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