Thursday, November 27, 2014

Floggerette Displays No Use for the Truth

At XRoads, Mousy Tongue sez:
Hey guys, big surprise: she’s falsely reporting success in that SC discussion. Furman faculty has been making short shrift of her smacking sounds. Meanwhile she digresses about honoring Erwin Rommel & the German soldiers of WWII.
The "she" referred to here is Yours Truly.... See for yourself who argued from emotion (liberals, "Furman faculty," and assorted anti-flaggers who respond with cascades of emotion and without a single neuron firing) and who dispassionately presented facts, and even rational, common-sense opinion ...

Also note that it wasn't I who "digressed" -- it was one of the ring-leaders of the hyper-emotional liberals, James Scott, who introduced the Nazis to the conversation with his totally irrelevant reference to the SS. (Anybody surprised Mousy Tongue  didn't mention that? I thought not.) I threw some facts about it at Ol' James and he responded soooo predictably.
Elizabeth Herring -- James Scott They are only championing honoring the war dead. This is only a debate over a flag that flies on the Civil War memorial.
James Scott -- Elizabeth Herring When do you plan on honoring the SS war dead?
Connie Chastain -- James Scott the SS was not the German Army. Many people DO honor the German Army of WWII and its war dead. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was respected by both sides. I'm surprised you don't know this. But you have to be an objective and fairminded person to separate those fighting for their country from those oppressing others. You apparently haven't developed such a capacity. I have huge respect for U.S. armed services even when I scorn the unconstitutional missions their mutant government sends them on.
James Scott -- Connie Chastain So Hitler's army also comprises heroes of yours. This is not necessarily a revelation to me. However, I would point out that Field Marshal Rommel was implicated in the plot to assassinate Hitler and end the war, so at least he showed some integrity, albeit not until it was almost too late anyway.
Connie Chastain -- James Scott, sorry, no. I only recently learned about Rommel from a woman in a chatroom I was a member of. Sorry to burst your hate-bubble. BTW, Rommel also disobeyed orders to kill Jewish soldiers and civilians, and treated POWs humanely. He was never accused of war crimes. This info is easily available online, for people who can see past their hate enough to read it.

Now, lets look at this. Reporting what a former chat-room member said about Rommel, and what Wikipedia says about him, in the super-saturated, indoctrinated mind of James Scott equates to making heroes of Hitler's army? How does a reasonably knowledgeable person  come up with such nonsense?

It appears Ol' James scurried to look up Rommel and found out about his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler, and conceded that he "showed some integrity." I guess Rommel's earlier humanity in refusing to kill Jewish soldiers and civilians, though ordered to, and treating POWs humanely, do not add up to "showing some integrity" in the indoctrination-steeped mentality Scott clings to.

When confronted with this kind of sheer hallucination, I have to wonder.... Do the James Scotts of the world really not know they are lying? Or do they actually believe the garbage they spew? Watching Scott in action on that thread, one almost visualizes not a flesh and blood human person, but some computer algorithm popping up programmed responses, but for the mountain of emotionalism underlying their responses..

But Mousy Tongue / LibertyLamp / Hecate Crowley / Crowley Hecate / Inglourious Basterd / AnonBorg and (who knows how many other fraudulent profiles she goes by)) has no such excuse. She may be indoctrinated, but she's not so far gone that she can't tell when she's lying.

And she is lying. Of course, telling the truth ... lying ... it's all the same to leftists. Whatever serves their agenda of destruction....

Note: When I say I only recently learned about Rommel, what I mean is that for most of my life, until the last ten years or so, I had a view of him as a stereotypical Nazi, and nothing more. I was aware that he was involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler, but I knew little about it, nor did I know about his humanity as a soldier, until I learned things about him online. But you have to be devoid of integrity to equate learning a little about Rommel with making heroes of the German army.

Hope Y'all Have a ....


Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Great History Post at XRoads!

Simpson posts:
Projecting From Pensacola
Posted on November 25, 2014     
Sometimes it’s interesting to recall what someone says in consecutive days. Take this example:
Boy … we should really look down on people who behave that way, right? Well …
“Smacking people around”? That’s her idea of fun? A bit violent, don’t you think? “All a bunch of leftist ideologues?” Oh, no … denigration and put-downs all in the name of ideology. We should really look down on those sort of desperate, mean-spirited people.
Someone from Pensacola’s projecting again. That’s why she’s all about the hate. She’s a rather hateful person … just the right spokesperson/webmaster for a certain Confederate heritage group.
Once again, a man who is supposed to be sooo highly edumacated betrays his learning.

The "smacking" was violent? What does he think I did, reach through the internet and pop somebody's jaws? Obviously, the "smacking around" was verbal. He ought to be familiar with that concept. Verbal bludgeoning makes up a huge portion of his blog's content.

Also, I'm certain he's edumacated enough to tell the difference between namecalling that identifies people's behavior or criticizes their ideology, and namecalling that denigrates people's intelligence or things they have no control over. That's the difference between calling someone a "leftist ideologue," professor, and calling them "troglodyte, stupid, knuckledragger, idiot," etc., which is what you and your sycophants do. (And yes, sycophant relates to behavior, not what a person IS or their level of intelligence, which is what floggers and floggerettes [which also imply behavior] do most.)

But the best comments about history, not heritage, come in the comment thread.  Just look at all the respect for, and discussion of, history here:
Simpson: She threw a Twitter tantrum and claimed that I was “skeered” of linking to her blog. I prefer to think of it as good taste and polite restraint.

Either self-delusion or deliberate lying. There's as little good taste and restraint, polite or otherwise, at XRoads as there is history.
Her picture on Twitter looks like someone who arrived stoned at the DMV thinking she was Grace Slick.
LOL!  I was never much of a Jefferson Airplane/Starship fan, but Ol' Grace was a looker back in the day. And getting stoned was against my religion, but maybe he was stoned when he looked at my profile pic....

A "new" floggerette, "Mousy Tongue" (very likely LibertyLamp-slash-InglouriousBasterd) sez...
The queen of just tweeted “Racism = no objective definition”? 
 ...and she truncated the rest of my tweet:  Means whatever the accuser wishes. But since Mousy (she'd probably freak if she knew that was my clique's nickname for me in high school and college) doesn't grasp the concept of usage as opposed to dictionary definition, my comment means "Racism has no objective definition to most of the people who use it as an accusation." There. Get it now, shweetheart?

Simpson follows up with a typical lie:
"And therefore, she argues, it doesn’t exist. How white of her."
Ah, nope. No such argument. See for yourself:

Then we have this interesting exchange, wherein Simpson and a floggerette deliberately mangle their own historical mastery:
Andrew Raker: Was she talking about Andrew or Lyndon Johnson?   
Brooks D. Simpson: She’s fonder of Andrew.
I dunno. You'd think "... and people were sitting-in..." would give history experts a clue... Maybe I give them more credit than they deserve....

And speaking of clues, here's one for jclark82 -- Simpson is conflating two separate blog posts. The first was about flogger historians... the one about Johnson and sitting-in referred to someone else... the flag opponents on a comment thread following a news story.  Next time, don't take Simpson's word for it. Come to Backsass and see it what I actually said.

jclark82 concludes,
She’s a sadly delusional person, in a movement chock full of them. The only people she smacks around is in her mind, she gets pushed around on message boards.
He didn't see the comment thread I'm talking about or he'd know better than to say that. I'm the one who did the pushing and smacking....

Then we have this from Jimmy "Carnac the Magnificent" Dick --
Jerry just likes the fact that his ancestors were slave owners and fought for the right to own slaves. He wants to own slaves today. He thinks the Civil War was great in that the southern states were going to form their own country where whites would permanently be owners of any and all blacks. His version of history states that these wonderful white man’s paradise was invaded by a tyrannical northern government. He just omits all the parts that conflict with his fantasy.
Has Jerry said any of this on his blog? I'm asking because I don't know, I don't read his blog. But unless he has, what we have here is Mr. Dick thinking he can read minds (actually, what he's doing is projecting what he believes about someone he apparently doesn't know, has never met).  Presumably, Mr. Dick believes himself to be a history expert.

