Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Congrats to the VaFlaggers On a Great Year!

I just uploaded to the VaFlaggers blog a year in review for 2013 that I encourage everyone to read.

Confederate heritage, particularly the battle flag, has been under concerted attack for over two decades by some powerful groups and individuals, for the purpose of  justifying its removal from view. When you're up against the results of such a long term crusade, you're not going to change things overnight. And yet, the VaFlaggers are changing hearts and minds every week on the Boulevard in Richmond.

For a long time, Confederate heritage advocates were silent in the face of the determination to erase that heritage, but we are silent no longer. Inspired first by the Georgia Flaggers, then the Virginia Flaggers, similar groups are rising across the Confederacy.

Only when they have been at the job of preserving and strengthening our heritage as long as others have been working to eradicate it will we see the true measure of their success.

For now -- Return the Flags. Restore the Honor.  ONWARD!

Duck Tales and Leftist Liars

I'm busy. I got things to do online and off. And I like it, don't get me wrong. I love havin' author services jobs come in -- a little extra cash is always welcome.

Phil Robertson, America's Sweetheart
But when I have busy times like this, it limits the time and attention I can give to the floggosphere. And wouldn't you know it, often my busy times come when there's stuff going on there I'd LOVE to give my full attention to.

But, I can only address a few things, so I guess I'll have to pick and choose. Oh, et bien.

Let's start with Simpson's (and some of his floggerettes') comments about a Phil Robertson video posted at Crossroads.

He begins,
"We all know how concerned Connie Chastain is about sex with minors …"
Phil is talking about marriage. Simpson is talking about sex. Anybody surprised?

Isn't it fascinating that Simpson and so many of his floggerettes seem to equate sex and marriage? Do you suppose they don't know the difference? Or are they being disingenuous to make a dumb point? Marriage is the proper place for sex, the proper relationship. But it is not the same thing as sex. It is much, much more.  

As for moi, as I have made clear, my concern about "sex with minors" is whether it is married sex or not:
The strongest criticism I would have of Carl's story is not the youth of the characters, but that they're unmarried.  ~Moi
Moreover, my novels take a strong stand for abstinence until marriage, whether the characters are minors or adults. In my two short stories, the female leads are unwed mothers, and each story is the first in a series about dealing with the aftereffects of youthful transgressions.

Presumably, if Simpson and his floggerette peanut gallery oppose
(A) 15-17 year old minors getting married
that means they support one of the alternatives --
(B) total abstinence or

(C) being sexually active -- i.e., hooking up, promiscuity, depression, loss of self-esteem, getting STDs and the risk of cervical cancer, getting pregnant, having a child or having an abortion.
I note that the popular culture encourages (C) -- which, presumably to them, is SO much better than sex within a loving, committed, lifelong relationship....

But the more you read this thread, the more bizarre stuff you find. Like this:
Connie’s kind of guy. You can’t go after one person by saying that soliciting sex with a minor is wrong and then say that it’s okay so long as it’s a right wing celebrity advising men to seek out minors to marry. That would make one a hypocrite.
Is he really saying that marriage is the same thing as soliciting a minor for sex?  Is he REALLY saying that marriage is the same thing as soliciting a minor for sex?

Yep. He really is. Didn't I tell ya? Bizarre

Simpson's famed dishonesty is on conspicuous display in that thread.  F'rinstance, Lyle Smith sez, 
"15 year old girls are having sex and having children by their own choices. In most states (Arizona and New York to name just two) a 15 year old can be legally married with the consent of their parents and with the consent or order of the court."
And Simpson's reply is truly jawdropping --
Are you saying that the state has no business protecting minors from solicitation by adults (meaning 18 years of age or older)?
Uh, no, Lyle didn't say that or anything like it.
Are you saying that so long as the minor consents, that’s okay by you?
Lyle didn't say anything about that, either.  He was simply telling WHAT IS. His comments certainly had nothing to do with sting operations or cases like Confoy's. Lyle was saying what the Guttmacher Institute has reported (but without the Guttmacher stats):
•...16% of teens have had sex by age 15, compared with one-third of those aged 16, nearly half (48%) of those aged 17, 61% of 18-year-olds and 71% of 19-year-olds.[1] There is little difference by gender in the timing of first sex.

• On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17, [2] but they do not marry until their mid-20s.[3] This means that young adults may be at increased risk for unintended pregnancy and STIs for nearly a decade or longer.


1. Finer LB and Philbin JM, Sexual initiation, contraceptive use, and pregnancy among young adolescents, Pediatrics, 2013, <http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/27/peds.2012-3495>, accessed May 31, 2013.

2. Special tabulation by NCHS, 2013 <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/abc_list_s.htm#vaginalsexual> accessed May 31, 2013.

3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, America’s Families and Living Arrangements, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009.
Simpson's bizarre rant to Lyle continues,
Connie Chastain took a stand on this matter: now let’s see how she rants her way around this one.
Simple -- my stand is that sex is for marriage only, and marriage is between one man and one woman. No rants necessary.

As for the embarrassing information he was given about a "Flagger favorite" that he hasn't revealed ... I hope he doesn't throw his shoulder or elbow out of joint patting himself on his own back for his restraint.
Chastain wants to talk about sex with minors? 
Nah, not particularly, but I don't shy away from the subject, either, particularly when floggers want to use it to demonize people. I'm on record in various places that Southern Man, of necessity, deals with sexual themes because it is an indictment of the Sexual Revolution.
Let her talk her way out of supporting a guy who suggests that it’s better to marry a fifteen year old because it’s easier to control her.
Yeah, control her. That means averting hooking up, preventing promiscuity, and protecting against getting STDs, reducing the risk of cervical cancer, preventing getting pregnant out of wedlock and having an illegitimate child or having an abortion. How awful, huh. Everyone knows that sexually active 15-year-old girls love STDs, love going in for cervical cancer checkups, love looking at the pregnancy stick with their hearts in their throats -- and maybe paying a visit to a Gosnell-like abortion mill, and praying she'll make it out alive even if the baby doesn't....  Yep, control, in Phil's view, means loving her and providing her with home and necessities and a committed relationship and expecting her to be faithful (and to cook).
 I note that his “defenders” here can’t address directly what’s on the video.
Yeah, some of 'em did. I did, too.

To Jefferson Moon, Simp sez,  
It’s interesting that you would support his view of the world and of marriage.
What's even more interesting is Simpson's view of marriage as a sexual offense. Moon further sez,
"I don't believe at all that Phil’s advice was for older men to marry young girls."
and Simp comes back with this bizarre contradiction.
 "And yet that’s what the video clearly shows."
Ah, no it doesn't. Then this backpeddling:
"All depends on what one means by the word “older.” The men are clearly older than the girls."
Me and my child groom with his '70s
bump-toed Howdy Doody shoes

Well, golly, gee, seventeen is older than sixteen.... What men? Phil gave some of this same advice to his grandson John Luke in one episode of the show. John Luke was fifteen himself at the time.

A three or four year difference between a man and wife is not that great.  Then, there are those of us "cougar" women, who marry younger men. Most of the boys I dated as a teen were my age or a year or two younger, and I married a man three years younger than me -- and we celebrated our 40th anniversary earlier this month.

This flogger obsession with age and sex is truly bizarre.

Next, consider LibertyLamprey, who chimes in with, 
Most 15 yr old girls are not having babies, they are in school and many are going to college from there.
As if they can't go to school and have sex. College is hookup-land on steroids. Scroll up and look at the Guttmacher stats on teen sex, Lamprey. Those are school age girls in the stats.
"These people are disgusting sexualizing 15 yr old girls for the objectification of gross filthy old men. No thought at all to the fact that 15 yr old girls need an education and a life of their own."
Gimme a head with hair (& mutton chops)
Engagement Party -- Me, 24, Him (barely) 21

Well, let's see. Phil didn't mention "old men" and gross, filthy old men" indicates to me that the Lamprey is either a bitter woman who is feminist a man-hater, or a self-hating man who is a man-hater (and yes, they exist) -- in other words, somebody who is so deeply buried in leftist feminist dogma, they are incapable of looking realistically at the male (or the female, for that matter).

