Friday, February 20, 2015

She's Still Confused


Why yes, Blogger-too-skeered-to-identify-yourself. I remember the "I learned it from you, Dad" anti-drug commercials. But for your cockamamie post and the commercial to be analogous, the kid in the video would've had to learn from his father's drug abuse that hasn't occurred at the time of the confrontation -- and won't occur until ten years in the future.

You really should think through some of the >cough cough< ideas you dream up before you, you know, put 'em on the Internet....

And another look at flogger dishonesty....

In the next post at her anonymous smear-blog, you'll find this:

Well, what we can expect from AnonFlogger is tight-focusing on what she thinks is great material for smearing heritage folks, and ignoring everything else.  She didn't show us, for example, all the people who DIDN'T respond the way Stephen Burns did, just she didn't show us all the heritage folks who DIDN'T flag MLK's church in Montgomery.

That's the way it is with these attack-floggers. Zero in on the tiny, tiny negative element, and hope people are stupid enough to imagine they are the whole. Whatever you do, don't show the multitudes of good, decent folks in Southern heritage -- don't acknowledge in any way that they exist...

Injure the innocent. That's the flogger way....

See, this is what happens when you find stuff on the internet you know little to nothing about and draw delusory conclusions about it.

Anonymous Flogger makes a post titled, "I learned it from watching you Matt." The post begins with a screenshot of Facebook comment thread discussing an image of a girl running with two Third Nationals billowing out behind her. She's in front of a monument with a quote from MLK engraved on it.

Presumably, the title of the post is supposed to reflect the thoughts of the girl in the photo and, by extension, the Southern heritage community.

It is impossible to tell from the screenshot what Facebook group or personal timeline it was taken from. In any case, a comment by Susan Hathaway suggests that "we don't have any business near monuments like that with our flags. What's the point of this?"

Someone replies, "You'd have to ask the girl."

Susan: "Well then, I don't think posting or sharing helps our cause. Just my opinion."

Someone asks what monument it is. The original poster says, "It's some MLK thing," and Susan confirms, "It is an MLK Monument." (Actually, that is a mistake, as we shall see, although one can see how someone who is unfamiliar with it might think it's an MLK monument, judging by the engraved quote.)

AnonFlogger asks, "Now where oh where would the Confederate heritage crowd pick up an idea like this? Oh, yeah..." ("This" being what she mistakenly assumes is flagging MLK monuments.)

She follows that  with a photo of Matt Heimbach standing in front of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church with a battle flag.

There's just a couple of problems with the associations she's making and the conclusions she's drawing -- but those problems make all the difference in the world. Moreover, they illustrate clearly that AnonFlogger is interested in smearing, and she'll take anything that looks smearworthy -- truth and accuracy be hanged.

First, as I said, the people discussing the photo in the Facebook thread are mistaken about the memorial in the picture. It is not a memorial to MLK, though he is quoted. It is the Southern Poverty Law Center's Civil  Rights Memorial.

Second, protesting the SPLC -- an ultra-leftist, anti-Christian "watchdog" group that slanders, smears and lies for money -- is NOT the same as protesting an MLK monument. Not even close.

And that's what the girl in the photo is doing. She's protesting the SPLC. Although she is only about a block from the church where Heimback is photographed, she is separated from him in time by about TEN YEARS.

Heimback's photo appears to be dated around 2012.

The protest of the SPLC, on the other hand, occurred in 2002 or 2003 or so, after the League of the South** National Conference in Montgomery.

Just out of curiosity, how can somebody learn from watching something that won't happen for another decade? And since Heimbach took his sleazy stand in front of the church in 2012 or so, how many Southern heritage folks have followed his lead and shown up to protest MLK memorials? If so, where, and why doesn't AnonFlogger have pictures?

If memory serves, the photo of the girl with the Third Nationals was made by a photographer with the Montgomery Advertiser, and appeared in the newspaper. It's entirely possible that the photographer staged the photo by asking the girl to run past the civil rights memorial. Most of the protesters were a little way down the sidewalk from the memorial, the better to be seen by folks across the street in the Poverty Palace.

So really, the only thing we're learning here is that people who slander Southern heritage folks (trying to smear them with the white nationalists they are so obsessed with) is that they aren't very smart, or else they aren't real scrupulous.  Maybe both.

**This was also long before the League radicalized, accepted young, overly race-conscious members, and took down its statement on racism:

League of the South Statement on "Racism"
LS Board of Directors

The League of the South has never before issued a statement denying that it is "racist" because racism is a wax nose charge. Those who resort to this charge can never be satisfied. The more we deny it, the more we will be forced to deny it, until at last all that we will have time to do is to repel the latest charge of "racism." However, we make this one statement, to satisfy strangers of good will, that we bear no ill will or hatred to any racial, ethnic, or religious group.

We believe that Christianity and social order require that all people, regardless of race, must be equal before the law. We do not believe that the law should be used to persecute, oppress, or favour any race or class.

We believe that the only harmony possible between the races, as between all natural differences among human beings, begins in submitting to Jesus Christ's commandment to "love our neighbours as ourselves." That is the world we envision and work for.

We believe that the politics of race -- baiting whites against blacks and blacks against white has been profitable for politicians but catastrophic for the South and Southerners.

We believe that all Southerners - black and white - want and need the same things: a safe country for their families, liberty, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We believe that the last thing the South's enemies want is to see black and white Southerners sitting down together to determine their common destiny and work for authentic harmony, a just social and economic order, and an independent South. We can't foretell precisely what that order will look like, but certainly it will not make room for diversity police and political correctness. Rather, we hope it will bring the greatest freedom for the greatest number of all races, and good will among them all.

The League of the South Board of Directors

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Behold More Flogger Dishonesty....

...(or is it, um, flogger confusion?)