Hope y'all enjoyed this little excursion into flogger "history" -- lies, innuendo, namecalling, mysticism (mind reading), historical ambivalence and an utterly bizarre habit of mistaking ridicule for humor..... Although, it really isn't anything new....

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Talk About Yer Rich, Rich Irony....

On the Ferguson Grand Jury Decision...
"We are a nation built on the rule of law, so we need to
accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make."
This comes just days after he flouted the rule of law and made a decision that wasn't his to make...

Anybody wanna take any guesses whether or not his supporters will see the irony?

Monday, November 24, 2014

Been Having Fun...

...smacking people around on a comment thread following a news story about the Confederate flag. It's really too easy. The flag opponents are all a bunch of leftist ideologues who probably haven't  had an original thought since Johnson was president and people were sitting-in. They have the leftist talking points memorized really well, though.

Of course, indoctrinated people aren't going to be open-minded about anything, so I don't argue with them to convince them of anything, but to give readers and lurkers something to think about.

Here as sample of how it has gone....
KB --  the only reason the south survives today is because the northern states pay them welfare otherwise they would be just another third world country trying to sneak in. South Carolina gets over 40% of their budget from the more educated and well off northern states. You should be thanking them for having mercy on you. I wouldn't, I would let you rot in your racist stink.

Me -- You. Must. Be. Joking. The Southern ports on the Gulf of Mexico are among the busiest (and richest) in the world. There are over 4,000 oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, that keep refineries in the South busy producing fuel primary for the Southern states. The forests of the South are so productive that, even though they make up only two percent of forest cover worldwide, they produce 12 percent of the worlds industrial roundwood and 19 percent of its pulp and paper products—more than any other U.S. region or country in the world. The Northern states PAY???? The rust belt PAYS???? You're dreaming. Be careful when you talk about welfare and the South (don't look at the demographics, or you might find yourself criticizing those who are culturally supposed to be above criticism).

Sunday, November 23, 2014


...for flogger "historians"...

It's not about history.

It's about ideology.
It's about control.
It's about denigration
It's about the put-down.

For floggers, history is a weapon...

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Ignorant Update at XRoads

Apparently stung that I showcased his lies about my chat comments, Simpson has compounded the lies with this:
UPDATE: The author of the comments claims that these statements, especially the first, were taken out of context. That’s to be expected. But when someone says:
We live in a nation of dumbed down ignoramuses.
… one must conclude that the speaker also thinks “Americans are stupid.”
One MUST? Only if one believes stupid and ignorant are synonyms, which they emphatically are not -- as anyone who teaches at a major state university should be edumacated enough to know. Let's look at some definitions, shall we?
lacking in common sense, perception, or normal intelligence

an extremely ignorant person

lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned

Dumbed down:
To rewrite for a less educated or less sophisticated audience
Stupid implies impaired or limited intellectual capacity. All the rest -- ignoramus, ignorant, dumbed down -- deals with the lack of knowledge. It is possible to lack knowledge because one is intellectually impaired or deficient, but it is also possible to be highly intelligent and still lack knowledge. Thus, knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing.

It's hard to relate to a love of denigration so strong that someone would willingly compromise his level of education and his (purported) integrity by implying stupidity and ignorance are the same thing.

Friday, November 21, 2014

How a Liar Lies -- Part ...Too Many to Keep Up With

Over at XRoads, Simpson posts:

One way to lie, of course, is to report only part of what someone says. Known as "lying by omission," Simpson is a virtuoso at it...

Here are the entire statements, made across several posts in the Chat Box over there. -------------->
Anyone with the discernment and intelligence implied in holding a position at a major institute of, um, learning should be able to figure out that the entire thought was expressed over several postings. Especially somebody with an Internet tiptoe-savvy time-stamp obsession.

Do you suppose either he or any of his minions will point out his dishonest reporting? What a silly question. Of course not. Honesty doesn't appear to be highly valued among the civil war left.

(I would just point out here that Allah is the deity prayed to by terrorist beheaders posting their"talent" on Internet videos, their cohorts coming across our undefended borders, and the western copy-cat toadies that become radicalized in their mosques. If somebody doesn't believe that is diversity, and that sort of violence isn't shattering to our culture, what desert of sand do they have their head stuck in? What will it take to wake them to reality? Another 9-11 targeting the Sears tower? A suitcase nuke going off in a major US city? The hijacking of the Ferguson unrest? We'll see....)

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Final Version of Smallfoot Book Trailer

As  usual, my characters are ordinary, decent Southerners from a Christian tradition and who hold a Christian world view, though my books aren't specifically Christian fiction. The characters are relistically flawed, not the stereotypical regional monstrosities Big Publishing (and comment-thread trash on sites like Raw Story, Media Matters, etc.) loves, but basically good people, as are the vast majority of Southerners I know in real life.

Comments at his flog that Simpson has made about my novels, without ever having read them, tell a lot about him. He gives the impression that he thinks white Southerners should not be portrayed as good and decent (unless their bleedin' heart leftists), certainly not as heroes, and never, ever as victimized. He appears to have the typical leftist mentality that only certain classes of folks can be victims....

As for the trailer, all of these microstock models look amazingly like my characters. It takes me a long time to make a trailer because I edit the images to make the people and places look like the ones in the story.  The young fellow who portrays Chris is from Eastern Europe (presumably, because that's where his photographer works), and his hair is rather dark (Chris has lighter hair, almost ash blond, and gray-blue eyes) but otherwise, he's a very credible Chris.

The woman who portrays Leslie is likely from the USA, as her photographer is. I found her at iStock when I first started writing the story, and she's been the inspiration for the heroine's appearance from the start. I was fortunate to find many pictures of these two models in different poses and clothing. Even that wasn't sufficient, and I had to photoshop Leslie's head onto different bodies in two of these images, and there were no images of her in profile, so I had to use a different model for that frame.

The Kindle Edition of the novel was published November 19. (Let's see how long it takes Simpson to write a trashy review.)

Got my proof copy of the paperback version. There are always errors to correct. For some reason, a number of times, the paragraph return in the Word document did not transfer to Quark, so I have a bunch of paragraphs all run together. I'll have to go in and add the returns manually, correct any other errors I find, and then re-upload the file to CreateSpace.

It finished up at about 51k words. I'm surprised I finished it at all. It started out as a joke, a lark, to see if I could pants it (writers who write by the seat of their pants are call pantsers) and write a paranormal. I couldn't.

I'm a plotter, bigtime, and I began to plot barely a chapter into the writing. I also can't suspend disbelief enough to read paranormal romances, let alone write one.  Vampires, shifters, aliens, faeries, demons... boring, one and all. I settled on a "paranormal" creature I thought  was plausible enough to write about -- cryptids, specifically, crypto-primates -- but, alas, I couldn't even do that. The story morphed from romantic suspense with paranormal elements to mad-scientist sci-fi. That, I can do!

Saturday, November 15, 2014

How Simpson Honors Veterans at XRoads

Simpson's history is to do little or nothing^ to honor veterans on Veterans Day, but to use that day as an excuse to attack Confederate heritage*. What a surprise, huh.

*11/11/2014 --  Grousing about a blippin' anonymous Twitter feed -- long post with images/screenshots with a couple of token mentions of veterans.

*11/11/2013  -- Grousing about Tim Manning, complete with video, and a token, one-sentence recognition of veterans.

^11/11/2012  -- Posts a video from Saving Lincoln -- no mention of veterans except in post title.