Sexualizing 15-year-olds? Take it up with the popular culture Lamprey. Take it up with establishment academia, which teaches "sex education" that's really sexualization. Take it up with the abortion industry. Take it up with the left-leaning entertainment industry (you know, the ones who are soooo upset with Phil for "invading" their airwaves.) Take it up with feminists and the left who have promoted the "sexual liberation" of women for decades. Take it up with Jaclyn Friedman, Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti....Feminism is what's really sexualizing  females -- including 15-year-old girls.

Monday, December 30, 2013

Levin: Do I Owe the Virginia Flaggers an Apology?

Is grass green? Is the Pope Catholic?

Here's Levin's initial post about Grayson:
Virginia Flaggers “Restore the Honor” One Racist Statement at a Time
December 24, 2013

Want to know why the Virginia Flaggers are not taken seriously in Richmond? It’s because underneath the rhetoric of “Restore the Honor” and “Heritage Not Hate” there is a great deal of racism. Grayson Jennings is a vocal member of the Flaggers. Here is his response to the recent decision in Jacksonville, Florida to change the name of Nathan Bedford Forrest High School. Yes, and that is Barry Isenhour, another prominent Flagger.  You could spend quite a bit of time unpacking Jenning’s post.
Sometimes I wonder why Karen Cooper (only black Flagger) associates with these people. What a shame. It seems like just last week that I was applauding the Flaggers.
He followed up with this one.
Do I Owe the Virginia Flaggers an Apology? 
December 29, 2013

Last week I pointed out what I interpreted as a racist comment from a prominent member of the Virginia Flaggers. A few days ago they offered the following response, which included a photograph of an African-American man carrying a Confederate flag in front of the Museum of the Confederacy.

I certainly don’t want to be known for casually accusing people of being racist, but I fail to see how this photograph assuages concerns. The Richmond community – who the Flaggers claim to be improving through their efforts – deserve a response to these types of statements. What exactly did the statement mean? How would this specific Flagger explain it to the individual in front of the MOC and the rest of Richmond’s black community? 
I left a comment, but we know the track record of these floggers, not posting what they don't want their followers to see....

So I'll put it here just in case:
Yes, you owe them an apology -- all you floggers and floggerettes do, many times over.

Grayson made ironic use of a cultural phenomenon (a very real, observable obsession with SHOES in the black community) in relation to yet more erasure of Confederate heritage. Racism is hatred or intolerance of another race or other races  Noticing cultural obsessions a racial group exhibits -- to the point that it is reportable in the news media (and look at photos of the Air Jordan crowds to see the racial groups comprising them) --  is not hatred or intolerance.

Of course, you floggers label it racist for heritage advocates to even notice that somebody is black or to show an interest in racial issues.

Whether you race-obsessed floggers realize it or not, the country -- not just the Confederate community -- has just about reached its limit with the racial grievance industry -- which you floggers aid and abet -- and its flat-out lies 

Just look at GLAAD's recent and blatant lie that Phil Robertson "praised" Jim Crow laws. In fact, he was talking about the destructiveness of the 1960s poverty/welfare laws that conspicuously did NOT erase poverty, but did a great job of maintaining it by erasing husbands and fathers from poor black homes via the marriage penalty built into welfare laws. Thanks to poverty-creating anti-poverty legislation, the black illegitimacy rate skyrocketed  from 23% in 1963 to 72% today. The most accurate predictor of a child being raised in poverty is being born into a single-parent (i.e., single mother) home. And to top it off, fatherlessness results in some of the country's worst social pathologies. http://fathersunite.org/statistics_on_fatherlessnes.html

Yes, you owe the VaFlaggers an apology, just as GLAAD owes Phil Robertson an apology. But don't offer one. We don't want hell freezing over. It's cold enough as it is.

I would note a few things here: He flatout says HE INTERPRETS Grayson's comment as racist. He offers no proof that the VaFlaggers are not taken seriously in Richmond. Opposing the I-95 Flag Memorial, warring on Confederate heritage, lying about the VaFlaggers in blogs (such as Kristen Konate accusing Grayson and Barry of putting her address on Facebook when SHE was the one who did that) -- this and more tells me that the VaFlaggers are taken very seriously in Richmond (and elsewhere) by their critics and opponents. If they weren't to be taken seriously, Levin wouldn't have blogged about them in the first place.

I would just say that at one time or another, the floggers have exhibited FAR MORE hatred of the VaFlaggers (and others) than anything any VaFlagger has ever posted. Of course, most of the VaFlaggers are white Southeners, and white Southerners are the last goup in the USA that one can ridicule and lie about, not merely with impunity, but with approval and praise.

Friday, December 27, 2013

Phil's Right. The NAACP Is Wrong

(Brought over from 180 Degrees True South)

Josh Barro: Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there.

The NAACP: "As you may know, Phil attacked both African Americans and LGBT people in a recent GQ interview (January 2014) – saying that African Americans were happier under Jim Crow laws, and equating being gay with bestiality and promiscuity."

First, Phil didn't attack anybody. Second, I've already dealt with Barro's first lie, that Phil equated homosexuality with bestiality Here. http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-josh-barro-gets-wrong-about-phil.html

Now let's expose the NAACP's lie, and see whether or not Phil's memories are accurate.

Phil said,
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
I don't have any problem believing he never personally saw mistreatment of a black person. As a kid in the same era, I didn't, either. I heard about it, read about it ... never saw it with my own eyes.

Judging by his reference to welfare and entitlement, he is not talking about the effects of Jim Crow laws or the changes made by the civil rights movement. His use of the terms "pre-entitlement, pre-welfare" indicate he was talking about the poverty programs of the 1960s -- i.e., the Great Society and the War on Poverty, not civil rights legislation. And what were the effects of those poverty programs?

(Note: these programs had the same effect on all poor families, but the subject of the question, the subject of the answer and the subject of the "outrage" is blacks, so that's what I'm discussing here).

Did the poverty programs end poverty for blacks? No. According to BlackDemographics.com, the poverty rate for all African Americans in 2012 was 28.1% which is an increase from 25.5% in 2005. Not a good track record for anti-poverty legislation that's been clipping along for fifty years or so.

But the poverty programs did far more damage to the black family than simply failing to end poverty. The absolute worse effect, with horrific consequences, was the removal of the husband and father from the black home -- which resulted, basically, in the dissolution of the black family.

Studies show that the safest place for women and children is in a home where there are two parents married to each other. Conversely, the single most accurate predictor that a child will live in poverty is being born into a single parent household.

In 1963, the black out-of-wedlock birthrate was 23%. Today it is 72% and growing. Again, according to BlackDemographics.com, black families with children under 18 headed by a single mother have the highest rate of poverty at 47.5 compared to only 8.4% percent for married couples.

Do you suppose they're happy in their government-created, father-absent existence?

The marriage penalty built into welfare programs has basically destroyed the black family by removing husbands and fathers from the black home. The effects are far, far worse than mere poverty. Fatherlessness is the cause of some of the worst social pathologies in our society.

Children from fatherless homes are:

   15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
   4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
   6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
   24.3 times more likely to run away
   15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
   6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
   10.8 times more likely to commit rape
   6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
   15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
   73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes
   6.3 times more likely to be in state operated institutions


ItÂ’s a Fact!  HereÂ’s why:
     · 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).
     · 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
     · 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. (Source: CDC)
     · 80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26).
     · 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals Assoc. Report on the State of High Schools).
    · 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).