You may remember that anonymous flogger said in an earlier post, "So we will continue to hear this crowd crying "We're not racist! We're not racist!'"

I replied, in part, "I don't hear heritage folks crying that. Where do you hear it? How often? Try to find on my blog where I've said it. Try to find it on the VaFlaggers blog.... I suspect ... that when a heritage advocate denies racism, they have a completely different concept than the person accusing them of it."

So now she has posted a few quotes -- nine, to be exact -- which she is presumably offering as proof that heritage folks say, "We're not racist. We're not racist!"

In fact, EIGHT of the nine are NOT saying "We're not racist!" -- they are saying Confederate flags are not symbols of slavery, racism and hate.

That's not the same thing, is it? Can Flogger-Anon not tell the difference between people -- human beings -- and flags, banners, pieces of cloth, which have no will, no volition, no beliefs?

She quotes ONE PERSON saying he did not consider himself to be a racist -- but it is in response to a question posed to him..

Perhaps Anonymous Flogger needs a little help. Okay, here ya go, sweetie:

See the difference?

Tell ya what. Since you seem to be having difficulty with this, let's try something simple and work our way  up to persons and flags. Okay?

Which is which? (1) Butt. (2) Hole in ground.
Don't give up. Keep trying and eventually you'll get it.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Taking a Break

Flipper -- Blue-eyed blond boy
I may be scarce around here for a while (three weeks to a month, maybe). There are off-line and personal things that have been piling up that I need to take care of -- pet (cat) stuff, a couple of author services jobs coming up, some early spring cleaning and home projects, (curtain sewing, painting), that sort of hum-drum chore.

Things are heating up heritage-wise in my neck of the woods and that will claim more of my time. 

I'm finally learning how to do book marketing and promo, and my sales are gradually showing the effects, so I need to step up that effort. It's not all that time consuming, but it does add up. I am also, for the first time since I started writing, setting a daily word count goal.

Several weeks ago, my doc told me he could fix my knees (or at least help them) without resorting to surgery. The first thing he tried (steroid shots in my knees on February 3rd) haven't had much effect. Knee pain has decreased maybe 10 - 15 percent. I guess the next thing to try will be cartilage injections, and if that works, I will have to start a walking routine, and that will be time-consuming.

I will try to post during this time but it probably won't be often. I'll more than likely do Notices, Updates and Quickies. I will check comments periodically.

Also going to cut back the time I spend on Facebook until I get a handle on all these chores.

It's not going to be easy; I'm an Internet junkie. But part of the reason a lot of this stuff piled up is because I neglected them to play online.

I hope I haven't missed some opportunity -- for example, I hope the really affordable fabric that has a Mid Century Modern leaf motif has not all been sold! It sort of puts you in mind of this, except it's gray, black and yellow. It will be for my kitchen.

Meanwhile, everyone keep standing for Dixie!  If you need to contact me, email I will check that every day.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Mousy Tongue: The Latest Floggerette.... Go Off the Deep End
(Note: Circumstantial evidence suggests that Mousy is the new anonymous flogger. I wonder why she's skeered to identify herself.)

Over at XRoads, Mousy sez: 
This is a side topic, but in that post you’re talking about: Connie linked a viral video, which she bills as “I watched a few moments of that video, enough to know it contains information people who love this country need to know”! :)

It’s of some nitwit misunderstanding a high school assignment and thinking it’s some sort of subliminal Islamic extremist recruitment project. She’s not a high school student, nor a parent of anybody at the school, nor even a local. But she’s mad as heck!
Yet another marvelous, sparkling example of the flogger and floggerette lust for denigrating the intelligence of people they disagree with.

I don't think the woman is misunderstanding the assignment at all, and in the time I watched, I saw no indication that she thought it was a "subliminal Islamic extremist recruitment project." This appears to be Mousy's bizarre, out-of-the-blue interpretation based on nothing, probably, except her own animosity. Typical leftist "tolerance."
It’s a vocabulary-in-context assignment from a North Carolina state-adopted workbook (“Lesson 16, CONTEXT: Civilization, The Islamic World: A.D. 600-1300?), and it talks about the history and customs of Islam. It’s basic education.
Actually, what the woman read was not about the history and customs of Islam -- it was about the glorification of Mohammed. You know, the dead guy who inspires Muslims to kill people in magazine offices and kosher cafes, behead a British soldier in the middle of the street in broad daylight, behead an American woman at her workplace in the heartland, burn a captive pilot alive... ...
Here’s a news story about it:

which contains a message for our Connie:

The Farmville Police Department also commented on the video Friday saying, “I want to let everyone know that I have seen the video post about Farmville Central High School and it is being looked into by the PCSO. The safety of your children is of the utmost importance to FCHS, the Farmville Police Department, and the PCSO. I would ask that instead of continuing to share the post and fueling the fire, that you allow those agencies involved to handle the situation.”

Here’s the Pitt County Schools press release:

Anyhow, we know Connie’s not very smart but I thought you might enjoy this insight from her!
Well, "not very smart" at least puts me several rungs above Mousy on the intelligence ladder. Yeah, I know; this is a smack at what passes for Mousy's intelligence, and I'm supposed to avoid following the flogger practice of denigrating the intelligence of our critics and opponents. But my gosh, when she writes crap like this, it's hard to resist!

Several things come to mind regarding this Islamic vocabulary lesson.  It doesn't strike me as a subliminal Islamic extremist recruitment project but an exercise in desensitization and normalization ... an attempt to cleanse and sanitize the prophet, and to separate him from the barbaric and savage brutality practiced by his followers.

It also occurs to me to wonder whether the
vocabulary-in-context curriculum also includes a lesson in something like: CONTEXT: Civilization, The Christian World: B.C. 5 - A.D. 2015).