^11/11/2011 -- Nothing. (See Note.)

This further illustrates that, for him. history is a weapon, and his default approach, for those who see history differently from him, is denigration, gratuitous attacks, harassment and falsehood.

For Simpson, the best use of U.S. veterans is as a club for bashing Southern heritage. Recognizing them and their service appears to be an afterthought.

Note: in 2011, on the 15th, four days after the fact, he runs a poll asking if Confederates should be considered veterans.

Plausible Deniability, Simpson-style

There are different levels and types of plausible deniability, a concept and practice begun by the CIA in the 1960s to shield upper level officials from responsibility for illegal activities by the agency, should they become known. By now, various forms of the concept have filtered out into the culture at large.

One way it works is to allege or lie by implication. That way, you can deny responsibility for it by acknowledging the actual statement but denying the implication.

He's an example of how Simpson does it (and he does it a lot)

He is implying a connection between me and JaneRavenQuantrill and the SaveConfedMusem twitter account and whoever runs it (WeLoveTheSouth) so he can claim that I agree with the anti-veteran statements (and other things) on the latter's twitter feed. He's implying a cyber-cabal between the three of us, conspiring to promote disrespect for veterans (and worse) via the SaveConfedMuseum twitter feed. But since he did it by implication, and didn't actually say the words, he can indignantly proclaim, "I didn't say that!"

Replying to a comment at XRoads, Sick Simpson sez: "How was I able to find this site? Simple. One of the people who Connie Chastain follows, 'JaneRavenQuantrill,' sent a tweet to two bloggers, including me, drawing attention to it. Chastain doesn’t want you to know that."

I don't want people to know what? That I follow JaneRavenQuantrill? So what? I follow 412 people, nearly all of whom I do not know personally. I don't care who knows it. Most of them are connected with writing and publishing in some way.

Though I'm largely unimpressed with celebrity, one person I follow is an actor, Ryan Carnes, who appears to be a typical Hollywood hedonist. I don't agree with a LOT of what Carnes says and does. I don't agree with or approve of (or watch) his movie and TV portrayals of homosexuals and his personal promotion of homosexuality (though he is, or claims to be, heterosexual) -- but I think he's cute, or used to be (though he's not aging well), and I enjoyed his acting in The Phantom. (Carnes, back when he was cute, was the inspiration for Chris Dupree in Smallfoot.)

So trying to prove something by who I follow is just another example of Simpson's freakish mental processes and unethical motives.

Moreover, why would I care how he found that Twitter account, or care whether people know that? If I had cared enough to give it any thought, I would have assumed he found it on one of his tip-toeing expeditions looking for stuff to trash Southerners with (he implies an admission of "examining" the feed) but only because he's acknowledged said tip-toeing in the past. But this is his gargantuan ego talking here, as I couldn't care less how he found it.

What's interesting, though, is that at the time Simpson "found" and posted the twitter feed, I had never heard of it, or WeLoveTheSouth or JaneRavenQuantrill. I learned about all of them from his ridiculous post (and the bizarre comments) about it.

By posting about who follows who and the finding of that site, he's implying a connection between us at the time of his post, or before. In fact, Twitter sent me a notice that JaneRavenQuantrill began following me on Nov 12, a day after Simpson's bizarre blog post. This is a prime example of Simpson-style plausible deniability.  If you say, "They weren't following each other at the time of your post!" he can say, "I never said they were." (Interestingly, in the same notice, Twitter told me Corey Meyer had begun following me.... Simpson didn't mention that.)

Of course, it is strongly implied, and in the minds of his gullible peanut gallery, the non-existent connection becomes well-established.

What was the point of mentioning me at all? He could have said, "How was I able to find this site? “JaneRavenQuantrill” sent a tweet to me drawing attention to it," and that would have answered the question. But, of course, answering the question wasn't his priority. Trashing people, denigrating, bullying and harassing are his priorities.
(In a later post's comment thread, Simpson sez, "Oh … and by the way … it was one of Connie’s Twitter followers, whom Connie follows, who brought the Twitter account in question to my attention. That’s how I learned about it. But she won’t tell you that. Of course not. What else would a liar do?"
At the time he posted about the twitter feed, I'd never heard of it, or its creator, or the person who told him about it. So what he's really saying is this: When Twitter notified me that JaneRavenQuantrill was following me, and I clicked "follow" in return, that click gave me instant and total knowledge of every thing JaneRavenQuantrill had ever brought to anyone's attention....  My gosh, does he read and think through what he writes before he posts it? Only enough to construct it with animosity, denigration, and plausible deniability in mind; but regarding the latter, I guess he let this one slip past him....)
A couple of other things to mention: Sez Simpson, "Chastain does not disagree with the content of the site." He can't know that, since I haven't said I either agree or disagree with it. I don't know what comprises most of the content on the feed, so I don't know whether I agree with it or not. More than likely, if I checked it out, I would find I disagreed with some of it, and agreed with some of it. But I can't say for sure without checking it out.

Another look at Simpson's puerile outlook... He tells the commenter, "You ask a lot more questions here than you do of Chastain." How does he know that? How does he know how many questions the commenter, or anyone else, has asked of me? Unless he's now claiming to be omniscient? Or maybe he illegally hacks my email or Facebook or other private accounts?

He throws this in, "I simply note that you want people to explain things to you, but you don’t want to explain things to them. One can conclude that you feel compelled to hide something for good reason."

Well, that depends on who "One" is. If "One" is Brooks Simpson, "One" can conclude all sorts of bizarre things based not on truth, logic or facts, but on his own animosity, his desire to denigrate, harass, bully and persecute.

The Antics of Pre-schoolers ...

...from and teachers and college professors who fancy themselves to be historians.

Want to see it?

Check the comment thread following the post A Reminder on 11/11/14 at XRoads.

Start with the comment time-stamped:
     BorderRuffian on November 12, 2014 at 7:42 am

And read to the comment time-stamped:
     Brooks D. Simpson November 13, 2014 at 10:17 pm

And just see how utterly puerile Simpson can be. What an embarrassment to ASU and to his students....

Friday, November 14, 2014

Brooks Simpson Advocates Genocide of Southerners

... the way that you judge others will be the way that you will be judged, and you will be evaluated by the standard with which you evaluate others. Matthew 7:2, International Standard Version
Now, according things Simpson has said and implied several times in the past, if someone posts a comment on your blog or in a Facebook thread, etc., you agree with it unless you purposely say you don't.

If you leave a comment somewhere, and in the same thread, someone left an objectionable comment of some kind, and you don't (a) castigate them or (2) at least say "I don't agree with that," then you agree with it.

In the past, Simpson has gone so far as to imply that if you don't castigate or disagree with them in a comment thread on his blog, you agree with them.

Posted by Buck Buchanan at XRoads:

That being the case, we have to assume -- since Simpson hasn't castigated or disagreed with Buchanan as of this writing-- that he agrees and wants, at worst, the people of the South genocided or, at best, subjected to violence and murder (because what Buchanan labels "traitorous talk" doesn't meet the definition in either the Constitution or the US Code).

And unless Simpson comes here and denies it in a comment on my blog, then he agrees with it. He wants the genocide of Southerners.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Like Shootin' Fish In a Barrel

From a post at XRoads (and my replies, in bold italics):

Simp: It’s been remarkable to watch Connie Chastain’s reaction to my Veterans Day post concerning a Confederate heritage group’s Twitterfeed.** Here’s how she reacted when I announced that I would contact Ben Jones, chief of heritage operations for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, about the Twitterfeed’s use of the SCV’s Virginia division address (image of my tweet pointing out Simpson's childish delight in being a tattle tale):

Me: Poor Mr. Jones, being dogged and verbally cattle-prodded by someone who isn't even in his organization

Simp: Apparently Chastain objects to learning whether the group in question is part of the Virginia division of the SCV.

