Monday, March 31, 2014

How a Liar Lies, Part.... Whatever

From Simpson's flog --
As for Ms. Chastain on rape, here’s what she said a few years ago about efforts to deal with rape by the federal government:

 More and more, radical feminists are showing their hand, proving that the hatred of men is the core of their “philosophy” and its ultimate aim the destruction of men. How can we reach any other conclusion when they can’t wait to throw innocent young men to the lions over imaginary rape?
That’s Connie for you.
And this is a perfect example of one of Simpson's favorite methods of lying.  My comments he took out of context weren't about "efforts to deal with rape by the federal government" (although I consider actual rape to be a crime under state juristiction, not federal). They were specifically about efforts to lower the standard of proof in sexual assault cases on college campuses.

And it's hardly "Connie, for you." It's a great many people, for you:

Lowering the standard of proof for rape

I simply believe in the American principle that accused people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I do not accept that "accused" and "guilty" are the same thing. I also don't believe that a hookup -- consensual sex -- becomes rape just because the woman wakes up the next day and has regrets about it. 

There is indeed such a thing as rape -- it is a crime, a sin, a heinous act. But consensual sex that a woman later regrets is not rape. And I am adamantly opposed to a law that would make a man guilty of rape for having consensual sex.

When I say "imaginary rape," that's what I'm talking about -- consensual sex that "becomes" rape when a woman has morning-after regrets. (And that is just one of many reasons why women lie about rape.)

I also totally reject the claim 20 percent to 25 percent of women -- the infamous 1 in 4 statistic -- are victims of forced sex during their time in college. That has been repeatedly debunked. Here is one such debunking:


As for Simpson's dishonest cherrypicking, he posted 61 words of my 655 word essay written for The False Rape Society. Most of it isn't even about rape at all, it's about the Democrats' phony "war on women" claims -- and some evidence why they're phony.  Here's the essay in its entirety:
Friday, April 15, 2011
Gender 101: The War on Women
by Connie Chastain

Earlier this month, before the federal government's budget deal was struck, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman from San Francisco, former Speaker of the House, she of the periwinkle blue suit and ginormous gavel of the health care free-for-all, spoke at the Women Money Power Summit sponsored by the Feminist Majority Foundation. According to CNN, she said there is a war on women.

Her reason for so saying was the budget battle then in progress. Her proof was the proposed cuts to Planned Parenthood and the overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid, the predominant recipients of which are women.

Of course, Pelosi was just engaging in partisan politics -- the mean old Republicans vs. the saintly Democrats. No big deal, business as usual in national politics, right? Except that feminists have used the government (both parties and the taxpayers' money), along with the courts, academia and the popular culture, to foist their worldview and agenda off onto society for decades. That being the case, it might be instructive to look at whether the Republicans' alleged war on women will impact existing (and firmly ensconced) female privilege that pervades our culture.

The fact that women are predominantly the recipients of Medicare and Medicade should tell you something. Women live, on average, five years longer than men. And there is a war on women?

Moreover, if cutting Planned Parenthood's budget means women with STDs have to use their own money to pay for dealing with the results of their pomiscuity, I can't get too upset about that. That's not the taxpayers' responsibility, anyway; never has been.

Women make up the majority of the voters in this country, and the majority of the workforce. They control spending. Seventy-plus percent of divorces are initiated by women; mothers are awarded custody of children in most of those divorces, despite the fact that the majority of child abusers in the United States are women/mothers, and that the safest place for women and children is in a family headed by the husband/father. Discriminatory laws favor women in employment; standards men must pass are lowered for women candidates.

That doesn't sound like a war on women to me. It sounds like female privilege and it seems unlikely that the Republican's budget-war on women with change that.

There is a war for Ms. Pelosi to observe, however, and there's no better proof than Title IX and the VAWA. The latest salvo in the Title IX theater is found in the Obama Administration's directive that lowers the standards of proof in sexual assault cases on college campuses, covered eloquently by Archivist's recent posts on this blog. (Archivist was the screen name for Pierce Harlan, and his blog was The False Rape Society; it has been renamed The Community of the Wrongly Accused. --cw.)

Nah, Ms. Pelosi probably wouldn't be interested, because this is a war on men. You can't read the blog entries on this subject and reach any other conclusion. I have to wonder, though, about feminists like Nancy Pelosi -- women who have sons, husbands, brothers and fathers. Yes, the men of her family are shielded from the war on men by money (incomprehensible amounts of it) and political power. But has she no comprehension of and sympathy for those who are not so shielded?

If anyone doubts that feminism is, in fact, built upon the hatred of men, the Obama Administration's directive is one more proof that's hard to ignore. In my opinion, lowering the standard of proof of sexual assault isn't intended to protect or help rape victims, or even to punish the guilty. Its aim is to punish the innocent who happen to be men -- because they are men. Feminist may deny this, but they'll never convince me.

More and more, radical feminists are showing their hand, proving that the hatred of men is the core of their "philosophy" and its ultimate aim the destruction of men. How can we reach any other conclusion when they can't wait to throw innocent young men to the lions over imaginary rape?

War on women? What a very unfunny joke.
While I do not approve of pre-marital or extra-marital sex by either women or men, neither do I approve of sending men to prison  for doing nothing more than what their accuser did -- i.e., indulging in consensual sex. And I certainly don't approve of lowering the standards for proof in order to send to prison more and more men who are innocent of rape

Again, I can only conclude that Simpson, Liberty Lamprey and the rest of the flogger peanut gallery have no  problem calling something rape that isn't rape, and sending innocent men to prison for 20 or 30 years.

Excited! New Computer in the Works!