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

New Anonymous Flogger's Illogic on Display


Well, you can no longer see the anonymous attack flog. It has gone "invitation only." I can't really take credit, since I don't know this ... but, the blog went private shortly after my blog post about it, so it's not too big a stretch. It seems the Anonymous Flogger didn't like my showcasing her falsehoods and illogic here on Backsass.

What's interesting (funny!) is that the public can no longer see the blog and she has to send email invitations to people she wants to see it.

Truth told, I have no idea why she took the blog private, but I'm glad it is.  The less the public sees of flogger knavishness and deceit, the better I like it.

Floggers can be soooo thin-skinned and cowardly....  They hate to have to make a reasoned defense of their beliefs and comments. They hide behind anonymity, privacy settings and the delete button...

I answer her current post. She starts out with:
Time to set our ass-backwards friend straight.

All too often we hear "Confederate Heritage types" talking about "restoring the honor" and "changing hearts and minds", but alas, actions speak much louder than words, now don't they?
Restoring the honor and Changing hearts and minds are phrases coined by the Virginia Flaggers, specifically -- not "Confederate Heritage types" collectively or in general -- in connection with returning the Confederate flags to the facade of the Pelham Chapel.
And often times, the Confederate Heritage crowd will resort to using plausible deniability as cover, and unrelated side issues as a distraction. Take for instance this load of rubbish. Our intrepid author writes:
 "As I have said before, I don't like to call people names that diminish their intelligence. That's too much a flogger thing to do. And, of course, the people whose intelligence they denigrate aren't unintelligent -- they just hold views that floggers don't like, disagree with, and think they shouldn't hold. (That's flogger "tolerance" for you.)"
Sorry, no, Simpson's blog and others are full of the kind of namecalling I'm talking about. I've documented it numerous times on Backsass.
She doesn't like to call people names, she just does it. You mean like calling someone, or something "racist"?  (Boldface emphasis mine. CW)
Did you happen to miss my qualifier? Here, let me help you: 

I don't like to call people names that diminish their intelligence.  ...that diminish their intelligence.  THAT DIMINISH THEIR INTELLIGENCE.

Got it now?

I also note your attempt to equate "someone" and ''something." Don't try that with me, sweetheart. Someone refers to people (or a person); a something doesn't. Be careful of going off the deep end into the waters you're muddying.... You'll get dirty.
What's wrong our dearest author? Why so intolerant all of a sudden of The First Freedom? Convenience? Well, probably just a little bit of ol' fashioned hypocrisy thrown in there for good measure as well, eh?
Explained on my blog. Ignoring it so you can make false connections? My, my, what a flogger thing to do!

Until the recent brouhaha at Crossroads, to the best of my memory, I haven't communicated with Olaf Childress or read his tabloid in over a decade. That he lifted an article from my blog in 2011, without my consent or even my knowledge, and reprinted it in TFF doesn't mean we communicated at the time. I had no idea he had done that until it appeared in your slander blog.

I described The First Freedom that way (racist) because it now includes some content that I consider to be racist. Back in 2001, 2002 when I first became aware of it, it was very conservative and focused on Southern independence. I don't recall any overtly racist articles, although there may have been. I was not a subscriber, and had little to no occasion to read it.

But the point is, namecalling a thing and calling a person names that diminish their intelligence are not the same. But surely you know the difference between an inanimate object -- a collection of paper pages with words on them -- and a human being with intellect, beliefs, perspectives, will, volition, etc. And note, when I said "I don't like to call people names that diminish their intelligence," I meant the kind of language floggers have used repeatedly.

As I once wrote about (and to) Simpson, "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."
If we may be so bold as to speak for "floggers" everywhere...
(We who? There are several of you who put out your blog? Or is it just you? And if it's just you, lose the "we." Remember what Mark Twain said -- "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'" [Brainy Quote]) **
... we're not so sure it is about people who hold views we don't agree with, as much as it is about people who hold views a majority of society as a whole doesn't agree with (or are we supposed to believe that a majority of society believes that the current President of the United States deserves to be lynched? We're sorry, we don't.)
I haven't seen the majority of Confederate heritage folks agree with that, either. I do know that the oft-repeated claim of floggers, floggerettes and fellow travelers, and the misinformed general public -- to wit, the majority of Americans see the  Confederate battle flag as a symbol of racist hatred -- is refuted by several reputable national polls.
But this argument is a distraction. This isn't about our opinions or views, it is about being honest with ones self about who they are, and what they believe. Far too often we have to hear from the Confederate Heritage crowd that "We're not racist" or that the Confederate flag "Isn't a racist symbol"...
Well, see, it depends on what you mean by "racism." Your concept of it, and mine, are likely very different, hugely different things. I don't admit to believing something I don't believe, 'kay? And the symbolism of the Confederate flag is in the eye of the beholder.
...and yet we are left scratching our heads when those same people are off cavorting with people who apparently find enjoyment in burning crosses with the Ku Klux Klan and rallying with Neo-Nazis.
What same people? The "Confederate heritage crowd" is woefully nonspecific. It's a huge crowd, ya know? And it isn't made up of mental clones.
The world renowned author continues:
 "We also know she is obsessed with her concept of racism. In fact, that's basically what the flog is all about."
Well, no, not really. The blog is actually all about "restoring the honor"...
No, it isn't. It's about smearing heritage folks, specifically, the Virginia Flaggers.
... and by that, we apparently mean doing and saying things that are counter-intuitive to the way you would expect one to do, or say if they were really trying to restore any honor, in any way.
"Restoring the honor" refers to putting the Confederate flags back on the Pelham Chapel.  The Virginia Flaggers believe the VMFA's removal of them was dishonorable to the memory of Confederate veterans who worshiped in the chapel, and whose funerals were held there. It's very simple. The Virginia Flaggers would consider the return of the flags as restoration of honor for those Confederate vets, and that is why they flag the VMFA.
As a matter of fact, as of today, the word "racist" has only been used 5 times on this blog, and then only once to describe a person, and guess what? It wasn't our description. Then again, the aforementioned author is an expert on the word "racist", now isn't she? What's wrong dearest author, dabbling in a little projection, are we?
Oh, puh-leeze. You mentioned plausible deniability earlier -- which accurately describes what your accusations of racism without actually using the term is all about. That's what your blog is all about.
"She struggles mightily to make an Everest out of a few molehills using mostly Facebook likes and friendships."
Not quite. While we do think it is relevant to point out "online relationships"; real life, documented physical relationships are definitely more damning, and really drive home the point that much more. And what is the point you might ask? The point is that despite repeated attempts to get the Confederate Heritage crowd to call out their own, they can't bring themselves to do it. And why is that? Well, that's something you will just have to decide for yourselves.
Call them out for what? And what business is it of yours to make "repeated attempts" to get the heritage crowd to do ANYTHING?

