Saturday, September 13, 2014

SpeLUNKer Aspires to Flogger Status

SpeLUNKer's campaign to enter the ranks of floggers continues to move along. He has blogged about me twice in a matter of days -- both times complete with headshot -- and though he exhibits the flogger trait of "tiptoeing through the Internet" looking for crap to smear on proSoutherners, his two posts about me don't even warrant the term "attack."

Like established floggers, he appears to be on an online quest to find smear-quality fecal matter, an activity that results in his faulty reading comprehension, or renders him either incapable of, or disinterested in, truth and accuracy. Just like a real flogger!

As I've already discussed, he's dubbed me a P.I. for my perspicuity in clicking a link at Amazon and finding out that fake reviewer named None of your business is Brooks Simpson.

His latest post about little ol' moi is titled, "Connie Chastain, League of the South member?"

He starts off the discussion with a link to my blog post, Violence, Violence, Vi-hi-hi-o-ho-ho-leh-heh-hence, although there's nothing in that post to indicate I'm a member of the League. Presumably, SpeLUNKer thinks that if you communicate with someone by FB messenger, you are both members of the same groups. Or maybe you share membership on groups if you converse in a civil manner...

Truth told, I'm not sure what his point is.

Next, he posts a screenshot of a post I made on the League's Facebook Page (before I was kicked off, meaning it was in the summer of 2012), wherein I answer the question, "Are you a League member, Connie?" with this: " Not at present. I have been about two or three times in the past."

Beneath the screenshot, SpeLUNKer sez, "I think we get it. Nuff said."

Get what? I wasn't a member at the time I made that post.  Lessee.... I sent Dr. Hill a letter of resignation (or maybe a non-renewal, if memory serves) in early 2005.....And as my Backsass posts objecting to the League's new direction indicate, I'm not a member now.

Moving along, he segues into vi-hi-hi-o-ho-ho-leh-heh-hence by referencing my post relating Simpson's "rampaging about imaginary violence." Sez the Big LUNK, "I think it goes without saying that though the League's track record has been one of no acts of violence committed so far...."

Never having committed violence is a dead giveaway of violent intentions, don'tcha know....

He continues, "...they are certainly expressing enough potentially violent rhetoric publicly for people to be concerned."

And with that pronouncement, he links to the massive amount of potentially violent rhetoric.... one post on the League's website,  A Bazooka in Every Pot 

In that article, Dr. Hill discusses the nature of  Fourth Generation (4Gen) Warfare -- i.e. guerrilla warfare.  The article was written about how citizens could defend themselves against an increasingly hostile -- and chillingly, massively armed -- government killing machine (my words, not Dr. Hill's).  We know from witnessing it (Waco, Ruby Ridge) how efficient the feds can be at warring on the very citizens the government was created to protect.  It's even worse now, when local law enforcement is getting into combat mode (complete with military clothes, tanks, grenades, etc) with their shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality.

So Dr. Hill discussed a hypothetical guerrilla war and the libs go crazy, and SpeLUNKER sez that article is a "cat ready to pounce."

Frankly, I've read a lot worse from understandably paranoid rightwingers with no secessionist or breakaway nationalistic ambitions. And if it ever comes to that kind of fight, Southern nationalists will make up a small fraction of the overall number of people fighting against government tyranny.

He continues, "Just because it hasn't happened yet, does not mean there's no reason for concern."

My thoughts exactly, but in relation to the feds, the jihadists, the immigrant invastion...  There's plenty of reason for concern.

But then it gets really good when SpeLUNKer goes off on flights of fancy that will spin your head. Sez he:

"Why doesn't some one in the media ask Michael Hill how he plans to move all of the non-Whites out of the South once the ethnostate is created? You know, all of the ones who don't self deport after they are stripped of their Civil Rights and the 'Welfare State' is eradicated. I'm sure it's going to be a pretty peaceful process."

I have not seen where the League is calling for an "ethnostate," having searched both websites for the term unsuccessfully. What Spelunker links to is not a League site, it is a personal blog. I can find nothing in League material advocating for moving non-whites out of the South.  I notice Mr. Lunker doesn't have an embedded link to that.

Apparently, Mr. Lunker and I have very different views of what violence is. He apparently thinks shoving, yelling, maybe some cussing is violent. I think punching, kicking, stabbing, slicing is, among other things, violent.