These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:

     · 5 times more likely to commit suicide
     · 32 times more likely to run away
     · 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
     · 14 times more likely to commit rape
     · 9 times more likely to drop out of high school
     · 20 times more likely to end up in prison


So, blacks weren't better off before the "poverty" programs that didn't erase poverty but did erased the black father and destroyed the black family?  They're happier living with these horrific social pathologies than they were living in intact families working the fields? Black mothers in that situation weren't happier than black welfare mothers today who lose their children to behavioral disorders, crime, joblessness, hopelessness, suicide, murder and prison? Would YOU be happier with that?

Phil is right.

And the NAACP not only lies. They are enabling the destruction and misery of blacks by supporting toxic policies and effects that accompany welfare programs.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Why Charlie Sheen's Tirade Against Phil Robertson Doesn't Matter....

Humanity-depleted and integrity-deficient Charlie Sheen....

has a drug-and-alcohol-addled brain
is a high-school drop-out
is a domestic (wife) abuser
is a lunatic 9/11 truther
is a berserker property-destroyer

There's more, but that's sufficient to establish that he's many, many rungs below Phil on the human decency and intelligence ladder...

(To be continued.)

Duck Dynasty Graphic Memes...

...that will make Simpson turn purple and blow a gasket...   

I made them all except the first two.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Post List Update -- Simpson's Unhinged Obsession With VaFlaggers

Brooks Simpson has put on his personal flog dozens of posts about the Virginia Flaggers, illustrating his unhinged obsession with them. The titles of these posts were made into a list in November and posted here.

That list has just been updated.

Since the list was permanently posted in November, he has made eleven more posts that mention them, directly or indirectly. The list does not include posts that do not mention the VaFlaggers, even though they may be mentioned in the attached comment threads.

 (I do not count posts about me as VaFlagger posts, unless he mentions the VaFlaggers, directly or indirectly).

The updated figures are: 

  ~116 total posts between 12/29/11 and 12/21/13
  ~  92 posts in 2013
  ~  36 posts uploaded in 2013 before the first I-95 flag announcement
  ~  80 posts uploaded in 2013 after the first I-95 flag announcement

To see the list, check out the left sidebar; scroll down.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Hate and Bigotry -- Andy-Style

I've noted recently that Andy Hall hasn't exhibited the level of obsession with the Virginia Flaggers that Simpson exhibits.  That doesn't mean Andy's totally silent.  Over at Simpson's Carnival of Malice, he recently posted this:

Ah, yes, the trailer trash/slash/white trash stereotype of (white) Southerners.

We know from past history, that Andy has problems with images like this (although they are at least useful to bash white Southerners and Southern heritage folks):

But based on his statement above, presumably he would nave no problem with these:

So with his trailer park comment indicating that he's comfortable, even jocular, with hateful stereotypes of white Southerners -- trailer trash, white trash -- can "inbred" be far behind? How long before we see images like this, or links to them, on his flog, or in his comments at other floggers flogs?


Note: the bottom image is found numerous places online with accompanying text indicating the image depicts the effects of incest and inbreeding. Do a Google image search on the term Southern Inbreeding and this image comes up several times. But the only "South" it is associated with is South Africa. This photo was taken in Western Transvaal in 1993 by photographer Roger Ballen.The subjects are twins, Dresie and Casie. Various discussions on the Internet indicate that their physical deformity is not the result of incest or inbreeding but likely due to Fragile X syndrome, which is a genetic defect inherited from mothers and has nothing to do with inbreeding.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

The Duck Dynasty Drama Continues

The Facebook page, "I Stand With Phil" garnered over a million Likes in 24-hours.

I wonder if the execs at A&E have reached the deer-in-the-headlights realization stage yet -- or whether they'll be like a duck and not know what hit 'em as they plummet straight down to the ground....

I Wonder What Corey Would Say About This

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Phil Robertson Suspended from Duck Dynasty

A&E be SOOOO stoopid. Did they learn NOTHing from the Chick-fil-a  incident?

Fox News Story

Background check on A&E suspends Phil Robertson

I look forward to hearing that Miss Kay and the sons and daughters-in-law walk out on the show. I mean, it's not like they need the money....

The Crossroads Carnival of Malice, Part Two

         In one of the cases under discussion, someone made a bad mistake, is paying for it, and it trying to move on and move forward. You would think that at this time of year people who profess to be Christians would understand the meaning of their faith, instead of showing an unseemly glee about the whole business. But we would never understand just how base these people are if they did not have the freedom to show us their character and how they practice the faith they claim to follow.

        It’s not as if damaging personal information about some people in the Confederate heritage movement (including a story about a sex offender) doesn’t come into my inbox. I don’t see the point in going after them: why lower myself to their level? Chastain wasn’t interested in the welfare of children: she was just interested in playing the bully. Same with her chorus. Not that is should come as any surprise … but, again, it’s the freedom to express oneself that alerts us to just what sort of people they are.

~Brooks D. Simpson
Let's look at some of this a bit more in-depth.
You would think that at this time of year people who profess to be Christians would understand the meaning of their faith, instead of showing an unseemly glee about the whole business.
No glee on my blog, folks. The glee -- the rabid, frenzied glee is found in posts and comments by B. Simpson, BParks, LibertyLamprey and others about Carl Roden.

It is utterly fascinating that Simpson is defending a man who was arrested for soliciting children for sex as "someone who made a bad mistake, is paying for it, and it (sic) trying to move on and move forward" but excoriates Carl for writing a fanfic love story fourteen years ago. And how did Simpson likely find the fanfic?

He found Carl's handle, "Darth Roden" in a Facebook post, and he (or somebody) googled it, like I googled Mike Confoy.

Here's what Simpson found: https://www.fanfiction.net/u/334658/

Here's what I found: http://chantilly.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/three-men-arrested-after-attempting-to-solicit-minors

So, Simpson is doing BACKGROUND CHECKS on heritage folks and then splashing them all over his blog -- multiple times (in case his dumbed-down sycophants don't get it the first time).

He and his frenzied floggerettes think that what HE found is BAAAAAD, but what I found was  "mistake."

He piously sez, "It’s not as if damaging personal information about some people in the Confederate heritage movement (including a story about a sex offender) doesn’t come into my inbox. I don’t see the point in going after them: why lower myself to their level?"

Who's level? I didn't "go after" anyone. The point wasn't to go after Simpson's "good friends" featured in the news reports. The point was to show the utter hypocrisy of BParks, LibertyLamprey, Simpson and the rest, and their disconnect from integrity -- for falling down and having seizures of hate about FICTION but saying nothing about one of their cyber-colleagues who IN FACT, in REALITY, solicited MINORS for SEX.

They didn't know about it? They do now, and the loudest screechers are silent about it, except Simpson, who is treating 14-year-old fanfiction as WORSE, morally, than soliciting minors for sex ("a bad mistake"). 

Maybe it was a mistake -- I don't know. All I know about it is what was in the online news story and an email I received. But even if it was a mistake, it is still so greatly more more immoral than a fanfic love story written by a 23 year old guy 14 years ago, they're not even on the same page...not even in the same book, really. 

What's truly sad is that the flogger and his floggerettes are so warped by their hatred of Confederate heritage that they can't see their own ethical disconnect.

(In the credit where credit is due department, Kristin Konate expressed appropriate dismay over the Confoy revelation. We're still waiting for BParks and Liberty Lamprey to express theirs.)


Simpson comments:
Yes … but now the members of the VMFA are on notice that a Flagger tactic is to conduct background checks, and that the person conducting them is Susan’s “heavy hitter.”