Moreover, how do you know they haven't been called out?  I've done some calling out on Backsass, when I thought it was important enough to. But the only people who get off on pointing out that the "heritage crowd" doesn't call out its own are people like you -- and frankly, we don't care what y'all think.
Our author friend goes on to say:
"I am FB friends with many writers, some of whom write erotic romance, which I do not write and do not agree with or approve of."
And adds:
"Yet I'm Facebook friends with some authors who write such as this. Why? Because online writers' communities pass along information about publishing, self-publishing, writing advice, tips about helpful software, promo and marketing, etc...  To be FB friends with an erotic romance writer, to share writing, publishing or promo information he or she has posted, does not mean I embrace erotica. And I don't "drop them like a hot potato" when they post information about their latest erotic romance release -- but for sure I don't promote it, either."
Employing this type of logic, our dearest author should head here and here and click "Like", because after all, we're sure both Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson have some redeeming qualities, we just can't think of any. She could even "friend" them up if she wanted to, except for the fact that Hitler is dead, and Manson... Well, she could always try for a virtual conjugal visit.
What utter hooey. No, dear, that is not the logic I'm employing. It's getting real difficult now to stick with my resolve not to use names that diminish your intelligence, but you're the one showing such illogic, whether I namecall you or not.
But let's cut to the chase, this isn't about "friending up" or "liking" strangers on Facebook...
Then why did YOU  try to make an issue of it, as if it means something? So you're backtracking now?
...this is about the fact that time and time again, we always find the same people running in circles with other people who espouse a whole assortment of nasty beliefs.
We? We who? What same people? What circles? You're going to have to get a lot more specific -- and it will have to be a lot longer on facts and substantiation -- and significance, don't forget significance -- than the crap you've put on your blog thus far.

See, I have no idea who you are talking about -- plus I'm not as orgiastically immersed in linking and tying for slander as you are -- but the people you've written about and identified on your slime-blog are a numerical drop in the bucket of the heritage community.
Thought criminals? Hardly. Take for instance our last two posts. Did we call Burl F. Phillips any bad names? Did we ascribe any description to his apparent beliefs? No, we didn't. Sure, we have opinions on what he apparently believes, and we are fairly confident a majority of people share our opinions on those apparent beliefs, so we leave it up to them to decide for themselves what it all means.
Not thought criminals -- thought police. (Ever read 1984?) But you see, that's not the point. Featuring him on your blog, regardless of passing some kind of judgment on his beliefs, assumes that everyone in the "heritage crowd" knows who Burl F. Phillips is. I'd never heard of him until he showed up on your blog post so I did a quick check of his profile. Some of his images you featured are distasteful, but as far as I can see, they don't indicate hatred that translates to a desire to harm anybody. And I happen to agree with his pro-Israel, anti-jihadist views.
And Steven Monk, did we call him any bad names? Nope. We didn't. In his case, we didn't even find any nasty things he said himself, but on the Facebook page he is apparently responsible for, oh boy! Apparently though, at least one person picked up on the potential implications of what this all could mean, yet instead of taking a stand, and saying "This is wrong", that person instead decided to make excuses and distract. Nice move!
See, this is another place where you run off the rails. YOU are eaten up with people like Harold Covington (who I'd never heard of until your blog post) and you expect we all are as "knowledgeable" (and as eaten up) with this stuff as you are. We're not. You're the one who gets off on it, not us.  If memory serves, I met Mr. Monk long before I'd ever heard of Facebook, at an event at Shiloh Battlefield, and I exchanged a few emails with him about other heritage issues afterward. So when I saw him on Facebook, I either friended him, or accepted his friend request because I remembered his name. In fact, I don't send many friend requests, and when I receive them, I do the barest check of the person's profile before I accept or reject. I don't hire a private investigator to do background check on folks, capisce?

You are putting way, way, way too much emphasis on online "associations."
The bottom line is that only the Confederate Heritage crowd can heal itself from it's own apparent epidemic of bigotry and hate and it does not appear that it cares to tackle that tough task any time soon.
Apparent? To who? Not to me. There's no epidemic, and what you call bigotry and hate are largely figments of flogger imagination, fabricated from fantasy "associations" and imaginary significance, designed to set flogger insides quivering with that most powerful of all addictive substances -- the warm fuzzies of moral superiority. (It is especially luscious to people who are secretly uncertain of their own integrity.)

Tell you what. How about you floggers worry about your own hatred and bigotry. Heal yourself before you start preaching to others. Get the log out of your eye before you complain about the speck in ours. Get sinless before you cast the first stone....
So we will continue to hear this crowd crying "We're not racist! We're not racist!"...
I don't hear heritage folks crying that very much. Where do you hear it? How often? Try to find on my blog where I've said it. Try to find it on the VaFlaggers blog. If someone does make an accusation of racism, I (or the Flaggers or others) might point out that what the accusation defines as racist is not, in fact, racist, but that's not what you're saying, is it?