Me: Don't object. Just not interested. I'm not in the SCV; I'm sure they can handle this without my input (or Simpson's).

Simp: What makes this especially curious is that Chastain herself began to reverse course with her claim that the Twitter account was obviously a fake. It is interesting that she does not attack the Twitter account itself, just me. Of course, she did that when it came to Matthew Heimbach as well. Somehow, for all that talk of courage and cussedness, she’s quite the coward in these matters.

Me: I'm not sure how Simpson conceptualizes "reversing course." I certainly haven't done that. I have no reason to attack the Twitter account; whoever it belongs to hasn't (as far as I know)  attempted to denigrate, bully, disparage, harass, intimidate or persecute me or my heritage friends, they way he has, repeatedly, for YEARS.

Simp:  Of even more interest is Chastain’s failure to express any objection whatsoever to the content of the Twitterfeed in question. In fact, an examination of that Twitterfeed shows that she is in wholehearted agreement with nearly all if not all of its positions. She doesn’t deny that.

Somewhere In Arizona
Obsessive Examining...
Me:  I haven't read the positions on the Twitter feed, so I don't know whether I agree or not. I  skimmed it enough to see that a lot of images, and some links, have been posted. Simpson thinks if he doesn't know something, it doesn't exist or hasn't happened. Similarly, he thinks if he knows about something, everybody knows about it. Can you get more three-year-oldish than that?

Simp:  Nor have Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers, another favorite of @WeLoveOurSouth.

Me: Susan and the Flaggers don't pay a lot of attention to things like that.

Simp: Even when Chastain claims she doesn’t agree with a position, she manages to mess things up with her propensity to lie and to misrepresent. The original post did not speculate on how Chastain, Hathaway, and their ilk feel about US veterans.

Me: It was implied. In fact, that was Simpson's whole point in singling us out (though there were others in the feed) to connect us with the Tweet's anti-veteran sentiment. Let him deny it, or give some "alternate" reason for singling us out and ignoring everyone else (pics and links) on the feed..

Simp: Chastain hurried to put tributes to US veterans who are family members on her Facebook page minutes before cutting and pasting them to her blog to show her passionate patriotism. Then she claimed that I was lying about what she believed, which was impossible since she was lying about what I had said (typical Chastain).

Me: I posted them when I had the opportunity (after I finished an author services job). Like a three-year-old, Simpson thinks he's the cause of everything.

Simp: : However, since United States veterans of the American Civil War are US veterans, we would like evidence from Chastain, Hathaway, or the Flaggers that they have ever honored those soldiers for their service on behalf of the United States of America. Otherwise, they certainly do dishonor and despise certain US veterans, and they should be honest about it.

Me: Well, I've never made a secret that I don't honor those particular veterans...even those in my ancestry -- at least, not for their union service.

Simp: So what we have is characteristic Chastain, throwing a tantrum about Twitter while engaging in the usual lying. You can see that over at Al Mackey’s blog. Al makes the insightful point that the United States Congress recognizes Confederate veterans as Civil War veterans, not as American veterans. Chastain failed to take that on.

 IMPORTANTMe: Been there, done that. Back in August 2013, Ol' Al was kinda ambivalent about it himself (here: ):     
Said Al, "I have a bit of a problem calling confederate veterans American veterans."

Said I: I've come to have something of a problem with that, too, but some people see it that way, and I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't. They cite some act of the U.S. Congress recognizing Confederates as American Veterans. Which is all well and good, I guess, but I don't have a lot of respect for the US Congress or most of what it enacts. Confederates were American veterans in the sense that the Confederacy was American, as in The Confederate States of AMERICA. (Please capitalize Confederate, Al. It's a proper noun in this usage).

Simp: I still have not heard anything from Ben Jones about the Twitter account in question. Given how alarmed he is about other misrepresentations of Confederate heritage, one wonders why in this case he’s remained silent.

Me: Maybe he hasn't. Just because you don't know about it, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Simp: I’m amused at all the concern about whether this Twitter account is a fake. As I’ve pointed out, Chastain does not disagree with its positions (recall that was the same issue with the Flaggers and Heimbach). After all, some people have told me privately that they suspect that Chastain and company are a plant, a false flag operation, established by enemies of Confederate heritage who seek to destroy that heritage by associating it with such humiliating fools. Case in point: Jerry Dunford. Chastain’s offered no evidence that such is not the case.

Me: Yeah, I have. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Simp: By the way, Chastain offers the following declaration: “You take anonymous people at their word? Seriously?” This is quite an indictment of most of the commenters at her blog, including one of our favorites, “Border Ruffian/Battalion,” as well as that individual who posted under a number of names (and who seemed to be a Chastain favorite). So, just remember: Connie Chastain doesn’t take most of her own commenters at their word. She indicts them, but, since she takes them seriously, she indicts her own intelligence, too.

Me: How do you know I don't know who they are?  Just because YOU don't  know who they are? LOL!

Simp: As they say, in order to address one’s problem, first you have to admit that you have a problem. Let’s hope Connie Chastain is on the road to recovery soon.

Me: I have problems, but none of the seriousness and magnitude of Simpson's, who is the one who doesn't admit he has a problem.


More obsession from Simpson:

Simp: She now claims that she knows who her anonymous commenters are...

Ah, no. I simply said you don't know I don't know who they are. Because YOU don't know who they are? LOL! If you don't know it, nobody knows it, three-year-old?

Simp: ... and that the Twitter account’s a fake

Never said the Twitter account is a fake. Here's a copy/paste of what I said:
Now, I wouldn't put it past him or one of his myrmidons to make a fake account (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) pretending to be a bizarre proponent of Confederate heritage (racist, sexist, bad speller, etc.) and then "discovering" it and "pointing it out" to his gullible peanut gallery. But I also don't doubt that it could be some gung-ho heritage person.

Why do you lie so? Very unbecoming for a professional.

Simp:  … she just wants us to take her at her word.

Me: I don't care what you do, and I really don't want you to do anything but stop your bullying, harassment and persecution of the VaFlaggers and other Southern heritage folks.

Simp: We know how much that’s worth … that and $3.50 gets you a latte as the local coffee shop. It’s just like BR/B’s “list” of thousands of black Confederate soldiers … or Joe McCarthy’s “list.” Sure, Connie, You just keep on telling yourself and your lemmings that.

 It’s no different when she defends kiddie porn as fan fiction

Me: Check with Romance Writers of America, or one of the erotica publishers. They'll tell you the fanfic in question isn't even erotica, let alone porn. You're just calling it that to indulge your desire to denigrate and your lust to bully.

Simp: … but then she writes about minors, sex, and violence, too. She thinks that’s romance and adventure.

Me: I think it's what it is, what I intended it to be --  an indictment of leftist permissiveness and the feminist war on men and boys, but obviously you can't get your mind out of the gutter long enough to see that.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

What He Sez and What He Really Means

In a comment thread over at XRoads....