Just got the kit for my new computer ordered. Most of it is shipping from California (motherboard, hard drive, etc.) Desktop case and optical drive shipping from Texas. Will be here Thursday or Friday. Assembly should be completed early next week.

My computer guy is going to install Windows 7 and Ubuntu and make Windows 7 as backward-compatible with as much of my current software as possible. YAY!

I'm soooo excited. I'm not real savvy about computer hardware, but looking at what's been ordered, I think my new mo-chine is gonna kick some serious bootay....Robust motherboard, massive ram, mountains of storage capacity....

I have to say, though, my cheap little Circuit City HP laptop has been a trooper for eight years.... Well done, HP. Well done.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

How Liars Lie (Again)

Last November, I examined how liars lie -- specifically, how Simpson lies -- regarding his post about Clint Lacy. You can read that here.

But it isn't just Simpson. Several members of his floggerette peanut gallery are consummate liars. The one I want to focus on now is Liberty Lamprey, who recently posted:
What is it with these people and their obsessions with “rape”? They advocate it, they defend it and then accuse others of doing it.

Is it me, or are there some weird sexual power issues with the Confed fantasy crowd?

Backass has nothing against rape, in fact it is something her “sweet WHITE southern boys” have the right to do. She not only writes propaganda articles to support them to rape, but has a self published trash novel where she also gets to advocate their right to rape and plug her warped swamp rat racism and hatred.
Let's deconstruct this to determine exactly which parts of it are lies.

Lamprey begins: What is it with these people...

I'm not sure who "these people" are that s/he's talking about, although s/he obviously includes me. I can't speak for whoever else s/he has in mind, but I can and do speak for myself.

LIE:  ...and their obsessions with “rape”? (Whether these quotes are scare quotes or irony quotes, this is a lie.)

LIE: They advocate it...

LIE: ... then accuse others of doing it.

Lamprey then asks, "Is it me, or are there some weird sexual power issues with the Confed fantasy crowd?"   It's just you, dude. Or dude-ette, whichever you are. Maybe your death fetish interferes with your perceiving things accurately.

LIE:  Backass (sic) has nothing against rape...  S/He may think the intentional misspelling of the name of my blog is cute but it's really just petty and childish, like so much else s/he writes.

LIE:  ... in fact it is something her “sweet WHITE southern boys” have the right to do.

LIE:  She not only writes propaganda articles to support them to rape...

LIE  ...but has a self published trash novel where she also gets to advocate their right to rape...

LIE:  ...and plug her warped swamp rat racism and hatred.

* * *

I don't have a lot of money, or any material thing of great value I could offer as a reward to any one for finding proof of any of what Lamprey's claiming. Of course, since I never said/claimed/suggested anything s/he's accusing here, nobody would win the reward, even if I had it to offer.

My blog has a search function. You can also search it with Google using this format in the address bar:  search-term site:  For example:

rape site:

Other search terms might include "false rape" or "false accusation." But whatever term you use, you will not not find where I have advocated rape, or where I have claimed it is something “sweet WHITE southern boys” -- or any one else -- has  the right to do.

Of course, Lamprey isn't going to use the search function. No flogger or floggerette will do it, because they don't want to be confronted with the truth -- which is, Lamprey is lying about this.

Apparently, people like Liberty Lamprey, Simpson and others of their ilk, have difficulty distinguishing between rape and not-rape. They have difficulty distinguishing between rape, and a false accusation of rape. I'm not sure why they should have such difficulty... I'm sure they can tell the difference between theft and a false accusation of theft, or between cheating on a test, and a false accusation of cheating on a test. And presumably, they would not approve of accusing somebody of cheating on a test who, in fact, did not cheat. Presumably, they would not approve of accusing somebody of theft who, in fact, has not stolen anything.

But accusing a man of rape he hasn't committed is apparently okay with them. And if they are okay with that, are they also okay with an innocent man spending 30 years in prison for a rape he did not commit?

I do not support sending innocent men to prison, just as I do not support letting rapists go unpunished. The difference between me and the floggers and their followers, apparently, is that I distinguish between rapists and innocent men.

Update: Simpson's Obsession

Although Simpson's attacks on the Virginia Flaggers have tapered off lately, they have not ended. He's turned his smear machine toward other Southern heritage targets, but he certainly has not abandoned his obsession with the VaFlaggers.

Since our last update in Mid-February, he has posted about the VaFlaggers (or he or a floggerette  have mentioned them in the comments) another ten times.

I did not count posts or comments about moi, unless there was a specific attempt to smear the VaFlaggers using me. If I had counted them, the tally would be even higher.

New count -- 22 posts in 2014, bringing the grand total since his first post on December 12, 2011 to 149.

Major General Nathanael Greene

Thanks to the gentleman who posted this video on Facebook.

Some of my Virginia forebears fought Cornwallis with Maj. Gen. Greene at Guilford Courthouse.

I have other Revolutionary ancestors, as well, of whom I'm very proud. One of them gave beef to the Continental Army. Another, Rev. John "Ten Shilling Bell" Chastain, is considered a colonial patriot by the DAR. Very proud, indeed.

Blooper of the Month

This month's blooper comes from a man who is a professor at a major state university and who is critical of Southern heritage enough to lie, harass, persecute and denigrate heritage folks, almost always over nothing -- such as an insignificant typo ... a typo that was clearly acknowledged by the one who made it.

Said blooper was made in the very post denigrating the typo and the one who made it

Screenshot of his blooper that appeared at his slimy flog:

With with?  

If you're going to denigrate somebody for a simple mistake -- the erroneous addition of one, o-n-e, (1),  alpha character -- you'd better make sure your denigration prose is error-free ... especially if you are professing to be a flippin' PROFESSOR.