It might be interesting to learn where you think you're hearing this cry.... So far, you haven't identified a single instance of it.  You've just said it occurs, with no substantiation whatever.  I suspect the disparity is that when a heritage advocate denies racism, they have a completely different concept than the person accusing them of it.
... while some call African Americans "niggers" out of the other corner of their mouths.
Again, make a list of instances of this happening, name the people doing it, and give us a rough estimate of the percentage of the "heritage crowd" that they comprise.  Remember, how folks differ is at least as important as how they are similar.
They will continue to shove Confederate flags down the public's throat...
Got any examples of this? I think this is just your opinion.
whether the public wants them, or not.
You speaking for "the public" now? Remember, the anti-flag nutcases in Richmond who opposed the first I-95 flag were a miniscule portion of the public.
The healing within the Confederate Heritage community begins within the Confederate Heritage community, by first accepting that there is a problem, and believe you, us, there is.  Remember, it's hate, not heritage.
The problem is not within the Confederate Heritage community -- it lies with critics and haters such as yourself and your fellow floggers, so the need for healing lies with you, as well. For us, it is heritage. For YOU, it is hate. That is what you see because that is the color of the glasses you're wearing when you look at us. The hate is yours, not ours.

** Yes. I use "we." I am an editor.

Monday, February 9, 2015

Pat 'n' Andy, Deceiver-Peas in a Dishonest-Pod

(Previously titled Race-obsessed Pat Young ... Again.)

Over on Simpson's flog, Pat Young comments:
"I noticed that Ms. Chastain is claiming that Charlotesville apparently is not governed by locals because the mayor was born in Pakistan."
Actually, what I said was that NONE of the city council members, not just the mayor, are VIRGINIA NATIVES.
"Because the mayor is Pakistani, he is not, she insists, a Virginian."
I said he is a TRANSPLANT. That means not a native Virginian. And I said that every individual on the city council is a transplant and not a native Virginian. And you left that out to focus solely on a Pakistani, as if I was the one who singled him out.

I didn't single him out, Mr. Young. YOU did.
"I thought that she was trying to dress up her racism recently, but I was wrong."
Racism? What you conceptualize as "my" racism is found only in your biased, slanted and distorted imagination. No, YOU are the one focused on race, Mr. Young, which you demonstrate by by zeroing in on Mayor Huja and ignoring the fact that I included ALL FIVE city council members, the rest of whom are blindingly white, BTW, in my remarks.

The city council members in Charlottesville live in Virginia, that makes them residents of Virginia, even citizens of Virginia, as it is legally defined. But they are not Virginians in the sense I'M talking about -- in the sense of having a deep, generational connection to the state, its heritage, history and people. They all came to Virginia when they were well into adulthood, after their worldview and loyalties had been developed.

They are Virginians in the same sense that I was an Illinoisans for five years back in the 1970s. I lived, worked, voted, etc., in Illinois, but I was a Georgian by birth and an Alabamian by raising. (Even today, I am a Floridian, but not like a native Floridian.) But in another way, it's not the same at all. I didn't move to Illinois for the specific purpose of trying to change it to something I like better, or that I thought was superior to how it was. That is exactly the attitude of so many nonSoutherners who move to the South and get on city councils, county commissions and other positions of influence -- because of their hyper-inflated sense of superiority (which gives rise to their contempt for Southerners to whom the South belongs), in order to fix what ain't broke. They just want to change it because they don't like it.
"BTW, when I commented on this on her site, she of course refused to post my comment."
Haven't received a comment from you, Mr. Young. It is not in the spam filter, and there was no notice of your comment emailed to me by Blogger. This is the second time you've claimed you left a comment that I never got. Maybe you accidentally hit "preview" instead of "publish"?

Obviously, if I receive it, I have no problem posting and addressing it, since I actually brought your comments from another blog to Backsass, posted them here, and addressed them. 

You are blinded by your pro-immigrant, anti-native (especially anti-white-native) bias. And you can't even see it.  But then, isn't that what blinded means? Can't see?

I don't suppose you happened to notice all the crap that went on in that Charlottesville meeting you and your buddies at Levin's flog failed to acknowledge in your eagerness to trash the Virginia Flaggers. Like, ignoring the filthy mouthed Filipino woman who implied that "her country" is not the United States.... Like, y'all's pretending to not know how Karen Cooper's comments related to the Lee-Jackson holiday issue...

These are example of y'all's self-inflicted blind spots. And they occurred in an online community that runs high to edumucated accumudemics who ought to easily discern the connection -- but of course, when one is serving an agenda, it can, and frequently does, get in the way of truth and common sense and intellectual integrity.

Over on Kevin's flog, Andy Hall sez, "I wondered how long it would be before some Flagger publicly referred to Charlottesville Mayor Huja, who is Sikh, as a “raghead.” Turns out, not long. Confederate Heritage advocates: they are exactly who you thought the were."

Here's the link he includes:

I noodled around over there looking for the reference, but never found it.

It's telling that Andy posted a very non-specific link instead and the very nonspecific "some Flagger" instead of plainly saying, "Ten Confederate (or twenty, or a thousand or ten thousand) Flaggers called Mayor Huja a raghead."

  Note that he goes from "some Flagger" -- singular -- to "Confederate Heritage advocates" -- plural. That's deliberate deception in my book, without identifying them or quantifying them.

I also find it interesting how Andy -- like Liberty Lamp and Spelunker and Simpson -- knows about all these racist Confederate sites I never knew existed -- and likely most heritage folks don't know exist. I guess these floggers have lots of free time to loaf and surf looking for tiny morsels of racism to smear the entire heritage community with. I thought Andy had a job, but maybe he's retired and has time on his hands....