... Simpson sez: I believe it is clear that over the past several months Ms. Chastain has become more shrill in her ranting because she is increasingly desperate.
What he really means: Over the past several months, Ms. Chastain  has increasingly and unmistakably pointed out my questionable integrity, my desire to denigrate, my lust to harass, my resentment of the Virginia Flaggers' success, and my jealousy of and loathing for Susan Hathaway.
Simpson sez: In the process she has marginalized herself and has become a target of ridicule.
What he really means:  I, Brooks Simpson, as someone with the lust to denigrate, obsession hurt and injure, harrass and persecute with words as weapons, have done my best to marginalize her and make her the target of ridicule, but it only works with people who share these dishonorable traits with me.
Simpson sez:  It is now too easy to make fun of her: responsible people do not take her seriously. Certainly I don’t.
What he really means: It irritates me to no end how she has me pegged, and shows me such disrespect, even though that's what I deserve. I much prefer the mindless-lemming acceptance of my floggerette peanut gallery. Everyone, please take note that of my claim that I'm a responsible person, even though my words and behavior negate the claim.
Simpson sez: The post in question illustrates her angry frustration.**
What he really means:  The post in question is a parody with, however, a lot of truthfulness, made as a counterpoint to my vicious attack on Susan Hathaway wherein I put forth the blatant and egregious (and oft made) insinuations and false accusations of racism and violence.
Simpson sez: That is understandable, because people openly mock her. She’s quite bitter about that.
What he really means. Me and my kind openly mock Chastain, but as she has no respect for us and our lies, she's not fazed by it, and I'm quite bitter about that. She takes all the fun out of denigration, ridicule, harassment and persecution.
Simpson sez: There is a fine line between using her as an example and calling unmerited attention to her … attention which I assure you is not unwanted by her. If she wasn’t so ridiculous, she’d be ignored, but she never fails to astonish and amuse.
What he really means: I'm doing my best to denigrate her, injure her (including posting fraudulent reviews of her books at Amazon), harrass and persecute her with words, but I can't do it too much or my myrmidons might see who the real bad guy is here, and it ain't Chastain.
Simpson sez: She’s like Jerry Dunford.
What he really means: She's not really like Dunford, but I'm lumping them together so those of my readers who lack discernment will think them the same.
**The post in question: Don't Know Much About (teachin') History.

Goad Gatsby's Gullibility

About my post, Don't Know Much About (teachin') History, Goad Gatsby sez at XRoads:
Yes, I love it. 6 students at Texas Tech weren’t informed about the Civil War (or the right answers were edited out) therefore 6 teachers in other parts of the country aren’t doing their jobs.
Yet he no doubt wholeheartedly accepts Sick Simpson's slimy claim (based on an anonymous tweet)  that Susan and I have "no love for US Veterans," although we're both on record showing honor for and pride in US veterans, having done so multiple times in the past.

I guess hip-hop heritage includes clinging to an enormous double standard....

(More) Drumming Up Hatred for the South

And floggers say there's no hate for the South...  From the ultra-leftist Daily Beast:

The Tragic History of Southern Food

Some of the more foul-tasting morsels: 
 [Paula] Deen’s plight furnished an operatic fable about the South: the Southern lady who celebrates the grand table at the expense of black women...

The [pre-civil rights] white South was caught in a freeze-frame fantasy of the plantation era...

White Southerners crave an innocent past, a personal distance from the sins of their ancestors.
Look, folks. How about a little dose of reality, here. Both Aunt Jemima and her flour were creations of the Midwest (Kansas and Chicago), not Dixie.  Google "Aunt Jemima" and Chris Rutt, Charles Underwood, and Pearl Milling Company.

Article concludes with this:  [The author] Ferris is a member of Southern Foodways Alliance, a group of scholars, writers, chefs, restaurateurs, documentarians, and enthusiasts who explore the culinary culture with hope for regional redemption. Southern Foodways Alliance, huh? Sounds like the floggers of the culinary world.

First of all, the region doesn't need redemption any more than any other region does. It needs respite from people like this drumming up hate for it with their own twists, distortions and sometimes outright fantasies. It needs respite from nonSouthern sins being renamed Southern and then used as verbal whips against Southerners, particularly white ones. It needs respite from constant evilization to make the rest of the country look innocent and lofty by comparison, so it can continue to sweep its own sins under the rug, sanitize them, perfume them -- AND give nonSoutherners the warm fuzzies of moral superiority, who will take them, cling to them, and wrap themselves in them, even when they're fraudulent.

And some people wonder why we want to secede.

Sneak Preview of the Next "Legacy of Fortitude" Title ...

Read about the night hate came to Pensacola, here: Little Sister -- Prologue   And read it while you can. It will be removed from the blog pages soon because when the first draft is done, edits and re-writes will begin, including the Prologue.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Watch Connie Squirm! In Your Dreams, Simpson

As I've said, Simpson is not stupid, he's just ethically challenged. But he will pretend ignorance and stupidity if he thinks he can make a point with them. 

(I've pointed out this flogger practice before:
There's more, but you get the idea....)

For example, he posts a Tweet from the SaveConfedMuseum feed and says "These folks..."  There's more than one? He knows this? He knows who "they" are?

So some unknown person ("These folks" to Simpson) makes a Twitter account and posts a picture of Susan and a link to my blog, and that makes us mental clones ot this unknown person? If Simpson believes that, he has bigger mental problems than I want to deal with.

But I don't think for a moment he believes it. He knew he was lying when he made the post. What's interesting is how many of his followers will swallow what he says without a single neuron firing.

Now, I wouldn't put it past him or one of his myrmidons to make a fake account (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) pretending to be a bizarre proponent of Confederate heritage (racist, sexist, bad speller, etc.) and then "discovering" it and "pointing it out" to his gullible peanut gallery. But I also don't doubt that it could be some gung-ho heritage person. Somebody a bit over the top. The heritage community is huge -- there's bound to be a weirdo now and then. (There are kooks on their side, don't forget. The semi-literate Ed "Crawfish" Sebesta, who "monitors" Tommy Hilfiger Corp. for "Confederate symbology" on their clothing, comes to mind.)

Which is it in this case? A genuine Confederate heritage nut, or a flogger or floggerette trying to make heritage folks look bad?

There is a history of doing that on their side: (Simpson's fake blog made solely to attack me)

I really have no idea which it is. Don't care, either, because the only ones who believe it are folks on his side who need to hate and put down somebody in order to generate the warm fuzzies of (fake) moral superiority in themselves.

Susan and I are both on record, long since, on Facebook and elsewhere, supporting US Armed Forces personnel, both active and vets.

What's going on here is Simpson throwing a tantrum because I threw off on his profession, his flogger colleagues and the whole flippin' educationally and morally bankrupt academic establishment in this country. I've already identified why he has it in for the VaFlaggers, although that doesn't explain his personal hatred for Susan. As for me, I'm not sure why he puts so much importance on the personal blog of a retired property and casualty claims secretary in Florida.

And I'm sure the tantrum was intensified by my reference to "Pedophile-loving," but there was more connection between him and his pedophilic commenters than there is between Susan or I and this anonymous Tweeter...

Hey, when crap is thrown at me, I pick it up and throw it back. If you don't want it thrown back at you, don't throw it at me first, capisce?

Pedophile-lovin' Brooks Simpson Honors US Veterans? (Updated!)

Only if he can use said "honoring" as vehicle for trashing people he hates -- Southern heritage folk, including moi --  especially the Virginia Flaggers and most especially the one he hates the most, Susan Hathaway.

I've never even heard of the FB page he's connecting us with ('cuz somebody there posted a link to Backsass and a photo of Susan). Simpson's implication that we share the viewpoints held by anyone who happens to post about us is either stupid or unethical. And while I don't consider him to be of more than average intelligence, I don't think Simpson is stupid.

Yeah. That means I think he's unethical. Highly. Which he has demonstrated repeatedly at XRoads.

His hatred for Susan Hathaway has been conspicuously on display over there lately. And I still can't figure out why he hates her so, and loves to lie about her.

As far as I know, she's never done anything to him.

Is an honest difference of opinion about history enough to justify that kind of hate? I can't see it. There's bound to be some other reason for it in his fevered brain but perhaps it's something people with ethics can't really understand or relate to.

Oh, and by the way, Susan's Facebook newsfeed abundantly honors US Vets on Veterans Day, particularly the ones in her family.

And I note that none of the other floggers have posted anything honoring US Vets on Veterans Day. Will Simpson take them to task for it?

Maybe when hell freezes over....

Which should tell you just how deeply insincere, nay fraudulent, his "honor" of US Vets is.


It's not a Facebook page Simpson is fraudulently trying to connect us with, it's a Twitter feed; and I still never heard of it until now.