Somehow I don’t think that will go over well, especially as people who work on the grounds there read this blog.
I wonder if they enjoy his flog as much as I do!  So who put the VMFA members on notice? Simpson? I've wondered if there isn't some kind of  "friendship" between Simpson and the VMFA that would account for his obsession with the VaFlaggers -- an obsession his fellow floggers don't seem to share. An occasional post is all you see out of them anymore. I wonder if, secretly, they're embarrassed by Simpson's mania seen in his 104 posts about the VaFlaggers (actually more than that now)... They may even share some or all of his views about the VaFlaggers, but they seem content to leave the unhinged addiction and the showcasing of it (the flogger version of "heavy hitting"?) to him.

But I wouldn't want him or VMFA members to be disappointed, so ... here's yer VMFA background check:


Dumbed-Down America? It's True

(The Crossroads Carnival of Malice Series will continue later.)

Newly Discovered Eighth Grade Exam From 1912 Shows How Dumbed Down America Has Become

The country cannot survive if this decline continues.

Background Check on Brooks Simpson


According to Wikipedia, in the real world, a background check includes:

Criminal, arrest, incarceration, and sex offender records
Citizenship, immigration, or legal working status
Litigation records
Driving and vehicle records
Drug tests
Education records
Financial information
Licensing records
Medical, Mental, and Physiological evaluation and records
Military records
Polygraph testing
Social Security Number
Other interpersonal interviews

In Simpson's bizarro world, a background check is:

A Google search.

Note first, "A Google search" is not listed on the items included in a background check. 

Note second, my Google search of Michael Confoy did not turn up any of the items identified by Wikipedia, not even criminal, arrest, incarceration, and sex offender records. It brought up a NEWS STORY about an arrest and that's what I put on my blog.

Note that Simpson is the one who did a partial background check by looking up Confoy's sex offender RECORD on an official state website.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Simpson.

Sad Simpson and Schadenfreude

Due to my post, The Crossroads Carnival of Malice, Part One. Simpson has posted about the two subjects of the news reports I linked to. He HAD to. He knows some of his floggerettes read my blog, so he had to acknowledge it some way -- to issue a denial, of sorts. Actually, it's an attack, a true lashing out, aimed mostly at me, but includes Carl Roden.  He even gratuitously brings in Susan Hathaway, who probably doesn't even know about these posts.

It's a toss up, who he hates most -- me, for challenging his lies and talkin' back to him, or Susan, for ignoring him from indifference.  

Let's subject his sad, sad post to a little truth detecting, shall we?
He then turned to frequenting other groups, including one managed by our good friend Connie Chastain.
This refers to Ray O'Hara, who was a member of my Facebook Group, 180 Degrees True South (a companion to my blog of the same name) when it was an open group. O'Hara was invited there by a member, not me. His only contribution to the group was to lie about the Confederacy.

I received numerous complaints from other members that O'Hara's posts were troll-like, and he wasn't there to discuss, or even debate, just to harass. I removed his membership. Eventually, many proSouthern members requested that the group change its focus from debate to a discussion group for issues of interest to proSoutherners. I changed the name of the group to Due South and made it closed. (At the end of this post, see the image of a Facebook search index of Due South using the search term O'Hara, with a few lines of each post that give an idea what each was about.)

Not long after the news account of O'Hara's arrest was posted (April 2012), the person who invited him to the group sent me a link. (See a screenshot of the private message thread below.) Until my "Carnival of Malice" post, I had never posted the link or info from it publicly, anywhere -- not on my blogs, not in a Facebook post or comment, not in a comment anywhere -- except very recently, when I sent the URL of the news report, to someone by private message.
Both of these stories are upsetting and nauseating.. So is the news that Connie Chastain, who does Susan Hathaway’s “heavy hitting,” is now conducting background checks on commenters on this blog....
Ah, the indignation of someone to "tiptoes" through the Internet looking for Southern heritage people to smear, who combs Facebook, who combs comment threads following news stories, who obsesses over Flagger videos and photo albums, who stares, mesmerized, at Google Earth looking for Flagger land, who emails and tweets the media in Richmond about the Flaggers, who contacts the Richmond police... All looking for SOMETHING to smear the Flaggers with. Oh, and note that the mention of Susan is gratuitous, as she has nothing to do with my post or the subject matter -- it just reflects Simpson's hatred of her.
...much as several Virginia Flaggers went after individuals this past summer.
The Virginia Flaggers didn't go after any individuals this summer. The photo of the package showing Kristin Konate's address was put on Facebook by Kristin Konate.

I am not conducting background checks on Crossroads commenters. There are a few commenters whose names I have Googled, to see if they had credentials as educators or historians, simply because of the content of something they posted. (Some truncated names or obvious aliases would probably not turn up much information and I wouldn't have searched those.)  If I don't find what I'm looking for in the first two or three pages of the Google search index, I give up the search. It's not important enough to me to do more than that.

One of the names I Googled was Michael Confoy. Here is the Google index that comes up with the search term "Michael Confoy."


This is the second URL in the index:


So it's not like I had to do a lot of digging to find the info on his arrest. In fact, I had no idea of that circumstance when I Googled his name, and wasn't looking for it, or anything criminal or negative. I was looking for information that would confirm his association with an educational institution of some kind.

But it is the second link on the page. I mean, you can't miss it.

I have known about that news report for a year or so. Until my "Carnival of Malice" post, I had never posted this link publicly anywhere -- not on my blogs, not in a Facebook post or comment, not in a comment anywhere -- except very recently, when I sent the URL of the news report, to someone by private message.

If Googling is what Simpson conceptualizes as conducting a background check, I have to wonder how he got such a responsible position in education.  Or maybe that's a good indication of how dumbed down education as become.

Chastain can’t get her facts straight, as usual, at least when it comes to me. She claims that someone I’ve despised for some time (and she knows this from a previous exchange on Al Mackey’s blog) is a friend of mine …
Ah, Simpson, think of it as my doing the same thing YOU did when you wrote these:

...our good friend Connie Chastain....
...our favorite fiction writer...
...Tripp Lewis's good friend, Rob Walker...

If you're going to attempt this sort of velvet glove satire, don't complain when it's done back to you.

But we can expect these sort of lies from someone who claims to be an expert in false accusations … .
I've never made such a claim (and this is the second time he's lied about this. The first time, he said I claimed to be an expert in false rape accusation.)
Connie adds that the commenters on this blog are not concerned about issues involving sex, pornography, and minors.
Typical Simpson lie -- by omission. What I said was, "They don't care when somebody on THEIR side does it..." which a quick check of Crossroads comment threads has verified.
Carl Roden followed up with some of his typically crude comments.
@$$-kissers? Yes, that's crude (but certainly symbolically or euphemistically accurate). There are, however, things more offensive than crudeness. For example, suggesting Confederate heritage folks self-immolate the "Buddhist monk way" -- with a flag and gasoline. (That suggestion, BTW, was made by a registered sex offender).
He just likes to write fiction about sex between minors.
Actually, it was a romance. A fictional story "about sex between minors" would be erotica.  I've read Carl's story. It would not be classified as erotica. It would not even be classified as erotic romance. Sex certainly occurs in YA fiction; some people think it's okay, some are opposed to it. But stuff far, far more explicit than Carl's story (and not as well written, I might add) gets published all the time.

I can't believe the outrage and prudishness at the floggerette peanut gallery is genuine. However, to forestall Simpson-claims that I approve of or support erotica or erotic romance, let me say I am opposed to both. The strongest criticism I would have of Carl's story is not the youth of the characters, but that they're unmarried. However, there is published stuff out there that's sooo much worse, and Carl's story is primarily about a love and it is well written.