In any case, their familiarity with sites so many heritage folks don't know about is likely because they themselves are eaten UP with race -- and with hatred for heritage folks.

What Andy is apparently blind to (heritage-haters have lotsa blind spots) is all the heritage folks who didn't refer to Mayor Huja that way. How many didn't do it as opposed to how many did? Isn't how many didn't as important as how many did?

That doesn't matter to Andy. He's happy to smear the large innocent group with the small guilty group (or the single guilty individual) without a twinge of conscience.

Fascinating ... but Sad

As I have said before, I don't like to call people names that diminish their intelligence. That's too much a flogger thing to do. And, of course, the people whose intelligence they denigrate aren't unintelligent -- they just hold views that floggers don't like, disagree with, and think they shouldn't hold. (That's flogger "tolerance" for you.) I've blogged about it here: Assassinating Their Own Intellect.

These folks sometimes do assassinate their own intellect in order to smear people they don't like. Take, for example, the host flogger of a new flog designed to trash and smear Flaggers and other Southern heritage folks.  He/She is anonymous -- too cowardly to identify him/herself -- but I doubt s/he is new to the floggosphere. I also suspect s/he is a woman, so I will use "she" from now on. It's possible, too, that she is more than one person, and the flog is a team effort...

But what we can guess about her is quite interesting. She apparently has enormous amounts of time to comb the Internet.... so.... a malingerer? An unemployed idler and layabout? Or using the computer at work for personal pursuits?

We also know she is obsessed with her concept of racism. In fact, that's basically what the flog is all about.

Fascinating,  huh?

Yes, it's fascinating when you realize that she has to absolutely behead her intellect in order to fabricate the "links and ties" she blogs about.  What's even more fascinating is her inability to grasp the significance of her subject matter.

Images: Public domain.  Editing: CWard
She struggles mightily to make an Everest out of a few molehills using mostly Facebook likes and friendships. I've blogged about that before, too. People who can evaluate Facebook with even rudimentary intelligence understand that there are myriad reasons for friending someone, and it doesn't mean all Facebook friends are mental clones. Moreover, normal people also know that Facebook friendship isn't necessarily the same thing as offline friendship, as explained by

    1. a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.

verb (used with object)
    8. to add (a person) to one's list of contacts on a social-networking website

So a friend list on Facebook is a LIST OF CONTACTS. You don't even have to KNOW the person to friend them (or accept their friend request), get it?

I am FB friends with many writers, some of whom write erotic romance, which I do not write and do not agree with or approve of. I do not accept author services jobs at Word Slinger Boutique for erotica, erotic romance and related subjects. My website clearly states, "...we will not knowingly promote pornography, erotica, same-sex or multiple partner romance, or portrayals of pre-marital or extra-marital sex as acceptable and positive, or stories that encourage rape, incest, or bestiality, or portray reward, profit or benefit from illegal, immoral behavior."

Yet I'm Facebook friends with some authors who write such as this.

Why? Because online writers' communities pass along information about publishing, self-publishing, writing advice, tips about helpful software, promo and marketing, etc...  To be FB friends with an erotic romance writer, to share writing, publishing or promo information he or she has posted, does not mean I embrace erotica. And I don't "drop them like a hot potato" when they post information about their latest erotic romance release -- but for sure I don't promote it, either.

You don't have to be a genius to understand this.

Most people with sense do understand it. I'm sure the new flogger understands it, but she's ignoring this simple, basic truth in order to lie about people she doesn't like, and drum up hatred for them.  So she posts a bunch of "racist" hooey to smear Flaggers and heritage folks with, almost none of which has anything to do with them. And then, because they don't "renounce" it, she implies that PROVES they're racist.

What she doesn't seem to understand is that normal people don't constantly comb the internet looking for "racism" they can slander people with, and I'd wager that most heritage folks don't know the sites she salivates over even exist.

(Allied Artists Pictures)
Surely she knows, if she has any common sense at all, that only people (mostly political leftists) who have a deep addiction to "anti-racism"-- to finding "proof" that somebody is a white supremacist or whatever -- care about stuff like that. The pointing and screeching when they "find" "racism" and when they can "connect" it to people they don't like, starts a veritable fountain of dopamine flowing in their brains, and sets their insides a-quiver.

But most normal, healthy people find pleasure in their families, their neighbors, their work, their culture and tradition, their faith -- you know, things of substance.

So yes, this flogger gets her kicks finding crap on the internet, and fabricating connections to it that don't objectively exist, because smearing people gets the neurons in her pleasure centers firing like the Forth of July.

Didn't I tell you it's fascinating? But it's also so very sad.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Local Government Is for Who????

From a comment thread at Levin's flog:
Jerry McKenzie:  Local government is for locals.

Andy Hall: “Local government is for locals.” It is, but the Flaggers and other heritage folks usually rationalize their interference by asserting that the views of local residents they disagree with are somehow not legitimate — transplants from “up north,” ignorant of history, and so on. They really have no actual commitment to the principle of local self-government. They just want what they want.
The Charlottesville City Council. Not a single Charlottesville native on it... Not even a VIRGINIA native....
Mayor Satyendra Huja
Born: January 13, 1942, Kohat, Pakistan
Has lived in Charlottesville since the 1980s

Dede Smith
Born: October 1, 1955 Springfield, Vermont
Moved to Charlottesville in 1979

Kristin Szakos
Born: 1959 in Glen Cove, Long Island, New York 
Has lived in Charlottesville since 1994

Kathy Galvin
Grew up in Massachusetts
Apparently, has lived in Charlottesville since the 1980s

Bob Fenwick
Born in St. Louis, Missouri
Has lived in "the Charlottesville community" for 38 years
So local government is for locals except for, you know, the people runnin' it....