Just to show what a liar Sick Simpson is -- just how ethically challenged and unscrupulous...

From Susan's FB wall -- her cover image, been up all weekend in commemoration of Veterans Day:

And this is on my wall -- posted by my sis and shared by me.

No love for US Veterans? We have a heck of a lot more love for 'em than Simpson has. For him,  their day is just an excuse to trash the VaFlaggers and Confederate heritage.

I know why he has such a sullen attitude toward me ... because I show his "historianship" extreme disrespect, but I still have to ask... why the hate for Susan? Why the lies? She's never done anything to him.


While Simpson is bellyaching over imaginary disrespect to Vets (that he hallucinated) shown by Susan and me, a Veterans Day Program in Wisconsin has been CANCELLED by ... guess who... THE FLIPPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT IN EAU CLAIRE.

It's YOUR side, Simpson, that disrespects veterans...

Monday, November 10, 2014

Don't Know Much About (teachin') History

The men depicted here are all teachers, or work in the educational establishment, and they all have an interest in history, particularly civil war history. But are academia and  today's teachers really teaching? And are students learning?
Not according to this video.The audio isn't working properly and you might have to use headphones to hear the Q and A  But do use them because it's worth it to hear the non-answers. Who won the civil war? Heck if they know.

 Watching this video makes two things clear.

First, all the dire flogger predictions about the demise of Confederate heritage because of "how the war is remembered" is just so much hooey (and desperate wishful thinking on the part of floggers). How the war is remembered by these students is ... well, basically, it ain't remembered.

Second, this clearly illustrates that for certain history teachers, it's not really about history; it's about ideology. It's about history as tool of control, as in "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Controlling the future means manipulating what kids learn in school. It means not teaching history but indoctrinating with ideology.

But are they even doing that successfully? Apparently not. That's why they are so enraged at those doing a better job of getting to people and actually educating them about the past. Like the Virginia Flaggers.

You know the old saying.

Those who can, do.

Those who can't ....

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Bear With Me, Folks

I haven't had much time to backsass lately.  Between some time-consuming author services jobs and getting my own WIP ready to publish later this month, plus a bunch of off-line activities, I've been busy lately. But I have ton of stuff I want to backsass and belly-ache about, and I can hardly wait!

Meanwhile, leave comments, try the new chat function, listen to a little bit of Boomer music -- which I, an old white Southern Boomer broad, personally dedicate to Millennial whiny-butt Jarret Ruminski:

Saturday, November 8, 2014

More from the Drone Frenzy Thread....

A Neighbor on October 31, 2014 at 4:55 am said:
I live across from the museum and am sick and tired of them clogging the sidewalk and having to duck under those flags when walking by. It’s like a gauntlet of hate. They are absolutely intimidating to many people I see it every day it is not just me. Also sick of hearing people shout obscenities at them as they drive by!
J-- A-- S--  on October 31, 2014 at 10:08 am said:
When you post without using you name I question your veracity. If what your are saying is true then please provide proof i.e. camera footage of them harassing you or anyone else.’They are absolutely intimidating to many people I see it every day it is not just me” How so and can you name the other injured parties? Do they shake the flags in your face and shout obscenities at you? If so and you have positive proof I will also denounce them.But if you are just making false accusation then there is something wrong between your ears.
Andy Hall on November 1, 2014 at 11:22 am said:
The Virginia Flaggers actively encourage drivers to honk their horns as a show of support — they even put out printed signs that say so. That in itself is pretty a**hole-ish, to expose the VMfA’s neighbors to that, week in and week out, for years. Will you denounce that? Of course you won’t.
J-- A-- S--  on November 1, 2014 at 1:05 pm said:
That Mr. Hall is were you are wrong if people are passing by and honking their horns and the flaggers are encouraging that then yes I do condemn them for that and they should stop asking people to honk their horns. Do you have evidence of constant honking? Why didn’t you condemn Goad for playing load rap music (That in itself is pretty a**hole-ish, to expose the VMfA’s neighbors to that, week in and week) was it not? For my part I am going to contact VA Flaggers to get their side.
Andy Hall on November 1, 2014 at 2:08 pm said:
What do you mean, “if they are encouraging that?” You don’t know?
J-- A-- S--  on November 1, 2014 at 2:42 pm said:
If I did I would not have asked the question.
Andy Hall on November 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm said:
It would be a good idea to find out. It’s not difficult to confirm that, in fact, they do encourage passers-by to honk in support.

As for Goad, yeah, that’s pretty annoying. But the Flaggers’ boorishness is not really mitigated by someone else coming along later and doing the same thing.
J-- A-- S--  on November 3, 2014 at 12:40 pm said:
Mr Hall I talked to the flaggers and they assured me that they were not having problems with the neighborhood. If people drive by and honk their horns so much as to be a nuisance then the flaggers must have a lot of support.

“As for Goad, yeah, that’s pretty annoying. But the Flaggers’ boorishness is not really mitigated by someone else coming along later and doing the same thing.”

So two wrongs make a right?
Andy Hall on November 3, 2014 at 1:10 pm said:
“I talked to the flaggers and they assured me that they were not having problems with the neighborhood.”

I’m sure they did.

“So two wrongs make a right?”

No, they don’t. But you were the one who brought up the subject of Goad’s loud music.

And I will say this for Goad — at least he lives in the neighborhood. I’m not sure any of the prominent Flaggers do.

Some observations on the above exchange. A Neighbor never answered this: "How so and can you name the other injured parties? Do they shake the flags in your face and shout obscenities at you?" The closest s/he came to an answer was this weak, lame, watered down meaningless reply:
To your other questions, I’ll try to boil it down, for example: For people of color, groups of white men of waving that flag , armed even, is frightening. Period. For other groups too I bet. Also, like the other gentleman pointed out, the honking is too much.
In other words, there are no injured parties, and the VaFlaggers do not shake flags at people and shout obscenities. THAT is the job of Goad Gatsby's boom box, as noted here:

As for the Gauntlet of Hate....clogging sidewalk (smirk).

Don't look very hateful to me...

And as for the honking....

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Hats Off to Andy Hall

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

Over at his Dead Confederates blog, Andy Hall has a post up correcting an earlier post based on an erroneous news report.

The story deals with a verbal confrontation between a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a black resident of Danville, Virginia, regarding the flag at the Sutherlin House museum.  The SCV member is reported by numerous news outlets as saying to the black man, "You need to go back to Africa."

Many outlets reported that remark, ending with a period (or exclamation point) and end-quotes after the word Africa, which is false reporting, as the man's statement did not end there. A transcript of the exchange occurs in the written report at WSET-TV:
"Your own ancestors sold you into slavery. Yes they did," Clark said.

"It doesn't make right. It doesn't mean you're right to take people," Danville resident Kevin Moore said.

"Well then you need to go back to Africa and tell them to stop," Clark said.

"Well I'm confronting you. You're involved in the crime too," Moore replied.

"Oh I'm not involved in anything," Clark said.
"...and tell them stop," is the phrase that has been left out of many, many reports of the incident.

The clip of the confrontation runs about ten seconds, and you don't know what was said before or after, but it appears the SCV member, in using the present tense, is alluding to not only the historic participation of Africans in the slave trade, but their current participation, as well.

Andy's replacement post acknowledges that the SCV member's statement did not end with, "...go back to Africa," and it includes his apology for not verifying the report before posting about it.

I give Andy a hard time when I believe he's wrong about something, and I'm certainly in fundamental disagreement with what motivates him, with regard to Confederate history and heritage.

But when someone I disagree with corrects an error, I have to offer not just acknowledgment, but admiration and thanks.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

He "Just Knows"....

Kevin Levin sez, "How many times have you been told that the proper way to refer to our civil war is the 'War Between the States'? The folks who insist on it almost always assume they are speaking for their ancestors."