And can you say Karma? Kinda puts me in mind of of this...

Except it's not really redneck road rage. It's a Flogger foot-in-mouth show. LOL!!!  How do you spell comeuppance?  B-r-o-o-k-s   D.  S-i-m-p-s-o-n.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Excited! Smallfoot in Beta Reads

Chris Dupree never believed in crypto-primates -- 
until they threatened the woman  he loved.

I'm excited! Beta readers have started reading  Love in Smallfoot Alley, a novella about a sweet Alabama girl, the misogynist who falls in love with her, a mysterious medical research facility under contract to the Pentagon, and strange creatures that roam the forests of west Alabama and endanger the heroine's life.

Front cover for print and ebook versions has been finalized. Still to do: the back-cover blurb, any minor edits and re-writes indicated by the beta readers, typesetting (print book) and formatting (ebook) and finalizing the video trailer.

After that -- on to Little Sister, Neo-Confederate, Catamount, Gone South and Flagger!

Thursday, March 27, 2014

The War on Confederate Heritage

Yet another salvo in that war to erase Confederate heritage and evilize white Southerners who refuse to knuckle under to an arbitrary politically correct viewpoint. Video here:

TX school asks student to remove confederate shirt

Anybody who tries to tell you, "Oh, it's just the battle flag that's offensive, because it was tarnished by the KKK and racists during the civil rights era," is either lying or duped. The goal of the left is the total erasure of any and all Confederate artifacts from the Southern landscape, and all traces of the Confederacy from the American memory.

A Tiny Hit on the SPLC's Credibility

'Shocked' Anti-Defamation League slaps FBI 'diss on hate crimes

By Paul Bedard | MARCH 26, 2014 AT 5:39 PM

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as "hate groups" for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a "resource" on the FBI's Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group. 

The Web page scrubbing, which also included eliminating the Anti-Defamation League, was not announced and came in the last month after 15 family groups pressed Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey to stop endorsing a group -- SPLC -- that inspired a recent case of domestic terrorism at the Family Research Council. 

 Of course, just because there's no link on the FBI website, that doesn't mean the feds and the SPLC haters are not still in each other's back pockets... They still probably exchange info, but even this tiny hit on the SPLC's credibility is a step, albeit a tiny one, in the right direction.

Monday, March 24, 2014

He's Still Doing It

Simpson sez:
Connie whines in response that she’s been the victim of the same practice, and that I only quoted part of what she said.
He tried to make me look totally uninformed about the Emmett Till case, or unsympathetic toward the victim.
This is what she said at the time:
Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the [sic] was brutally murdered for it.
 I said more than that, and he's still lying about it.
Give her credit: she realized the murder was “an atrocity.” But, as her comment at the time suggests, she still doesn’t quite understand why.
My acknowledgement that the murder was an atrocity was what he originally left out of text he stole from Backsass and posted at his blog, in order to slander and lie about me. My comment at the time was, "Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the was brutally murdered for it. The murder was an atrocity, but it has absolutely no connection whatever to the story in my novel."

That doesn't suggest I don't quite understand why. It suggests I understand exactly the kind of libel Simpson was attempting to perpetrate against me.
After all, as she said, “Notice, too, how he fraudulently labels the the Till case as an example of ‘false accusation’ …”; in short, she still believes Till was rightly accused. Guess those sweet southern boys were justified in what they did in the fantasy world of Connie Chastain. They simply should have gone about it a different way. 
That is simply another way of lying. His original lie said, "But I guess she trusts the accounts of the sweet southern boys who killed Till." 

As I also clearly stated in Jun 2013, "I trust the account of the murderers? No. And as I understand it, there were several conflicting accounts, and, also significantly, Simpson doesn't tell us which one(s) to believe."

I've never read anything about the case that said Till was accused -- i.e., charged -- at all. When I say Till was not falsely accused, I mean that I've found no written accounts about the case that indicated Carolyn Bryant went to the police and filed any charges against him. I've read that she did not even tell her husband about the incident, that he heard it from others. I have also read that there were conflicting accounts, and that what happened is still disputed today.

In any case, before it could be established whether one account was true, and which one, or whether any of them were, Till was murdered. That's what I meant by he was not falsely accused, I'm sure Simpson is smart enough, and  has a reasonable enough level of reading comprehension, to figure it out. 

But being reasonable and acknowledging reality is not where he's at, when it comes to moi. His objective is to lie -- to accuse me of approving of murder and creating fictional characters who parallel Till's murderers. (I would love to know that does for him, wouldn't you? Though it may be something normal, decent people can't understand or relate to).

Next, he sez, "Will Connie return to defending/excusing Billy Bearden for expressing the wish that someone gets raped?"

Ah, naw. I don't have to defend or excuse Billy because I'm convinced he didn't mean it. It was not a serious, credible wish. It was some over-the-top rhetoric posted in the heat of anger -- once. That's O-N-C-E. Posted ONCE. Contrast it with years-long, oft-repeated, ongoing hate-slime Simpson posts at his scum-flog, his lies and, yes, his informal false accusations, his willingness, eagerness -- even his attempts -- to cause trouble for people who have done nothing to him.

Billy's an angel, a saint, by comparison.

Once more, the proposed victim would be black. Once more, the person sharing a wish for violence (at least it’s not committing violent acts) is white. Maybe one reason some people are defined as belonging to protected classes is that they need to be protected from vile white supremacists.

No, that's not what they're "protected" for/from.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Misrepresenting What an Author Writes

Amazing. So, what we have here is someone deliberately misrepresenting what an author wrote in order to gain points from the usual suspects, including the always reliable Billy Bearden. You remember Billy, don’t you? Now watch other people defend or excuse that practice.     ~ Brooks Simpson 
Simpson is an expert at that. Here's an example of his deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote by omitting part of it, and taking it back to his blog to gain points from his floggerette peanut gallery. He did so to try to make me look uninformed about the Emmett Till case, or unsympathetic toward the victim.