(Disclosure: I have two short stories in which the female leads have a child out of wedlock; each story is the beginning of a series of short stories that deal with how to handle the consequences of premarital sex. However, in all my novels thus far, the protagonists practice abstinence until marriage.)
Of course, Connie claims she’s not responsible for the behavior of the commenters on her blog. But why should anyone be surprised by her brazen hypocrisy?
I'm not responsible for the behavior of anybody, anywhere, but myself. I am responsible for letting comments through or not. Brazen hypocrisy? Nope. I don't pretend, Simpson.
This is the person who Susan Hathaway says does her heavy hitting...
Ah, nope. Susan does not say that, has not said it. That's another Simpson lie. Susan's quote: 
Quit reading his garbage! Every click gives him site visits and more "clout". I have not read ANY of these Floggers' troughs in over a year and it has been a very blissful year. I leave the heavy hitting to Ms. Connie!
What that means, for people who have difficulty understanding, is that Susan knows I'm going to do the heavy hitting, anyway, so there's no need for her to participate. Thus, she leaves it to me. (She has other fish to fry and she's a very busy woman.)
...and as Flaggers and their supporters have rushed to comment on this issue, we understand the connection. I just thought you should know how this associate of the Virginia Flaggers operates.
No, you didn't think that. You thought you should lie about me ... and that's what you did. As usual, you hoped to smear me and, by association, the VaFlaggers.  A few people have suggested somebody is paying you to attack and smear the VaFlaggers. I blew that off at first, but the more I see of your gratuitous, malicious and illogical attacks, the more I wonder if they're onto something....
Again, a sad story … and an example of what an outspoken supporter of the Flaggers plans to do to commenters on this blog.
LOL! Silly rabbit. I have no plans to do anything to your commenters, except counter their lies and hypocrisy on my blog.
* * *

The comments following the post above -- the few that there as of this writing, anyway -- are equally mendacious and offensive.

Al Mackey sez, "Our little Inspector Javert from Pensacola needs to do a better job in her background investigations."

I haven't done any background investigations, Al. I Googled some names. Have you ever Googled somebody's name? I seem to remember you doing that on CRR.

Simpson replies, "After all, this is Connie Chastain, who lies freely about me. That’s the sort of person Susan Hathaway uses to do her “heavy hitting.” Tells you a lot about the lack of integrity when it comes to the Virginia Flaggers. It will be quite a task to restore their honor."

I don't lie about you, Simpson. I DOCUMENT YOUR lies. Susan doesn't use me for HER heavy hitting. (Why'd you bring this up again? Do you think your peanut gallery floggerettes are too dumb to get it the first twenty times?) As explained, she knows I would do it anyway, and she doesn't join me in it because it would be redundant. But it is MY heavy hitting, not hers, not anybody else's.  The integrity of the VaFlaggers leaves what passes for YOUR integrity in the desert dust.

But THIS is my absolute FAVORITE, from Jimmy Dick:
Connie is opening herself up to a lot of lawsuits. If she starts making false accusations about people in order to deliberately affect their jobs she will find herself in court and liable for monetary losses. I do not expect her to understand what she is doing, but she needs to wake up before she finds herself behind bars. People do go to jail for this type of stuff.
Jimmy. Answer me this:

1. What have I done that's against the law?
2. What false accusations have I made?
3. Where did you get your law degree?

I dunno.... Maybe this is on a par with "violating copyright" by cutting pictures out of magazines and catalogs....

Lemme give you some advice, Jimmy. Don't look to Simpson for accurate information about me. He lies. He's been doing it for years, and I've been documenting it for years. He lies by ordinary false statements. He lies by omission, innuendo, implication. He's very glib with his lies, but they are still lies.
* * *

As noted above, I've known about these two news reports for a  year or longer, and did not blab them on Backsass, Facebook or anywhere else, until now. And I wouldn't have done so now, but for the demented, hate-filled attacks on Carl by Simpson and his humanity-deficient and integrity-depleted commenters, all because Carl is a Confederate heritage supporter.

You will note, I used the same adjective -- "sad" -- when I learned about O'Hara's arrest that Simpson used when he learned of Confoy's. The difference is that I didn't use the information to attack somebody.

Since both of these men were vocal critics of Confederate heritage and the folks who defend it, I could have broadcast this information far and wide, on my blogs, my Facebook groups, email, the whole bit.

The reason I didn't is because I'm not eager to experience schadenfreude, the way Simpson is. All the floggers and their fellow travelers enjoy episodes of schadenfreude when they think heritage folks have suffered some kind of setback.  But Simpson? He jumps into it with both feet, aquiver with eagerness, and wallows in it, head to toe, dives and rolls in it, drinks deeply of it. This is particularly true where the Virginia Flaggers are concerned.

And now, let  us settle back and wait for the remaining episodes of the Carnival of Malice at Crossroads.

(Click images below to see full size.)

Monday, December 16, 2013

The Crossroads Carnival of Malice, Part One

From two of the most frenzied floggerettes in the comment peanut gallery at Crossroads... 
----B Parks----

"kid toucher" Rhodan?  "...has all the warnings of a kid toucher"  

So, writing fan fiction is ALL the warnings? There are no others?


"Ummmm…what is it about these losers and sexualizing children?"

What is it about leftist hysterians with a death-fetish that causes them to see children being sexualized where it isn't happening?

"...do you see something wrong with a grown 37 yr old man like Carl writing sexual stories about children’s cartoons?"

Do you see something wrong with your math? The stories were written 14 years ago. See if you can subtract 14 from 37, Lamprey, and still have 37. If you got that wrong, what else have you got wrong?

 "These movements are magnets for pedophiles."

Izzaaaaat right? (Smirk.)

"I am sure there will be all kind of pedo enabling/defending at the Backass swamp tomorrow."


These photos are of anti-heritage folks. Both of them are, or have been, frequent commenters  on anti-Confederate blogs and such, including Crossroads, where the frenzied Carnival of Malice is underway.

The oddest thing, B Parks ... Apparently neither of them exhibited ALL the warnings of a kid-toucher ... that is, writing fan-fiction. At least, I didn't notice that in the news reports.

More info here:



Unless they were falsely accused and that info has not made it out into cyberspace yet, I think we can take these news reports at face value.

Harpy Parks and Lamprey Eel, pay close attention to this.  These guys are on YOUR side, chumps. Claim them. Own them. 

Both BParks and LibertyLamprey (and several other participants in the Malice-fest) owe Carl an apology, but hell will likely freeze over first.  Doing the right thing for a heritage advocate they have wronged is not high on the list of flogger and floggerette priorities. In fact, I don't think it even makes the list.

I'm sure there will be all kind of pedo enabling/defending at the Crossroads cesspool tomorrow.... NOT! They don't care when somebody on THEIR side does it...


I have received an email from "Michael" asking me to remove his picture from this post. He pointed out that posting mugshots runs afoul of Google's guidelines (I don't think it does). He pointed out that an arrest is not a conviction. He pointed out, "Your arguments about your colleagues are with him [Simpson], not with me."

Well, he's right about that, insofar as he knows. Primarily, my arguments are with B. "Harpy" Parks and LibertyLamprey, in addition to Simpson.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with this request, and I have removed his image.

Detonating the Desire to Denigrate

It's fascinating to watch cyberbullying leftists and liberals crawl out of the woodwork and get on the flippin' WORLD WIDE WEB for all to see -- and showcase their love of hurting and denigrating others for basically no reason. Disagreements about history don't, or shouldn't, foment the kind of obsessive need they exhibit to ridicule, lie about and try to damage people. This is hatred, pure and simple.

Now, before I go any further, let me be clear that these jerks haven't hurt me, and probably not any heritage folks. You have to care about somebody's opinion before that person's attacks can hurt you. Oh, sure, they can damage you. They can cause you all kind of trouble. Still, they can't emotionally hurt you unless you care about their opinions.