They do? I wonder how he knows this. Have those folks told him so? Have most of them told him so? Have any of them told him so?

I'm constantly astounded at what Kevin knows without benefit of being told.

He just KNEW the VaFlaggers were making up the story about W&L security forcing a teen visitor to turn his Confederate flag T-Shirt inside out.

He just KNEW there would be no flag on I-95 near Richmond.

He just KNEW that nobody who opposed to the I-95 flag had anything to do with the theft of the backhoe -- before the police even started their investigation!

And now he knows when folks are speaking for their ancestors.

What is this man doing teaching at some high school? With his ability to "just know", he needs to be in the highest levels of the Department of Homeland Security or the NSA.

Visual Aid for Andy...

... on Real Protest Boorishness

Over on Simpson toxic XRoads flog, Andy Hall sez the Virginia Flaggers are boorish. For you folks in Rio Linda, that means unmannered, crude, insensitive. Of course, he offers no proof of this -- he doesn't even identify the unmannerly, crude or insensitive behavior.

Apparently he's hanging that description -- or is it an accusation? -- on one thing, and one thing only  -- the VaFlaggers encouraging motorists to honk in support of the flag.


I had to check on this because I didn't know, as I am not in Richmond -- I'm several states and several hundred miles away (but then, Andy's even further away).  So I messaged Susan Hathaway (something I'm fairly reluctant to do, as I know there are great demands on her time). And she confirmed that the VaFlaggers do indeed encourage passing motorists to honk in support of the flag.

After all, this IS protesting, and the idea is to DISTURB the status quo. But she confirmed that there have been no complaints about it from nearby residents. (Thanks for the info, Susan.)
There could be more than one reason for this. Perhaps some folks in the neighborhood approve of what they're doing. But most likely, it's because the horn-honking isn't really as disturbing as Andy wants to believe -- and wants us to believe.  People don't just lay down on their horns from one end of the block to the other. It's not like ecstatic multitudes of motorists after their team wins the Super Bowl. Per Susan, these are "beep-beep" type honks.

Apparently, Andy considers that far more unmannerly, crude and insensitive than the filthy hip hop lyrics Goad Gatsby blasts constantly, from the time he arrives till the time he leaves.

Why am I not surprised.

Obviously, I'm not all outraged at this, as Andy apparently thinks I, and everyone else, should be. My gosh, do floggers have no sense of proportion and balance? There are so many other things to come unglued about (and no, not drones).

Andy, since you seem  to be so delicate and protected (if you're so scandalized by horn-honking at a protest) it makes me wonder how you're going to take what follows. But you need to see it; you're either in or approaching retirement age; it's time for you to get a grasp on the reality of the world around you.

Let me show you some protest boorishness:

Protests against President Bush by the "anti-war" left:

Izzat boorish enough for ya, Andy? No? Then how about some Occupy protesting?

Contrast that with Flagger and other conservative protests, and try to find the boorishness in the latter. For example, this Tea Party Tax Day protest in Pensacola I photographed a few years back: 


No threats, no profanity or obscenity, no public sex, no public urinating or defecating, not even any filthy rap lyrics. But these folks did, indeed, encourage motorists to honk in support of their tax protest, so I guess that makes them utter boors, huh.

The VaFlaggers are a group of ordinary, decent human beings -- Southerners who love their heritage and have had enough of seeing it slandered and trashed.

All  you VaFlagger haters need to get that through your pointy little heads. As much as you want and need them to be frightening and malevolent, they simply are not. You are MAKING. IT. UP. From what hole or need you have in your soul, I do not know. But the problem is your figment, not reality, and you need to get over it.
**(Much of what I write at Backsass is my opinion; most of the factual stuff I write is based on what I learn online. But when I can't find reliable info online, I will contact someone for it.)

Sunday, November 2, 2014

The Drone Chronicles

I have had so much fun watching the flogger and floggerette frenzy over the VaFlaggers' new drone.

True to form, Simpson was the first (and so far the only) flogger to blog about it, and the comment thread at XRoads is super-duper rich!

As I said in a comment over there (that actually got posted!) they're just jealous, and a little bit affronted, as if the VaFlaggers did an end-run around heritage attackers.

Corey Meyer's comment is so typical. Sez he:
  …"they bought it for $1100+ with donations form supporters. In essence, they bought Norwood Lewis a new toy."
Uh, nope, Corey. No Virginia Flagger funds or donations were spent on the drone. (Corey, in case y'all don't know it, is inadvertently obsessed with the VaFlaggers financing -- just as if it's any of his business!)

So then we have this cringe-worthy observation specifically to Simpson from somebody named John Kim:
I think you give them far more attention than they deserve and the debates have become more personal than professional. However, I’m encouraged now that the Flaggers are leaping into the future and embracing new technology. This indicates a willingness to grow, learn, and be exposed to new ideas.
Can you believe the arrogance? Well, I couldn't let that go unanswered, so I sent a response and, wonder of wonders, Simpson let it through. Of course, his motive for so doing was ... well, you'll see:

Me:  I hear some of ‘em’s gonna start wearin’ shoes and installin’ indoor plumbing in 2015…

And Simpson's dig: More evidence of how Connie Chastain hates the South and evilizes southerners. No responsible person would advance such sectional slurs. Of course, she’ll now say she’s simply being sarcastic, but, as she knows what other people’s true motives are, I am simply returning the favor.

What I can't understand, though, is Mr. Kim's assumption that Confederate heritage folks in general, and the VaFlaggers in particular, are throwbacks. Does he truly imagine we don't have microwave ovens and drive electronic cars? That we don't have cell phones, even smart phones, and computer access? Maybe he thinks we still travel in horse-drawn carriages (for the rich) and mule-drawn wagons (for the poor) and women wear hoopskirts?

As ridiculous as Mr, Kim's statement (and his mindset) are, Jimmy Dick takes the cake, as he usually does. Here are his comments and my replies....
What good is a drone for a group that is trying to educate people about the history of the Confederacy?
They identified the uses for it, didn't you read the article? Besides, educating people about the history of the Confederacy is only one of their purposes. Honoring Confederate soldiers as a huge part of their purpose, and I can see it becoming quite useful in that endeavor. But since you're not a member of the group, why is it a concern to you at all?

Isn’t the problem for this group in the first place their lack of ability to interpret the past using facts and to transfer that knowledge (I’m being nice) to others?

Nope, that's not a problem, and nope, you're not being nice. I'm not certain you're capable of it. Like Simpson, you love the put down, you get off on denigration, you lust after hurting people. The difference is, you don't have Simpson's snot-slick finesse with the language.

How does a flying object that’s only use is to take visual images going to help them accomplish that?

(1) How do you know that's all it is useful for and (2) your mistake (well, one of many) is attempting to bind your limited vision on them and (3) because they're vision is not as limited as yours, they see many more possibilities than you. And are you aware of how useful visual images can be?

Here's some communication from the Drone Master:
"I already sent a freebie bridge inspection to the Department of Transportation showing them the bridge joints on the RE LEE Bridge. Said, "Here, this is free, if you need more done, please contact me." Probably cost them 50-60k to do that on just one side in 2 weeks. I did it in 3 min..."
See Jimmy? You just don't know how to think outside the box.

Let’s face some facts here.

No, Jimmy, these are not facts.  They're at best your unfounded opinion -- with a lot of bigotry-based fantasy mixed in.

1. Their parading in farb gear with the confederate battle flag has failed to do anything but draw ridicule and scorn upon them.

Farb gear? Most of them wear ordinary casual wear for flaggings. Even those who wear re-enactor apparel don't do it all the time. And you need to get over the childish assumption that everyone feels like you do. The ridicule and scorn are coming from people like your fellow travelers, whose opinion matters ... how?