He has misrepresented my novels in the same way, although the freely admits he hasn't read them.

Whatever he chooses to attempt to smear heritage folks with, you can pretty much bank on his being guilty of the same and usually much worse.

It Was Twenty Years Ago Today

I had a very enjoyable time yesterday at Joe Scarborough's 20-Year Reunion for his campaign volunteers. Although after the campaign, several of us maintained contact the years he was in Congress -- especially we who worked in his district office -- there were folks there I had not seen since his first campaign, when he was a 30-year-old unknown with no political experience taking on Earl Hutto, a 16-year incumbent.

Had to look at name tags to recognize a few people...heck, ain't none of  us getting any younger. Had some laughs. Chatted with Joe's mom, shared  memories of her husband, George, who passed away several years ago. There were others no longer with us that brought home the passage of time. 

I got a big hug, three pecks on the cheeks and some nice words of welcome and remembrance from the former member of Congress and talk-TV host. I gave him an autographed copy of Southern Man. Noted the slight graying  at Joe's temples. Very distinguished looking, though in many ways, he still looks so much like that thirty-year-old who was inspired -- goaded? -- to run for Congress by the election of Bill Clinton, and the leftward lurch of the country afterward.

I left the Congressional office in 1998; worked for Joe at The Florida Sun for a while after that, and helped prepare the Congressional office for the incoming member, Jeff Miller, after Joe resigned. But basically, my interest in national politics ended with the Clinton impeachment hearings. If memory serves, I didn't vote in any presidential elections after that, until my vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, which wasn't so much a vote for the Republican candidate as it was a vote against the Democrat incumbent. My main reason for voting for Romney was my belief that he would be immensely better for the economy than Barack Obama.

Me and Joe, Back in the Day
Joe reminisced about the accomplishments of the 104th Gingrich-led Republicans in DC, and how the GOP has changed since then, giving rise to the Tea Party. But he says the country is strong and it will survive eight years of Barack Obama. I'm not so sure.  It would be interesting to know  his perspective, and why he thinks that. From where I sit, the USA is not only weak and growing weaker all the time -- its culture, politics, religion and nearly every other aspect of its existence are practically unrecognizable.

Still, it was nice to see folks, and remember when we were younger, had boundless energy and  genuine hope for the country.

And  now, back to defending Dixie and writing books.


For Brad Griffin:  Nanner nanner boo boo.

                                                                                                         Photo by C. Ward

Friday, March 21, 2014

Some Questions for Andy Hall

 Over at Kevin Levin's flog, following the post about the controversy at Beauvoir, Andy Hall makes one of his usual harangues against Southern heritage. I'll include it at the conclusion of this blog post.

Meanwhile, I have some questions for Andy about his comments. Of course, he won't answer. He has avoided me like the plague ever since I confirmed that my purpose is to question the motives, or agenda, or character of heritage bashers such as himself, Simpson, Levin, etc. (Read about that here: Pusillanimous Poltroons.) These folks love to question the motives, agenda, character, intelligence and knowledge of Southern heritage people -- and not just to question it, but to denigrate, scorn and ridicule. For all their protest that it's about history, not heritage with them, it really is more about hate than history.

 So anyway, some parts of his comment about Beauvoir got me curious, and I want to ask some questions. He's too cowardly to come here and answer, or anywhere else, probably, but I think anyone can see these are perfectly legit and pertinent questions, and his refusal to answer will be telling.

Andy sez: For a long time now, “Confederate heritage” has amounted to little more that the display of more and bigger battle flags. It really is that shallow.

 (1) Where did your information come from that this is what it amounts to? Is this not merely your opinion? And as such, what is it based on; your own personal observations? How do you know you're seeing the whole picture? Has it occurred to you that maybe it is your observation, or your prejudice, that really are that shallow?

Andy: My guess is that Bertram Hayes-Davis, who is undoubtedly committed to the legacy of his ancestor, but is also someone who came to Beauvoir from the corporate world, understands instinctively that you can carry the unreconstructed rebel shtick just so far before it becomes a liability in the effort to garner wider public support for an organization or business.

(2) [a] Your guess is that's what he understands? What is  your guess based on?  Please define "unreconstructed rebel shtick". Give an example of it. Substantiate that it is real and not a product of your imagination, or your prejudice and desire to denigrate. [b] How do you know his motives regarding the legacy of his ancestor? Is this simply a conclusion you've drawn from reading recent news stories?

Andy: We’ve seen it over and over again, from the Confederate Air Force to Maurice’s Piggy Pork (sic) Barbecue, where organizations recognize that loudly banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose and the need to win as wide support as possible.

(3) Since the Confederate Air Force (now the Commemorative Air Force) is not and never was a Confederate heritage organization, can you please advice when and how they banged the Confederate heritage drum?

Maurice Bessinger was the target of a concerted campaign of media smears and financial ruin by Columbia's The State newspaper, the NAACP and their individual followers and other who bullied grocery retailers into removing Bessinger's product from their shelves. In at least one instance, people entered a supermarket and threw bottles of Bessinger's sauce on the floor, breaking them and creating a mess --  a "lesson" that surely was not lost on other supermarkets. Punishment for such vandalism wasn't reported anywhere that I could find.

(4) As in Bessinger's case, how is becoming the purposeful target of financial ruin by NON-Confederate heritage organizations and individuals a recognition that "banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose"?

(5) Will you be man enough to admit that you have mischaracterized these two cases in order to mischaracterized heritage, and make an invalid point?