There may be folks who are somewhat angered by the ridicule and especially the lies. They occasionally post in the comments at Crossroads, but that only generates more mocking and hatred. But even these folks aren't particularly hurt; they're trying to correct and defend, but it soon becomes apparent that Simpson's peanut gallery floggerettes aren't interested in truth and civility. The floggerettes are out to hurt people, whether they're actually successful at it or not, and visitors soon learn that correcting them is a hopeless cause.

So I don't write about these bullies from a poor widdle us approach but to showcase the kind of brutish people some leftists are.

Right now, the desire to denigrate has exploded at Crossroads, detonated by Simpson's "Confederate Heritage Follies" -- a series of posts in which he targets for ridicule people who have never done a thing to hurt or damage him.  Presumably, the posts are designed solely to hurt and deride the heritage folks he's targeted -- and to provide his humanity-deficient and integrity-depleted followers with some hideous laughter.

But it isn't so much Simpson's "Follies" I want to address. It's some of the comments. So stay tuned....

Photo: U.S. Government

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Guest Post from a Facebook Friend and Fellow Southron

(After reading this post by Carl on Facebook, I messaged him and asked if I could make it a guest post here at Backsass. He graciously consented.  I'm pleased to present it to my readers.  ~Ed.)

Laughing Off The Ignorance Of Professor Simpleton

 Carl W. Roden 
(the man the Deniers fear most)

Wow looks like I am famous. I made a troll's hate page because....(wait for it) I wrote and reposted fanfiction that is 14 years old and that I wrote when I was 23. LMFAO!

It seems instead of attacking my differing views on how best to remember the War Between the States, a tenured college professor actually took the time to google my name and find fanfiction I wrote for one of my all-time favorite cartoon series and attacked it, and by extension an entire fanfiction community.

Now anyone who knows me or is a Facebook friend already knows this about me. I am a huge animation fan, especially Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Pixar, Dreamworks and some Japanese anime shows and movies, particularly the work of Studio Gibli. I make no secret of it. I enjoy comics, but then again so does Kevin Smith and plenty of guys much older than me. I mean am I a huge nerd because I secretly want to build a scale model of the original Enterprise bridge in one of my guest rooms....okay, maybe, but still, compared to all of that writing fanfiction stories is a rather minor hobby, one shared by nearly a million people in America and others across the world.

Also add to the fact that this well known and allegedly highly respected historian did not bother to do proper research on either the fanfiction involved, nor on the Hey Arnold fanfiction community. Had he done so he would know that the show (which ran from 1996 to 2003 on Nickelodeon) has been the subject of a number of proposed spinoffs involving the main characters as teenagers that, although never put into production, are fodder for a number of fanfiction stories. 
I threw my hat in the ring around 2000, or so, and wrote a pair of fanfiction stories set in that storyline that came under the scrutiny of this internet stalker because it contains content that is rated PG-13 for suggestive themes....nevermind the fact that its clearly stated the characters are both 17 in the introductions to the stories. The stories were both posted at fanfiction.net in 2003 three years AFTER then were written by a 23 year old guy who just wanted to write stories that other hardcore fans of a particular television series would appreciate.

However, in spite of all of this, or perhaps just in ignorance, and in an effort to attack me personally all because the man has failed on almost every occasion to win a debate on Civil War history with me, and to amuse his peanut gallery of like-minded anti-Southern bigots, this moron decided to post one-sided uninformed accounts of a couple of my oldest stories and now appears to be sitting back to watch his own loosely-wound collection of ass kissers imply that I write pornography. This despite the fact that any clear reading of the stories involved shows no descriptive accounts of sex, rather it simply jumps from point a to point b and glosses over the details, except for emotions that one or the other character felt (both stories were told from first person POV and one was a sequel from the opposite POV).

Indeed many of the people who likewise write fanfiction for the show have expressed many times over the years how my written fanfiction stories inspired them to write and one told me not long ago that she was so inspired that she intends to work on her own young adult novel series. Both of these stories, as well as other fanfiction I have written about the show. have received high praise from many people, including some of the writers for the show, cast members, and indeed the creator of the series himself. Those stories and messages mean more to me than the dry amusement of a mere college professor and a few high school teachers and Socialist marks who have to troll into the gutter for their entertainment.

In fact, my fanfiction has opened the door for me to the literary world as a couple of fans of the show reading my stories have offered to introduce me to a few literary agents when I complete the science fiction and young adult novels I am working on. Perhaps if one of my novels, once published, receives a literary award, I will forward an autograph copy of one of the first editions to the dear professor. The YA books are going to be for 14 and up, hopefully that isn't too advanced for him or his peanut gallery, LOL!

Sorry Professor Simpleton, but if mocking 14 year old fanfiction is the best you can come up with to either embarrass or to offend me personally, it was an Epic Fail....actually if he'd found my anime cosplay photos I'd really be red-faced - ever seen a 35 year old bald guy dressed like Aang from The Last Airbender complete with painted on arrow tattoos? God I'm such a nerd! Well in my defense I wasn't the only one at Comic Con doing so. (He he)

Nice try children, but I'm afraid you have to do a hell of a lot better. And next time you feel the need to troll come after me instead of dragging an entire writing community along for the ride. Of course, that would mean that this lowly college professor would have to have a pair of nuts....I won't hold my breath.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Whiteness, Schmiteness

 LibertyLamprey asks, "What exactly is white culture and white heritage?"

What I think it is really isn't germane to the conversation because the white culture and history mentioned in my memes refers to whatever it is about whiteness that leftists object to and put down. In other words, my memes take issue with what critics of white culture and history say it means. (Note, neither of my memes mention heritage, so one has to wonder why Lamprey brought it up.)

Thus, when I say it's okay for white people to like white people and associate together, I do it to counter a cultural meme in our country that implies, and sometimes says, that this is racist, and racism is evil, so white people who like each other and associate together are evil racists.


Here's another example of the concepts I'm talking about, and countering, that certainly aren't mine. Simpson sez, "Race often comes to mind when it comes to non-white people..." (comes to who's mind? His? Obviously. He just admitted it.) "... which, I’d suggest,** is part of what some scholars call whiteness studies: I don’t see whiteness as the norm (certainly not in the United States). But I don’t honor heritage or history (or criticize it) based on issues of color and race: again, it’s content (behavior, character, action) that interests me."

What this ignores is that the political and cultural thought being pushed on Americans today is not so nobly colorblind as Simpson professes to be, and it does honor heritage or history (or criticize it) based on issues of color and race.

Whiteness studies and critical race theory are "academic disciplines" that have been fabricated wholly or mostly in the 20th century to facilitate the transformation of the USA from a constitutional republic to a socialist democracy and eventually to pure communism. The target is the dominant cultural group that made the country such a success -- at least, in the eyes of those who wish to tear it down --  so that group is especially targeted. (Note, those who see the dominant cultural group as a target do not view as a success the country created largely by that group.)

One of the most schizoid aspects of leftist "whiteness" concepts is the claim that there is no such thing as race -- thus, there can be no such thing as the white race, but the white race is responsible for most ot humanity's evils. This is like the atheist who says to God, "You don't exist, and I hate you!"

I don't believe in "whiteness" anymore than I believe in "blackness' or "redness" or "brownness" or "yellowness." I believe there are people; I believe they can be grouped and classified according to certain characteristics (many, many more than mere color), the way we group and classify nearly everything else, from book genres to living things, from stars and planets to dialects and accents, from cars to clouds. In fact, classifying and categorizing according to various characteristics is a huge part of what science is.

The color-ness concept is designed to reduce or remove people's peopleness -- all their other classifiable and categorizing traits -- and assign to them a positive or negative status depending on what color group they are assigned to, and whether their group need to be emasculated in order to bring about the socialist utopia.