2. Their extremely bad history interpretations of the Civil War era fail to pass the scrutiny of the general public. If anything, their attempts to pass off the lost cause as real history are alienating the very people they are trying to gain support from.

The general public doesn't scrutinize, Jimmy, and they don't know a whole lot about history -- the civil war kind and nearly any other. The people they've been trying to gain support from basically support them. Just so you understand, they're not trying to get the "support" of the VMFA. They just want the museum to put the flags back.

3. The erection of confederate battle flags along highways has had the reverse effect from the one they desire. Instead of educating people all those symbols do is embarrass the citizens in the region.

The flags have ticked off a few ultra-leftists. They have brought praise from many Southerners (and brought donations, as well)... But just out of curiosity, let's say the "region" is Fredericksburg and Richmond. The first has a population nearing 30,000 and the second, 214,000. Of those people, how many are embarassed by the flags; and how do you know? Did they tell you? No, you're just making it up, like a little kid.

4. The existence of the flaggers has been an absolute farce, yet they can’t understand that. The group appeals to a specific set of people whose grasp on reality is at times tenuous. When they do get positive attention it is usually to exploit them for political or financial purposes. The group fails to recognize that.

More utter phantasmagorical unreality. I think they understand their experience better than you do.  Only a fool would claim they know more about someone else's experience than that person. This whole fantasy you've spewed here is puts you in the category of having a tenuous grasp on reality.

Until you provide independently verifiable third-party information from reliable sources (it can't be a prejudiced flagger-hater like Simpson) proving what you've said here, I'm calling you out as bald-faced liar.
Stay tune, folks. I don't think we've seen the end of The Drone Chronicles yet....

Saturday, November 1, 2014

How a Liar Lies ... Yet Again

Current post at Simpson's XRoads flog:
Quote of the Week: October 26-November 1,2014

It’s just astonishing what some people say and think:

One could actually argue that slavery increased the quality of life for the blacks who were brought over here. In many cases, they had it a lot better off than poor whites.

And yet somehow the poor whites didn’t see it that way.
And what does our friend from Florida say about that?

That’s a reality that infuriates White-Southern-hating flogger-types, when mentioned.

Ah, yes. The “slavery wasn’t so bad” position … offered by a white person. Nothing new here.

As for how our Confederate heritage advocate from Pensacola feels about the American people:

We live in a nation of dumbed down ignoramuses. Nice to see how she holds her readership in high esteem.

Can you spot the lie? Silly question, huh? You can't not spot it. Unless you're a flogger or floggerette. So as a courtesy to them, here's the lie:

Ah, yes. The “slavery wasn’t so bad” position ...

That's not what Logan or I said, is it? Saying that some white folks who were poor had it worse off -- as in, say,  housing, food, clothing, and not having sufficient money to procure these things -- is not saying "slavery wasn't so bad." And it's totally illogical to think so. You would think someone who is, or claims to be, as intelligent and edumucated as Brooks Simpson would recognize this.

Of course, I don't think for a minute the doesn't understand Logan's observation; he understands it perfectly, and he knows it's true. But he has to take the flogger default position, which is to trumpet slave misery in order to trumpet white Southern evil, because the two circumstances exist, in the flogger viewpoint, in exact inverse proportion.

Not all blacks brought here had it better than poor white people -- which is why Logan qualified it with "in many cases." I'm sure Simpson noticed that, too, and chose to ignore it, because the lie is so much more powerful without it.

Then there's the obvious -- nay, the extremely conspicuous -- fact that being worse off physically than some slaves didn't make slavery suddenly look attractive to people just because they were poor and in need. Ridiculous for Simpson and his sycophants to even bring that up, as it wasn't Logan's point, and usually isn't the point of anyone who mentions it.

Nevertheless, that's the leftist/flogger default position, the emotion-not-cognition response, to such observation.  Moreover, that reaction from floggers and floggerettes has nothing to do with historical slavery, anyway -- it has to do with demonizing contemporary folks who don't toe the current-history-dogma line.

Now, I can't speak for everyone, and I don't try. I speak for myself, and what I do elicits from leftist ideologues like floggers and floggerettes accusations that I'm defending slavery, that I'm a slavery apologist, that I'm saying slavery "wasn't all that bad." They're smart enough to know their accusations are not true; they're just not honest enough to admit it, not strong enough to buck their ideological devotion.

Many times -- in fact, most of the time -- my discussions of slavery aren't about slavery itself, at all, but about the leftist caricature of slavery, the hyperbole, the (I believe deliberate) portrayal of the worst of slavery as the whole of it.  In other words, the presentation that slavery was totally  (1) violence and physical abuse, (2) breaking up families and (3) rape -- and nothing else.  (I've had a critic tell me, apparently in all sincerity, that a slave could not tell the difference between being raped and not being raped. No doubt Ed Baptist's new book is right up his alley.) 

Fact is, most slaves were not subject to violent physical abuse; most slave families were not broken up, most slave women were not raped.  But it has to be presented as if they were because it is exceedingly useful in demonizing white Southern men.

It is this exaggeration, this caricature, that I reject. I know and acknowledge that terrible abuses** occurred; but to say they were not the totality of slavery is not to minimize them, as dishonest critics would have us believe.  It is not a minimization of domestic violence to say that most people do not beat their spouse or children...

But back to Simpson's XRoads post.  Numerous posts from him certainly confirms that it’s just astonishing what some people say and think, iddinit?  How does he know how poor whites saw it? Does he channel them?
 In agriculture, the black and white worker were conditioned by the economic relations of the slave economy. For the black, this meant he never faced the direct competition inherent in a free, unprotected market economy since the slave was an asset owned and cared for by the slave master. Thus, the economic position of many slaves was better than that of the poor white who operated in a totally free, unprotected market. While the poor white envied the greater economic security of the slave, the black envied the greater freedom of the white.
Political Economy of the Urban Ghetto
by Professor Daniel R Fusfeld PhD (Author)
Professor Timothy Bates PhD (Author)
The late Professor Fusfeld was a slavery apologist, don't you know. Professor Bates (still living, as far as I can determine online, apparently is black) is a slavery apologist, don't you know, and these men have said and thought (and written) some just astonishing things!

(Cue outraged and/or snide observations about not knowing how to "interpret" "historical" material in 3...2...1...)

Oh, and my comment was not an indication of my level of esteem for the American people or my readers. Generally speaking, I hold the American people in far, far higher esteem than I hold our freakishly deformed monstrosity of a government.

And that phrase "dumbed down ignoramuses"? It was an indirect reference to who and what made them that way -- the destructive cultural mutant known as the educational establishment. People in that establishment, making their living from it, are quick to label criticism of it as "anti-intellectual" and "aversion to education."

You can find those phrases now and then at Simpson's flog. But it's not so, floggers; it's anti-indoctrination and aversion to  "education" being used for control -- the result of the left's hijacking education to promote its ideology, a transformation that has occurred largely within my lifetime.

Simpson's gratuitous attack on Logan is just more evidence -- in the growing mountain of it -- that Simpson in particular, and floggers in general, don't give a rat's rear end about history except as ideological indoctrination and a tool of control. What they're really all about personally is the craving to insult and hurt people ... the unquenchable thirst to denigrate others ... an insatiable hunger for the put-down, in their quest to evilize white Southerners.

** In one of the WPA slave narrative interviews, the former slave relates to the interviewer a horrific beating he witnessed on a fellow slave who had run away and been caught. It's been a while since I read this, and I've not been able to track it down again, so my memory of the narrative may be slightly in error. Nevertheless, I believe you can't read it and not be horrified, deeply saddened and outraged if you have any humanity at all; and you can't help but feel for the witness who had carried the memory of the experience with him into advanced age. After relating the memory to the interviewer, he said, "Where was the Lawd, Missus? Where was the Lawd?" I'd like to know that myself....