Andy: Beauvoir's "...future as a viable museum and research institution is certainly threatened if visitors to Biloxi expect they’re going to get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points."

(6) Why would visitors expect that?

(7) Have you ever visited Beauvoir?

(8) If you have, did you get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points?

I contacted somebody I know who visited Beauvoir before Katrina and I asked her about her visit, and whether there was haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points. Her reply:
There wasn’t any haranguing about anything. We pretty much wandered around and looked at things. A woman accompanied us into the house and told us about this object and that object, like, that some of the upholstered furniture had been stuffed with Spanish moss, and the process they’d gone through to prepare the moss for such usage (and I doubt that any of those pieces of furniture still exist, although it’s possible, I suppose). I’m trying to remember, but I think the kinds of things she said weren’t Confederate or anti-Confederate, just telling us about how the family would have lived in the house. There wasn’t any “guide” or anything when we went through the museum building. There were plaques that explained what the display items were, so there wasn’t a need for a guide. And when we walked the grounds and visited the graveyard, we were unaccompanied.

(9) Why should I believe that your descriptions and characterizations of the "heritage crowd" are objective and accurate rather than deep mischaracterizations that flow from your hatred of Confederate heritage and your desire to denigrate?

Andy's entire comment at Levin's flog:
For a long time now, “Confederate heritage” has amounted to little more that the display of more and bigger battle flags. It really is that shallow.

Jefferson Davis is best known as president of the Confederacy, of course, but there’s a whole lot more to his life and public career than the four years between 1861 and 1865. It’s not really surprising that the SCV would try to make Beauvoir a top-to-bottom Confederate shrine, but that misses a lot of the potential there.

My guess is that Bertram Hayes-Davis, who is undoubtedly committed to the legacy of his ancestor, but is also someone who came to Beauvoir from the corporate world, understands instinctively that you can carry the unreconstructed rebel shtick just so far before it becomes a liability in the effort to garner wider public support for an organization or business. We’ve seen it over and over again, from the Confederate Air Force to Maurice’s Piggy Pork Barbecue, where organizations recognize that loudly banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose and the need to win as wide support as possible.

Beauvoir can’t be disengaged from the Confederacy in the same way, of course, but its future as a viable museum and research institution is certainly threatened if visitors to Biloxi expect they’re going to get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points. I really do believe that at some subconscious level, the heritage crowd would rather see institutions like Beauvoir and the Museum of the Confederacy implode, rather than adapt to the changing reality of the United States (and the South) in the early 21st century. They would gladly sacrifice those institutions and their collections for the sake of being able to commiserate about “cultural genocide” on Facebook. A continually-and mutually-reinforced sense of resentful victimhood has been both their defining purpose and long-term goal for a long time now.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Summer Camp for Kids

So now, Kevin Levin has his knickers in a knot over the Sam Davis Youth Camp, which he calls a cult, and about which he makes all kinds of assertion based on reading a few paragraphs online.

His commenters thus far are equally knicker-knotted.

Pat Young, perhaps in anticipation that someone might bring up leftist youth camps, brings them up himself, and attempts to inoculate those camps from criticism. Sez Pat:
It is rare in a summer camp video that the phrase “our enemies” is used so many times.

At first I assumed this was just a conservative version of the leftist Jewish summer camps that many of my friends attended, like Camp Kinderland, set up by Arbeter Ring and other bundists. However, where they promote free discussion, albeit within a set of presumably like-minded kids, Sam Davis seems focused on shutting down critical examination.

NOTE TO CAMP SAM DAVIS: Don’t end a promo for a “fun” camp with sinister music.
I'm not sure what video Young is talking about. Levin doesn't link to one (or else he has the link well-hidden). There are several videos about the camp on YouTube. Most of the ones I played had upbeat music. The only one I found with "sinister" music was not a promotional video. If that was the one Young was talking about, let me note that it is a documentary and it deals with some somber subjects, making the music quite appropriate.

Let me repeat. It was not a a promotional video. It was a documentary.

But when people are motivated by the need to mischaracterize and the desire to denigrate, their own common sense and rationality are usually among the first things they'll throw under the bus.

Also note that what he calls "leftist Jewish summer camps" (which he praises for "promoting free discussion" -- for which we only have his word), are, according to Ron Radosh, communist youth camps. Not leftist, not socialist -- COMMUNIST. And for all the "free discussion" Pat claims they promote, they certainly do turn out a lot of  "progressive" campers.  More from Mr. Radosh, here.

Kinderland was founded in 1923 by secular Jews active in the New York City trade union movement, most of them Communists or socialists. And the camp exists today and it's website claims “Camp Kinderland is true to the vision of its founders,”

NetRightDaily has more information on Camp Kinderland --
The article references, "Raising Reds" by Paul C. Mishler which says, "Communist organizations, including Camp Kinderland, 'established children’s organizations, after-school programs, and summer camps with the aim of developing ‘revolutionary consciousness' in the minds of the younger generation."
Revolutionary consciousness, huh?
The article goes on to say, Would you send your kids to this camp that (Obama Admin BLS Commissioner Erica) Groshen did with such a history? The New York Times article from Rosenberg’s granddaughter says they actually locked kids up in their bunks and led them into communal gas chambers to emulate Holocaust extermination techniques, refused to accept packages sent by the children’s parents in solidarity with some truckers who were on strike and even considered lighting their lake on fire to protest the bombing of Hiroshima. Does this sound like a normal camp?
Free discussion? What a scream!