And I don't know about Andy, but Vermont, New York and Massachusetts are UP NORTH on the flippin' map, and Pakistan ain't even in the western hemisphere... So four of the five city council members are transplants.....


Transplants with, as they have clearly, clearly demonstrated, no appreciation for a huge swath of Charlottesville's and Virginia's heritage and culture.

So the Virginia Flaggers shouldn't involve themselves in issues outside of Richmond? Shouldn't go to Lexington, Fredericksburg or Charlottesville?

Right. And Martin Luther King, Jr., shouldn't have taken his activism beyond Atlanta, Andy?

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Send In the Clowns -- The Charlottesville Circus

....better known as a city council meeting ...

Some folks may know that the Charlottesville City Council took comments from the audience at their meeting Tuesday night, Jan 2, about doing away with Lee-Jackson Day as a city holiday. Video of the whole meeting is online at this link:

But you might enjoy some snippets...

 "...we are, we are not the descendants but-- yes we are the descendants of racial disparity of the people that Lee and Jackson brought to the plantations when slavery first came to Charlottesville...."
Lee and Jackson brought people to the plantations when slavery first came to Charlottesville? Who knew? I didn't know they were even born then! Floggers like Levin chide heritage folks on getting history wrong ... but you know they will NEVER, EVER correct this lady, because it is politically incorrect to do so.

Moving on....

Then we have this, edited from the comments by Gabriella (Selong?), who said she is descended from the people of Luzon in the Philippines...(Apologies for the profanity, highlighted below....)
"...I am shaking I'm so disturbed by the number of people who would come here and try to re-write the history of this racist-ass country and act like the civil war was about things that -- states' rights, yeah, fuck states' rights, it was about the right of states to uphold this capitalist economy built on the back of slaves and the genocide of the indigenous people, and that does continue to this day, and it continues to this day in my country, too,  you know, because of the colonization of European countries of places like the Americas and places like the Philippine Islands. 

You know people are still trying to extract resources, raping our land and our people to control us and our bodies. And I for sure will not stand here and let people come into these chambers and act like they're going to school us on history. We don't need you to tell us whys about history. furthermore, you know this notion that these people deserve to be recognized. Lots and lots and lots of people have not been recognized by the history of this country.

I am sure that I am probably the only one in this room who knows about (name unintelligible) and (name unintelligible). They were at the forefront of the labor struggle in the grape fields of California. They were Filipinos, too, who were forced to come here because of the colonization of my people. Name a day after them!  Name a day after the countless black folks who fought for their freedom, name a day after the countless black folks who were pioneers in astrophysics, who were pioneers in chemistry, who were pioneers in history, who were pioneers in anthropology. Name a day after those people! 

Why do we have to keep naming days after dead white men?  There are plenty of people who have done a lot of things for this country and nobody ever recognize them, I don't, I'm not buying this argument that they deserve anything."
The USA is not her country? Then what's she doing addressing a city council meeting? There are people upset some folks came from Richmond, in the self-same state of Virginia, to address the city council, but don't utter a peep when a foreigner does it?

Too bad Gabriella didn't name some of the countless blacks who were pioneers in astrophysics and chemistry and history and anthropology. If there were countless blacks who did that, she should have been able to name a few, don't you think? (And you can't "name a day after them" if you don't know their names.)

Lastly, we have Phineas T. McGillicuddy, who takes top honors for clowning in my book, except that his vicious attack on Thomas Jefferson is not a bit funny.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Phineas T. McGillicuddy and I'm here tonight because matters of the gravest concern and utmost importance have been brought to my attention having to do with certain maladies that are afflicting the city government of Charlottesville, Virginia. Now these range in depth and severity from simple foolishness and incompetence to grave malfeasance and skullduggery and moral turpitude. But I'm here to tell you dear council members never fear because Phineas T. McGillicuddy's magical healing elixer is good for what ails you. One drop of this formula will act as a truth serum and it will drive out the lies and hypocrisy from amongst you. For those of you so unfortunate to have been born without a backbone this will offer you the courage of your convictions.

But I digress.

Because  the problems afflicting the city of Charlottesville are very, very serious indeed. Why, did you know, that when your very own department of social services kidnaps a child from a family for placement in social services that 57% of the time that child is from a black family when black families only make up 20% of the population. It's enough to make my blood boil, I tell you. This is significantly worse than the state average and for those of you who are familiar with Ol' Virginny, as in you've actually lived here, you understand that that is a fact that's nothing to be proud of, not for a city that has just claimed the title of friendliest city in the USA. Or is that friendliest city for wealthy bla-- white families only.

And I assure you these problems neither begin nor end with the racist department of social services. Two years ago you appointed a commission to study the very simple question of why black children come into contact with every aspect of the juvenile justice system much more frequently than their white counterparts. Now I could have save you much trouble if you'd have just asked me from the get-go. But two years later wre have a lot of bureaucratic doublespeak. We have a lot of well-paid public officials congratulating themselves on a job well done and not any change at all.

Same goes for why is Chief Longo yet to account for the fact that seventy percent of stop and frisk are on black people in this city? The answer is very simple. The city of Charlottesville is as racist as the day is long. Now can we dispense with the conditions and the task forces, with the handwringing and the studying the statistics and figure out just what in the hell are we gonna do about it now?