This is a wholly leftist undertaking, and largely an academic one, because academic leftists are eaten up with race, race, race, race, race (Simpson's ludicrous denial and explanation notwithstanding) and because they can influence their students to go out to "change the world."

And they call us racists.

So, Lamprey, how do you define white culture and white heritage? However you define it, that's what I'm talking about.

Howling and baying at Crossroads floggerette peanut gallery comment thread to commence in three...two...one....

**He would suggest? He doesn't know? Isn't there somebody at ASU that teaches it he can call?

Friday, December 13, 2013

The Attack Connie Marathon Continues at Crossroads

So many ways to lie! Simpson seems to delight in demonstrating them for us!

Regarding the Backsass post that shows a special meme I created just for him, he sez, "...this person is upset that I highlighted the taupe/tan set of slogans in a post that showed she’s really interested in white people. Note that I offered no comment as to its contents: I simply said that this is what she believes. Does she deny that?"

He highlighted it? To what purpose? That was just one of my memes posted at Crossroads in a nice little post parade, shown along with several others. Why spend so much time (according to my visitor log) collecting the graphics to showcase on his blog? That very act of collecting and displaying is a comment.

He sez,  "No one’s said that white people shouldn’t like white people." That implies I said white people SHOULD like white people, which is a lie, because I didn't say that. What the graphic clearly says is that it's OKAY for white people to like white people -- does he really think OKAY is the same as SHOULD? -- and the reason I added it to the meme is that the prevailing culture indeed implies and teaches that white people should not like white people -- or their own whiteness, for that matter. (See the Unfair Campaign or Noel Ignatiev‎.)

In his self-backpatting re: being proud of history and culture, what he fails to mention -- and I'm sure he knows it -- is that leftism is hostile to white European history and heritage, indeed, the entirety of western culture, and not just here, but around the world, blaming it for the world's ills. (Think of Jesse Jackson chanting, " Hey-hey, ho-ho,western civ has got to go." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/crosby112307.php3) The purpose of that is to make white people ashamed of their heritage and history in a way that others are not required to do. Simpson surely isn't so stupid or unobservant as to not know this but he pretends to not know it by changing the subject to individuals.

Again, he takes personally what my original meme intended collectively. Many, many of the advances of humanity were accomplished by white people, but according to  prevailing leftist (politically correct) thought, the only thing we are supposed to see when we look back into history is white evil, which is a function of creating white guilt so we will meekly acquiesce when our culture is transformed and/or replaced. I disagree with and disapprove of the dismantling and I think it's okay to see and be proud of the positive accomplishments that everyone, not just whites, benefit from.

He sez, "No one here has said that white people are responsible for the world’s evils." My original meme didn't say anyone at Crossroads DID say it. I created it to post on Facebook, and then put it on my blog. He was the one who took it to Crossroads, an act that implies criticism of the meme's content, even if the criticism is unspoken. That being the case, it was logical to assume he believes the opposite -- which is content of the blue meme. In fact, it is still logical, because his pretending that the content means personal feelings about individuals is a distortion.

In short, his whole post is an exercise in distorting meanings (mostly to create plausible deniability) including the zinger at the end -- defining my heritage as one statement by a kinsman several generations back. He's already lied about one of my collateral ancestors, Benjamin Chastain, discussed here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-professor-of-history-does-history.html  Given his track record for lying, especially about me and my ancestry, I don't put much of an emotional investment in what he says about Elijah Chastain.


In the above where I say, "That being the case, it was logical to assume he believes the opposite -- which is content of the blue meme."

He calls that my logic, and then uses it to claim that because I criticize anti-racism, that means I am for racism.

That is not my logic, it is his. In fact, I am on record establishing that I don't hold the idea that there are only two positions that are exact opposites. 
I know there is frequently a third alternative people often ignore -- and sometimes more than just three. I have blogged before about the false dichotomy exhibited by Simpson and his ilk -- and oftentimes, others. So the logic I refer to above is his, not mine.

Previous posts where I have showcased the false dichotomy illogic, and criticized it.

In any case, this comment thread contains some great illustrations of the false dichotomy, a leftist methodology I've posted about before on this blog -- that is, there are only two positions: an idea and its total, exact opposite. If you don't totally embrace the idea, then you totally embrace its opposite

The false dichotomy is one of their favorite methods for throwing off on somebody's beliefs.

Thus, if you don't agree with A you believe wholeheartedly in its total opposite, Z. ... Now, these guys know A and Z aren't the only alternatives.   There is also B through Y (which, I note, is emphatically not "narrow ground.")  A person whose intelligence they are savaging may believe in numerous alternatives to A and Z but Simpson and his pet white supe, Wallace, have to falsely narrow it down to only two alternatives in order to (1) lie about the person's beliefs and (2) attack their intelligence.
Thus, the "logic" he cites is his -- which is proven over and over at his blog -- not mine, which is proven over and over on my blog.

I Told You So

A few days ago, in my post about Corey's grand announcement that he's going to quit reading my blog, I said this: 
Academic-type floggers try to limit or restrict information by recognizing only what they agree with and calling it legitimate, while attempting to de-legitimize sources or writings they disagree with. 
You can see a clear and perfect example of this in the comment thread following Simpson's attack on me titled, "A Confederate Heritage Apologist on Slavery". Scroll down to his comments about Michael T. Griffith.

He claims Griffith has been discredited, but does not offer a scintilla of evidence for the claim.

I'm just supposed to believe it because Simpson says it? Ah, no. The answer is no.

Simpson has discredited himself with his lies -- for example, his concealing** information about Benjamin Chastain for the sole purpose of trying to embarrass me (didn't work), his recent statement that I claim to be an expert on rape accusation -- just two of dozens, maybe hundreds, of examples of Simpson lies.  You can't read my blog for long without encountering identification or documentation of his lies or other examples of questionable integrity -- including his desire to hurt and denigrate others. That has most often been seen regarding the Virginia Flaggers (who, so far as I know, have never done anything to him), but it's certainly not limited to them, as this article documents:

I don't doubt that Griffith could be mistaken about some things -- nobody's perfect -- but if Simpson is gonna call him discredited and "simple-minded" (there's the flogger desire to denigrate the intelligence of someone he disagrees with yet AGAIN) while Simpson himself lies like rug repeatedly about the Virginia Flaggers, and me, and others, he will have to find validation from one of his sycophantic peanut gallery floggerettes who themselves are willing to overlook hypocrisy and double standards.Cuz he won't get it from me.

Remember this one?
"Now continue your stalking (which
you admit doing on your blog)."

~Brooks Simpson, to Moi

I've never admitted such a thing. Never claimed it, never said it, never hinted at it, never alluded to it. He's a liar. He's been repeatedly challenged to link to said "admission." He doesn't because he can't because said "admission" doesn't exist. Because he lied about it.

** Either he concealed it, or didn't find it in his "research" online. which doesn't say much about his status as a historian, if he misses something so easy to find; I mean, I found it with no trouble. No, I suspect he left out information because it didn't fit with the "embarrassing" info he was trying to get across.  You can read about it here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-professor-of-history-does-history.html

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Rape Accusation "Expert" Speaks (Smirk)

Simpson sez, "As for rape, why, you would think that someone who claims to be an expert about rape accusations would know better."

Perfect example of the Simpson style of lying -- the insinuation that I claim to be an expert about rape accusations. I've never made such a claim, anywhere, ever.

Um... know better than what?

I said, regarding rape, that the huge, vast majority of the folks of the South did not rape as part of slavery or for any other reason, and most slaves were not raped. "Folks" in this case, would refer to white men.

Simpson gives this ludicrous, kneejerk reply. "Do you really believe that enslaved women were not raped by their masters and other whites? Seriously?"

Nothing I've said indicates I believe that. I simply don't believe it occurred as much as the evilizers of Southern whites believe, and want others to believe, and say it did. So this is a Simpson lie in the form of a question.