Please, Pat Young, give me a break.  By comparison, Sam Davis Youth Camp is the very PICTURE of the free exchange of ideas.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Backtalk to the Sun-Herald

This editorial in the Sun Herald of Biloxi/Gulfport about the "flap" at Beauvoir begged for response. So  here it is:
Beauvoir’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina was never a certainty. Yet until just a few weeks ago, it seemed Beauvoir had not only regained lost ground, but was advancing as never before. Now Beauvoir, a landmark on the beachfront since 1852, appears to be in full retreat.
Why does a historical site need to "advance"?
Katrina’s storm surge destroyed five of the seven buildings on the grounds of the Jefferson Davis Home and Presidential Library. It left the two still standing — Beauvoir itself and the new presidential library-museum — heavily damaged. While it was determined that Beauvoir, Davis’ last home, could be restored, it was decided the library-museum building would have to be demolished and rebuilt a little higher above, and a little further from the shoreline. Money could and would accomplish those feats.
 But Beauvoir needed more to move beyond being a static memorial to Davis and the ill-fated Confederate States of America, over which Davis presided.
Sez who? And why?
Remarkably, the ingredients came together to transform Beauvoir into a tourist destination of increasing appeal.
Beauvoir is appealing enough for being what it is.
Bertram Hayes-Davis, Davis’ own great-great-grandson, was hired as executive director. He brought an expansive and inclusive approach to activities at Beauvoir. Andi Oustalet agreed to create from scratch Christmas at Beauvoir, a stunning seasonal attraction that was successful from the start.
What has Christmas light exhibits got to do with Jefferson Davis and the Confederate soldiers for whom Beauvoir is a shrine?
Varina’s Garden, as envisioned by Davis’ wife, flowered back to life after years of planning and delay. Associations were being forged with other state and national institutions to bring exhibits and attractions and speakers to the site.
What KIND of exhibits and attractions?  Dinosaur exhibits? Goofy Golf?  Slot machines? What speakers?  Robert Kiyosaki? Gary Gallagher?
All the while Beauvoir seemed to be serving its historic function as a shrine to both Davis and the Confederacy, hundreds of whose soldiers are buried on the grounds. Memorial services and re-enactments were still regularly conducted to honor and recapture the past even as new and more broadly appealing activities were taking place and shape.
Beauvoir's  raison d'ĂȘtre gets reduced to memorial services and re-enactments. "New and more broadly appealing activities" means more irrelevant stuff designed to disguise, overshadow and outweigh Confederate history and heritage and Beauvoir's connection to them -- and eventually to obliterate them altogether.
It appeared to be a harmonious blend of old and new, the success of which would carry both well into the future. When a convention of travel writers recently visited attractions across South Mississippi, Beauvoir was one of the primary focal points. The closing ceremonies for the convention were held there. Like other Coast attractions, Beauvoir has since received invaluable free — and positive — publicity as a result.
That publicity may now acquire a sharply negative tone.
Why? Because the SCV refuses to let Beauvoir's mission and purpose be compromised and eventually erased?

Hayes-Davis’ resignation has been accepted and Oustalet’s volunteerism — which was recognized statewide — has been deemed unwelcome by the Mississippi Division of the Columbia, Tenn.-based Sons of Confederate Veterans. It was their call to make. Varnia (sic) Davis gave Beauvoir to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, with the understanding that the organization maintain it or it becomes state property.

Still, it is a confusing and bewildering turn of events. The Sun Herald was among those in the community who championed developments at Beauvoir over the last few years as the best approach yet to the institution’s transformation into a site worthy of promotion and visitation.
Why must the site be "transformed"? It is what it is; why must it become what it is not in order to be "worthy" of promotion and visitation?
Like many others, we now no longer know what to think about — or expect from — those in control of Beauvoir.
I can't speak for the Sons, of course, but my guess is that you can probably expect them to not share your eagerness to strip Beauvoir of its historical significance and mission.

Hayes-Davis appeared to be willing to water down Confederate history and heritage with irrelevancies. I'm favorably inclined to visitors interested in history and interested in those for whom Beauvoir -- the soldiers and especially Jefferson Davis -- is a shrine. I'm quite indifferent to visitors who come to see Christmas lights, particularly when you can see Christmas lights nearly anywhere.

Beauvoir needs to make enough money to keep it maintained and viable. It doesn't need to be one of the Mississippi Coast's tourism cash cows.

If Mr. Hayes-Davis is so interested in making historical sites worthy of promotion and visitation, maybe he and Andi can go to DC and plan fashion shows and American Idol competitions to be held at Arlington National Cemetery, and roller derbies at the Tomb of the Unknowns. 

Monday, March 17, 2014

Discord at Beauvoir

Kevin Levin is doing his usual battle flag gloomin' and doomin' at his ha-ha memory flog regarding some personnel issues at Beauvoir in Biloxi, Mississippi, the retirement home of President Jefferson Davis.

There's an article about it in the Sun-Herald, titled The Battle of Beauvoir, but it's pretty incoherent, so there's probably quite a bit we're not being told.

Anyhoo, the battle flag is involved some how, so Kevin writes at his flog:
The dispute is, in part, over the display of the Confederate flag on the grounds at Beauvoir. Beauvoir has undergone extensive renovation since Hurricane Katrina. A new presidential library was built along with exhibit space. From what I can tell the disagreement over the display of the flag has everything to do with lagging visitation and revenue. At the center is Hayes-Davis. (Emphasis mine)

Apparently, management is consulting with the Virginia Flaggers on how to respectfully and tastefully display the Confederate flag. I visited Beauvoir once years ago. It’s a beautiful site and one that deserves to be preserved and professionally interpreted. It looks like the Mississippi SCV is capable to doing neither.
Well, as far as I remember, the SCV did a fine job before Katrina. Of course, that really isn't the issue for Kevin and fellow floggers. The really important thing for these folks is to take (or create) every opportunity possible to (1) club the VaFlaggers, even when the issue/club has nothing to do with them and (2) to trash the battle flag.