These videos will highlight some of the differences. (My apologies for the filthy language.)

Spelunker's concept of violence.

My concept of violence.

Remember this, folks. It's the bottom line: 
"I think it goes without saying that ... the League's track record has been one of no acts of violence committed ...." ~SpeLUNKer


  1. Why were you kicked out of the League?

  2. I wasn't kicked out of the League. I resigned my membership (or perhaps non-renewed it, I can't remember which) in early 2005.

    I was kicked out of the League's Facebook group in 2012, I believe it was, by Dr. Hill, at the request and urging of Michael Cushman. Apparently the reason was because I asked some questions that generated a huge thread that made Cushman uncomfortable, so he complained to Dr. Hill (who was at the League's national conference at the time) and Dr. Hill removed my membership. It was restored briefly by another admin, but removed a second time some days later (I had not posted since my membership was restored).

    It's not really a big deal; as I've noted here at Backsass, I'm not comfortable with some new directions the League is taking, and you don't have to be in the League to be an advocate of Southern independence.

    But when the League is attacked by scumbags like the SPLC and the attacks are crowed about by low-ethics floggers, there's a pretty good chance I will point out (1) the errors (likely deliberate) in the attacks and (2) the low ethics of the floggers....

    1. I'll just say this; do you think the neo-cons and tea partiers get along too well? Do they both still vote for Republicans?

      My point is that we can all find common ground in us wanting independence. I argue with a couple members of the League all the time, but I learned to not bring up certain things that I know will cause strife. Positivity and unity of the Southern people will bring us through.

      Do I think certain characters are pushing potential members away by their strong view? Yes, but the people who are running away tell me by their retreat that they really don't care about independence and freedom. If they really cared about our sovereignty, they would fight for it in spite of those they disagree with. I support the League, because it's the only organization advocating Southern independence.

  3. Mr Smith, as clarification, because I have some basic differences with Hill and Cushman, and have had some rather sparky discussions with League and Southern nationalist folks in the past, that doesn't mean we can't engage in civil, even cordial, communications. We are, after all, adults and Southerners.

    The exception for me is Brad Griffin; I don't think I can have polite, civil discussions with him, so I do the next best thing -- I avoid direct communications with him altogether. As a general rule, I don't read Occidental Dissent, though I've read a few things posted there from time to time when others have suggested it.

    However, I have read his comments at other blogs, particularly Simpson's, and I've noted how interesting it is that the floggerettes can't answer his comments on certain subjects, except to name-call him, usually.

    1. Well, he knows his stuff, you can't deny that.

  4. Note: In all my searching to confirm what SpeLUNKer has claimed, I did find where Dr. Hill described the League as a "ethno-national" movement and that it wants the South to be an ethno-nation. Whether that means what SpeLUNKer claims it means (no blacks, Jews, hispanics, etc., allowed) will take more research. The League did not advocate that in the past. Whether they do now is what I will be researching, as time permits.

    1. Hold the phone. Here is where it's reported that Hill said the League wants the South to be an ethno-nation:

      Unfortunately, the video where Hill purportedly said that is no longer available! Click the screen and it sez, "This video does not exist."

      Curiouser and curiouser....

  5. SpeLUNKer admonishes me that "defending" the League (with its "association" to Matt Heimbach, etc.,) makes it easier for Virginia Flaggers (and me) to be linked to these fellows' unique brand of White Nationalism.

    What he isn't taking into consideration is (1) who's doing the "linking" -- i.e., people who hate the VaFlaggers, the flag, and Confederate heritage in general (with Simpson in the lead) and (2) before Matt Heimbach showed up in Simpson's "tiptoeing" expeditions, he, Simpson, had already posted 53 posts or comments (over a period of more than a year and a half) trashing, criticizing, bullying, harassing the VaFlaggers and Susan Hathaway.

    He also isn't taking into consideration that I'm not doing a blanket defense of everything they do and say. In fact, I have gone on record, here on Backsass and perhaps elsewhere, clearly identifying what I have problems with, re: the League. Do you suppose this just doesn't REGISTER with SpeLUNKer, or does he just not care what the truth is when it comes to promoting his agenda?

    I have to hand it to him, though... he's a virtuoso back-pedaler....

  6. Logan Smith, could you email me?

    c_l_chastain (at) yahoo dot com


  7. Just a note to SpeLUNKer -- I'm not on any ship, fella.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.