Then he sez, "Female slaves were raped. We don’t know how many."

Meaning the reverse is also true ... we don't know how few....

He also sez, "Were all those children of mixed race products of voluntary unions??"

All WHAT children of mixed race? How many were there? Hmmmm? We don't know how many women were raped, but we can get a reasonable count of how many mixed race people there were back then...and today.

But first, an introduction.

Back in the early 2000s or so, I met a man online who had just discovered he had Confederate soldier ancestors. This sparked a flame of curiosity in him, and like so many in that situation, he wanted to learn more. But he was willing to do the scholarship a lot of descendants don't have the time or expertise to do, and he wrote about his findings, quite extensively.

His short bio:   
Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History, a Bachelor of Science degree in Liberal Arts, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees. He also holds an Advanced Certificate in Civil War Studies and a Certificate in Civil War Studies. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas.  He has completed advanced Hebrew programs at the University of Haifa in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England.  He has written five books on Mormonism and ancient history and one book on the JFK assassination.
Here's an index to his articles: http://www.mtgriffith.com/index.php?p=1_5_Civil-War

His writings are copyrighted, and I use these excerpts under the fair use doctrine. The emphasis is added by me.

~~~Excerpt One~~~

Antebellum critics of slavery . . . accused slaveowners and overseers of turning plantations into personal harems.  They assumed that because the law permitted slaveowners to ravish black women, the practice must have been extremely common.  They also assumed that black women were, if not more licentious, at least more promiscuous than white women, and hence less likely to resist sexual advances by men, whether black or white.  Moreover, the ravishing of black women by white men was not the only aspect of sexual exploitation which devastated the slave family.  There was also the policy of deliberate slave-breeding, under which planters encouraged promiscuous relationships among blacks. . . .

The evidence on which these assumptions and conclusions were based was extremely limited.  While none of the various travelers through the South had seen deliberate slave-breeding practiced, they had all heard reports of it. Some travelers published conversations with men who admitted to fathering a large number of the slaves on their plantations.  Others wrote of the special solicitude shown by one or another master to mulatto offspring, a solicitude which in their minds strongly implied parenthood.  There were also the descriptions of the treatment of especially pretty slave women on the auction block and of the high prices at which such women sold, prices too high to be warranted by field labor and which could be explained only by their value as concubines or as prostitutes.

Even if all these reports were true, they constituted at most a few hundred cases.  By themselves, such a small number of observations out of a population of millions, could just as easily be used as proof of the infrequency of the sexual exploitation of black women as of its frequency. . . .  The prevalence of mulattoes convinced not only the northern public of the antebellum era, but historians of today, that for each case of exploitation identified, there were thousands which had escaped discovery.  For travelers to the South reported that a large proportion of the slaves were not the deep black of Africans from the Guinea coast but tawny, golden, and white or nearly white.  Here was proof beyond denial of either the ubiquity [widespread occurrence] of the exploitation of black women by white men, or of the promiscuity of black women, or both.

But this seemingly irrefutable evidence is far from conclusive.  It is not the eyesight of these travelers to the South which is questionable, but their statistical sense.  For mulattoes were not distributed evenly through the Negro population.  They were concentrated in the cities and especially among freedmen According to the 1860 census, 39 percent of freedmen in southern cities were mulattoes.  Among urban slaves the proportion of mulattoes was 20 percent.  In other words, one out of every four Negroes living in a southern city was a mulatto.  But among rural slaves, who constituted 95 percent of the slave population, only 9.9 percent were mulatto in 1860.  For the slave population as a whole, therefore, the proportion of mulattoes was just 10.4 percent in 1860 and 7.7 percent in 1850.  Thus it appears that travelers to the South greatly exaggerated the extent of miscegenation because they came into contact with unrepresentative samples of the Negro population. . . .  Far from proving that the exploitation of black women was ubiquitous [widespread], the available data on mulattoes strongly militate against that contention.

The fact that during the twenty-three decades of contact between slaves and whites which elapsed between 1620 and 1850 only 7.7 percent of the slaves were mulattoes suggests that on average only a very small percentage of the slaves were fathered by white men.  This inference is not contradicted by the fact that the percentage of mulattoes increased by one third during the last decade of the antebellum era, rising from 7.7 to 10.4 percent.  For it must be remembered that mulattoes were the progeny not just of unions between whites and pure blacks but also of unions between mulattoes and blacks.  Under common definition, a person with one-eighth ancestry of another race was a mulatto.  Consequently, the offspring of two slaves who were each one-eighth white was to be classified as a mulatto, as was the offspring of any slave, regardless of the ancestry of his or her mate, whose grandfather was a white.

~~~Excerpt Two~~~

A demographic model of the slave population . . . shows that the census data alone cannot be used to sustain the contention that a large proportion of slave children must have been fathered by white men.  And other available bodies of evidence, such as the W.P.A. survey of former slaves, throw such claims into doubt.  Of those in the survey who identified parentage, only 4.5 percent indicated that one of their parents had been white.  But the work of geneticists on gene pools has revealed that even the last figure may be too high.  Measurements of the admixture of “Caucasian” and “Negro” genes among southern rural blacks today indicate that the share of Negro children fathered by whites on slave plantations probably averaged between 1 and 2 percent.

That these findings seem startling is due in large measure to the widespread assumption that because the law permitted masters to ravage their slave women, they must have exercised that right.  As one scholar recently put it, “Almost every white mother and wife connected with the institution [of slavery] either actually or potentially shared the males in her family with slave women.”  The trouble with this view is that it recognizes no forces operating on human behavior other than the force of statute law.  Yet many rights permitted by legal statues and judicial decisions are not widely exercised, because economic and social forces militate against them.

To put the issue somewhat differently, it has been presumed that masters and overseers must have ravished black women frequently because their demand for such sexual pleasures was high and because the cost of satisfying that demand was low.  Such arguments overlook the real and potentially large costs that confronted masters and overseers who sought sexual pleasures in the slave quarters.  The seduction of the daughter or wife of a slave could undermine the discipline that planters so assiduously strove to attain.  Not only would it stir anger and discontent in the families affected, but it would undermine the air of mystery and distinction on which so much of the authority of large planters rested.  Nor was it just a planter’s reputation in the slave quarter of his plantation that would be at stake.  While he might be able to prevent news of his nocturnal adventure from being broadcast in his own house, it would be more difficult to prevent his slaves from gossiping to slaves on other plantations. . . .

For the overseer, the cost of sexual episodes in the slave quarter, once discovered, was often his job.  Nor would he find it easy to obtain employment elsewhere as an overseer, since not many masters would be willing to employ as their manager a man who was known to lack self-control on so vital an issue.  “Never employ an overseer who will equalize himself with the negro women,” wrote Charles Tait to his children.  “Besides the morality of it, there are evils too numerous to be now mentioned.”

Nor should one underestimate the effect of racism on the demand of white males for black sexual partners.  While some white men might have been tempted by the myth of black sexuality, a myth that may be stronger today than it was in the antebellum South, it is likely that far larger numbers were put off by racist aversions.  Data on prostitutes support this conjecture. . . .  The substantial underrepresentation of Negroes, as well as the complete absence of dark-skinned Negroes, indicates that white men who desired illicit sex had a strong preference for white women. . . .

The contention that the slave family was undermined by the widespread promiscuity of blacks is as poorly founded as the thesis that masters were uninhibited in their sexual exploitation of slave women.  Indeed, virtually no evidence, other than the allegations of white observers, has ever been presented which sustains the charge that promiscuity among slaves was greater than that found among whites. . . .


Yep, Simpson is right. We don't know how many slave women were raped; but this data suggests it was very few, which is bound to distress and anger the evilizers of Southern whites....