Kevin has a track record of pointing out how "irrelevant" and the flag is becoming, and predicting its disappearance from the earth any day now because,  you know, it has such destructive power. I mean, just look at the places where big battle flags have been erected beside busy highways. Pestilence, ruin and death follow and surround the battle flag wherever it goes... like in Tampa:

 And central Alabama.
Of course, it looks pretty silly to attribute a fall-off in Beauvoir tourist visits to the presence of the battle flag, when there is no history of that happening before. But that's what Levin latches onto without a single neuron firing with the possibility that there COULD be other factors involved.  For example, if there was a general decline in tourism to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, that would likely contribute to a decline in visitors to Beauvoir. Ya think?

Yes, but has there BEEN a decline in tourism to the Mississippi Gulf Coast?

Why, yes, there has! Biloxi's WLOX reported on it just last month!

Alabama tourism booming while Mississippi struggles

But do you think Levin will acknowledge this factual information? Not if it deprives him of a "reason" to trash the flag and club the VaFlaggers over the head with a figurative Louisville Slugger. That's just how it is in the floggosphere....


Kevin actually let my comment through moderation. He replied, ""Go back and read the post again. I did say that the news article lacks clarity regarding the exact nature of the problem at Beauvoir. I also cited attendance in the post."

He linked them together. "From what I can tell," he sed, "the disagreement over the display of the flag has everything to do with lagging visitation and revenue." The implication is that displaying the flag is causing the fall off in visitation and revenue, which would be right in line with his history of attributing evil effects to the battle flag, from bad breath to sinkholes and from globull warming to the Seattle's shellacking of Denver in the Superbowl. Okay, I made that part up. But he does have absolutely zero objectivity about the flag that always shows up in flog posts like this one.

Friday, March 14, 2014

More Hate, Not History...

... more lies disguised as satire ... more of the lust to denigrate ... more of the obsession hurt and injure, harrass and persecute with words as weapons ... on conspicuous display, here:

Top Ten Reasons This Kickstarter Campaign’s a Bust

There are reasons, of course, why Simpson routinely and frequently abandons posts about history on his "history" blog to engage in his lust to injure, hurt, harass and persecute with words. One is simply because he likes it. He has a bullying personality, but he's a verbal bully, so one assumes he didn't pull the wings off flies when he was a kid (was he ever a kid, ya think?) but both stem from the same motive -- pleasure from inflicting pain, or attempting to. And, failing that, to entertain with the attempt.

Which brings us to reason two. He does it because so many of his readers enjoy the same thing themselves, or enjoy watching others do it. They both enable and reward him with comments in the same vein.

Third, he's desperate for readers and commenters. Since he has apparently run off most of his commenters who are actually interested in actual history, he has cultivated another kind of reader/commenter. Fellow denigrators and bullies. He dare not focus on history to the point of running them off because then his blog would have even fewer readers than his books do.

And if there's anything thing a narcissist craves, it's constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others.

Read more about narcissism here and just see how many of these traits he exhibits.

BTW, when you read that Kickstarter post, hover your cursor over the embedded hyperlinks, and notice how often he "proves" his comment -- with links to his own posts.


In the comments at the hate-post (i.e., the most recent one) at Crossroads  Al Mackey tells David Tatum: 
By the way, David, it’s “fortune’s gaze,” not “fortunes gaze.” Possessive, ya know. Also, it’s not “till,” it’s til.” it’s a contraction of the word “until.” “Till” is something you do to the soil. Always happy to help.
Izzat right?



--- preposition
1.  up to the time of; until: to fight till death.
2.  before (used in negative constructions): He did not come till today.
3.  near or at a specified time: till evening.
4.  Chiefly Midland, Southern, and Western U.S. before; to: It's ten till four on my watch.
5.  Scot. and  North England .
     a.  to.
     b.  unto.

--- conjunction
6   to   the time that or when; until.
7.  before (used in negative constructions).
before 900; Middle English; Old English  (north) til  < Old Norse til  to, akin to Old English till  station, German Ziel  goal. See till2

Till  and until  are both old in the language and are interchangeable as both prepositions and conjunctions: It rained till (or until ) nearly midnight. The savannah remained brown and lifeless until (or till ) the rains began. Till  is not a shortened form of until and is not spelled



-- preposition, conjunction
till; until.
 aphetic variant of until

See till1 

Note also that 'til is NOT a contraction of until. It is an aphetic variant of until. Aphesis is the disappearance or loss of an unstressed initial vowel or syllable.

Don't quitcher day job to take up teachin' vocab-bull-ary, Al.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

History Errors That Floggers Don't Care About

The Constitution is 400 years old? From The Blaze.

“Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not." 
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas
March 12, 2014

Yep. This is a member of Congress. This is the same woman who said on the House floor, "“I stand here as a freed slave....”

These statements have a direct connection to history, which is what the floggers claim to care about. But did you see any mention of this on their flogs? Of course not. The only history "errors" they care about are those made by Southern heritage folks -- and sometimes what they classify as errors is merely an opinion they disagree with.

These flogger-types pretzel up and gnash their teeth when heritage folks identify personally with Confederates -- when they talk about "we" and "us," referring to Confederates during the war --  but you never hear a peep out of floggers when other folks make similar statements.

Simpson claims we "need" to feel hated, but it isn't about need. It's simply that we have the ability to discern hate that is directed toward us, in many types of expression. For example, take a look at this comment thread at Simpson's flog:

  There's no history there, but there's lots of scorn and ridicule from people who would rather die than correct -- or even acknowledge -- blatant and egregious errors made by a protected class member...  Can you say hypocrisy?

