that nobody's trying to take away, have at it. But Southerners were fighting to defend the South from an army that came to kill them.

  10. Well then Robert Mastes got it from you...regardless you are both wrong.

  11. No Connie it was not a simple misread...those neo-confederate types like Clint Lacy have been throwing that quote around for years...just cutting an pasting here and there as if they had found some rosetta stone to figuring out the causes of the war. They failed.

    The south was fighting to keep slaver because they believed that Lincoln's election to the presidency was a threat to slavery. Once again some simple history escapes you due to your lack of reading historical text. Stick to the fiction has to be better than your understanding of non-fiction.

  12. No, sez the historical record. I don't make this stuff up.

  13. Connie, I don't believe you or anyone else should explain Southern actions to the residents of a hostile, foreign nation. I don"t think the Soviet invaders in the film "Red Dawn" expected explanations from the "Wolverines." But then, they never claimed to be the partisans' "fellow countrymen", either. Although, in the film, as in real life, the Soviets claimed to be "policemen ", enforcing some higher, historically ordained, moral law. Not unlike Yankees, unsurprisingly. I personally don't consider Yankees to be anything other than hostile, malevolent foreigners. Their actions, attitudes and behaviours certainly say as much. How else do you explain hostility that has existed since 1788?

  14. James, you are no doubt right. I found this marvelous quote that might explain why I do it: "“I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince one’s opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.” – Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

    I even put it permanently on the sidebar of my blog.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.