Now finally, I would like to offer on a five point my sincere thanks for Ms. Smith for you inviitation for me to attend this fine meeting tonight and offer a resolution for your consideration: 
WHEREAS the City of Charlottesville was founded by Thomas Jefferson, a scoundrel of the most unsavory variety, indeed, a slave rapist, and INSOMUCH AS the evils of racism, began during his time, continue unabated to afflict the City of Charlottesville to this day, BE IT SO RESOLVED that from this day henceforth, no longer shall the City of Charlottesville celebrate racist Confederate war criminals, but shall instead honor the memories of Nat Turner and John Brown, in hopes that one day, we shall be rid of the foul legacy of Thomas Jefferson.
And finally, in closing, I would like to remind Mayor Huja you may have overlooked under the list prior to my appointed time to speak was Rosea Parker, if she has not already come please do be so kind as to offer her the opportunity. Thank very much for your time and I hope you have a very fine evening.
Here's video of McGillicuddy reading his "resolution."

What I find interesting is the post and comment thread at Kevin Levin's Civil War Memory (aka "We Hate the South") blog. In a comment highly illustrative of his damn-them-if-they-do-or-if-they-don't mentality, he mentions that Susan Hathaway did not mention that she is a Virginia Flagger. Perhaps Kevin, for all his pouring over the video, didn't notice that speakers have only moments to speak -- and that Susan didn't waste a moment of her time mentioning her Flagger affiliation, her UDC affiliation -- or any others.

He also sez, "The speaker that followed Hathaway, however, does identify himself as a Flagger and even goes as far as to threaten the city council."

But Levin didn't mention what kind of threat. The speaker threatened the city council with  putting up a big flag in Charlottesville. Maybe Levin wants his readers to think it was a physical threat of bodily harm or something. Who knows, perhaps his brain has been turned to mush with PC, so there's no telling what he meant or what he wanted.

I left several comments at Levin's blog, replying to some of the comments, but he blocked them. They were not disrespectful, they dealt with the subject... I can only conclude that they were too truthful and made too much sense for him to let through...

For example, when Pat Young asked, "How were Karen Cooper’s remarks not ruled out of order?" and I replied, "In the same manner, and for the same reason, that the speaker who dropped the F-bomb wasn't ruled out of order."

Some commenter named Kristoffer replied to an earlier comment comparing the Confederates to the colonial patriots with this jewel:  "The men of 1776 revolted to create a new nation that would fulfill the ideals of representation and that all men are created equal . The men of 1861 revolted to preserve their human property. Don’t ever compare the two again."

My comment said something like, "The ideals may have been different, but the reality of each was the same."

Unbelievable that there are Confederacy-haters so delusional that they think the Declaration's "all men are created equal" either magically poofs out of existence 89 years of slavery in the USA, or renders it so inconsequential it isn't worth mentioning. What good are your flippin' ideals if the reality is the exact opposite?

At this point, I have to explain something to Levin I can't believe he cannot figure out for himself. He wants to know what Karen Cooper's comments at the meeting had to do with the Lee Jackson discussion.

He quotes Karen, "I’m just sick of liberals always babying black people. If they act like babies, they will stay like babies until you make them grow up. Make them grow up." and then he asks, "While she spoke with some passion it’s not clear to me what this has to do with maintaining Lee-Jackson Day or anything having to do with the Confederate past. In fact, I suspect that this speech had a negative impact on city councilors."

She said at the outset she was speaking in favor of keeping the holiday, and my impression was she thinks the effort to remove it is simply more of the babying blacks that she is sick of. (I also suspect she was reacting to the "circus" atmosphere in the meeting hall.)

One has to wonder, though, if Levin also thinks Phineas T. McGillicuddy's speech might also have a negative impact on city councilors, whom he accuses of, simple foolishness,  incompetence, grave malfeasance, skullduggery, moral turpitude, hypocrisy, and spinelessness.

(It did also occur to me to wonder if blacks, including youths, in Charlottesville are stopped and frisked more, or encounter the juvenile justice system more, because they more often behave suspiciously, or commit more crimes? Apparently, that never even occurred to "McGillicuddy" -- or Levin.)

 Although you can't hear it well on the video, those who were present said the meeting really was a circus, with catcalls and insults frequently yelled out when speakers were addressing the council.

Who can remember when government proceedings were dignified and professional? I can.Why did the Charlottesville City Council put up with the circus in the audience? Why did they rule nobody out of order, as Pat Young seemed to expect?

I'm reminded of floggers suggesting that the VaFlaggers picketing the VMFA with flags will have opposite the desired effect; that is, will cause museum officials to dig in their heels and oppose returning the flags to the chapel. Do the floggers also imagine that the Charlottesville City Council will bristle at the charges of racism, cowardice, immorality and dig their heels in to keep the Lee Jackson holiday?

Of course not. Why? One guess is that they don't want to see Charlottesville burn -- to become Ferguson East.... I simply note, you don't have to worry about that from the Virginia Flaggers or other Confederate heritage organizations.

The only threats the VaFlaggers make is of putting up big flags by the highway... a threat they've made good on three times in Virginia (with more in the works). And nobody has been harmed by it.

Get ready for your big flags, Charlottesville....

Clown images: Morguefile

Monday, February 2, 2015

How Will This Do ...

... for World Hijab Day?

Not really, folks. I wouldn't insult the Confederate Battle Flag this way....

Is Brooks D. Simpson Unintentionally Hilarious? Or Intentionally Malicious?

He looks at a few pictures on the Internet, he reads a few hostile posts on the Internet, and he thinks he knows ALL ABOUT something that happened 2,000 or so miles away, just as if he were there! Isn't that a scream? And he's supposed to be a smaraht, edumucated person!

And what's even funnier, he puts it on his blog, and his lemming followers BELIEVE him! What a knee-slapper, huh, folks?

This, as much as anything, illustrates how the educational establishment in this country has dumbed people down -- teaching them not HOW to think, but WHAT to think. It has robbed them of their critical thinking skills.

Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that Simpson knows he's reporting from incomplete information, and does it anyway -- slanting and distorting -- out of sheer malice.

Slanting, distortion -- in other words, lying -- and malice are not funny at all. Especially malice.