Oh, and
Mr. Buchanan, what did P. T. Barnum say? Lots of things. My favorite is: "Without promotion, something terrible happens: Nothing."

NOW we know what it takes to goad floggers into admitting that protected class members (which certainly is not confied to race) make history (and other) errors. If the admission presents an opportunity to denigrate Southern heritage folks, they'll do it. Of course, they'll do it reluctantly, softly, with kid gloves, and they won't show the same scorn and derision for the protected ones that they'd show for Southern heritage folks who make a similar or even lesser errors.

I mean, heck, they don't need Southern heritage folks to make an mistake in order to criticize and drum up animosity and derision. Remember Simpson criticizing Susan for wearing red tops?

I don't have a problem with Andrew Napolitano going off the deep end? Well, it's not that I don't have a problem with it. It's that I don't care about it, one way or another. I don't even care about Jackson-Lee's many displays of ignorance, except as a vehicle for showcasing flogger hypocrisy and double standards.

And while we're at it, let's correct the latest Simpson lie -- that I have "confessed" I "don't really understand history." I await a link to said "confession." Hell will freeze over before anyone provides it, though, because I never made such a confession.


Simpson claims he supplied a link to where I "confessed" I "don't really understand  history." As he commonly does, the "proof" he links to is his own claims made in his own posts on his own blog, which are commonly filled with lies and distortions of whatever he's chosen to lie about and distort.

In this case, in his blog post that comes up at the URL he supplied --surprise!-- there was actually a link to something I wrote -- this: Confederate Clones.  But there's no "confession" that I "don't really understand history" in that post. Read it yourself. Then, afterward, go read Simpson's utterly bizarre "interpretation" of what my post says/means. It isn't just a distortion -- it's more like a hallucination and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Read it here: It's Heritage, Not History...A Candid Admission.

Hell's still burning as hot as ever, and I'm still waiting for a link to my "confession."

Monday, March 10, 2014

Screaming Hilarity at Crossroads

                         by Thelibertylamp (<----fake name)

For Floggers, It's Hate, Not History

Proof comes all the time. You'll find the latest proof in Simpson's most recent Bash-the-VaFlaggers post at Crossroads, and the attached comment thread. Try to find some history there...just try.

About the new I-95 flag project, he sez, "... it will be the same story all over again, and that bores me."

Sure it does. That's why he got all involved with a group in Richmond trying to stop the first flag project, because it bores him. That's why he sent tweet after tweet after tweet to the the Richmond media, trying to sic them on the VaFlaggers, because it bores him. That's why he he made something like 50 blog posts in the two months leading up to the first flag raising, because it bores him. That is why he immersed himself in Google Earth, trying to figure out the site of the flag project, because it bores him.That's why he has repeatedly harassed Susan regarding her job, because it bores him.

He sez, "They say that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again."

I dunno, folks. This looks pretty successful to me:

Success is saying you're gonna do something and then doing it.

He sez, "It appears that Hathaway and company learned from the missteps surrounding their initial foray into a business that other organizations have pulled off without much trouble. In fact, they’ve taken my advice to find a taller flagpole and to proceed without the usual self-serving fanfare."

Fanfare? The VaFlaggers did not send an announcement to any media outlet concerning the I-95 Flag. Susan was contacted by a guy at Mother Jones who said someone sent info to him. That started the media fanfare.

The rest of the fanfare was played not by the VaFlaggers, but by critics and opponents, like Kristen Konate and her idiotic petition, by the reactionary but unproductive "United RVA" and, most of all, by Simpson's 50 or so posts in the two months leading up to the flag raising, and in the comments of his floggerette peanut gallery; and in the scorn and derision of other flogger blogs. 

The so-called "self-serving fanfare" -- that is, the verbal harassment and attempts at intimidation -- even continued after the flag was raised. Remember, "All That Fuss for This?" when HE was the one making the fuss? And let's not forget Al Mackey's ridicule because the clearing of the trees didn't fit his timetable....

People who support the VaFlaggers understand they are a volunteer, grassroots group. They donate their time and services, and finance their participation themselves. Donations from others are often a spontaneous show of support, or the result of some quiet and modest fundraising efforts, with no "self-serving fanfare."

I found Bob Nelson's comment about crane-rentals to be like deja vu all over again. Remember Liberty Lamprey's nay-saying about the first I-95 flag?

You might be right, they might be successful in getting that flag up, but I think they are going to run into a lot of problems and issues.

I think cost is going to be their major issue.

They estimated $3000 for the flag and pole but have they included the monthly payments for the land it is on?

They signed a lease, I am guessing there is some sort of rental payment for the piece of property?

But, let’s just say some good ol’ boy supporter is letting them install their “performance art” for no charge, then what about this paranoid induced need for fencing, lights and … security cams?

Who is going to pick up the electric bill for these big flood lights and 24 hour camera surveillance?

How are they going to get the wiring done and make it weather proof?

That was from the brilliant, Hollywood fantasy style Nazi-fighter who also said the I-95 flag project was a hoax . But all his doomsaying amounted to nothing. So learn from that and don't worry, Mr. Nelson. They got it covered.

Yep, hate is boring, no doubt. It's a bit brace that bores holes in the hater's heart ... and head.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

12 Years A Slave Won Oscars Because of Left-wing Politics

The anti-white propaganda film 12 Years A Slave won Oscars not based on merit, but based on politics. This comes straight from the LA Times. 

Two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn’t see 12 Years a Slave but voted for it anyway because, given the film’s social relevance, they felt obligated to do so.

More Here: Your Daily Dose of Conservatism