How a Liar Lies, Part ... I've Lost Count

De'Stroy has written an entire post about little ol' moi... What it's about and why s/he is paying attention to me isn't really important (except to say that I'm one of his/her few targets who pays any attention to him/her). I just want to point out the manipulative language this propagandist uses ... for your education. Sez he (or she, as the case may be):

This is quite possibly the first time many people will have read this thread. It's no secret that Connie Chastain was at different times a full fledged member of the hate group the League of the South.

I've never been a member of any hate group. The League of the South was not a hate group when I was a member, and the jury is still out on whether it a hate group now. The entity who gave it that label, the Southern Poverty Law Center, is more like a hate group than the League was.

Chastain has admitted that she was once a member of the group.

Ah, no. I have acknowledged it. "Admitted" carries the idea that it is something one would rather not acknowledge but must. I have no problem acknowledging that I was a member of the League -- twice.

She is quick however to point out that she is no longer a member,

More manipulative language. "Quick to point out..." implies I'm eager to get the information out. This, of course, is not true. I have never been "quick to point out" that I'm no longer a member. I have just stated I'm not a member.

...and at different times will say that she does not support their White Supremacist ideology, sometimes.

What I have said is, "... I have watched from a distance as the League has continued to radicalize, to accept the influence of white nationalists masquerading as Southern nationalists and to slowly develop a an indifference to Southern tradition and Christianity....Basically, what you have here is people who claim to love the South and its people and want to see them free -- or preserved, depending on who's talkin'. But what they really love is whiteness, which includes a built-in aversion to non-whiteness ...  and any Southerners who don't share their dedication to whiteness are heaped with scorn and derision.....

 At some point, the two "parted ways". You may not know that Chastain and White Nationalist Brad Griffin have also had what would seem to be a rather contentious relationship through the years as well.

We have no relationship at all.

This chat is part of the reason why. Without further ado, for your reading enjoyment, the birth of the modern day Cuckfederate movement:

There is no Cuckfederate movement. That term is the concoction of people who have to put others down -- like you and Simpson -- to try to make their own positions feel more secure, more right.

Now, I need to explain a couple of other things to De'Stroy that s/he apparently doesn't know and can't figure out ... Of course, I don't expect De'Stroy to understand any of this. Floggers, anti-Confederates, self-styled "anti-racists" and so forth do not understand that how they define certain words and terms, like racism/racist, hate, etc., is very different from how conservatives and heritage folks define them. Thus, when I say "racism" and when De'Stroy says "racism" its a safe bet that we aren't talking about the same thing.

In any case, in my view, hate is not an emotion, like strong dislike or anger, but an attitude of wishing harm upon someone, and includes a willingness to bring about that harm if the opportunity arises.  Thus, a hate group exists to be AGAINST someone or members of some group, to wish harm to come to them, and to be willing to bring harm to them, if possible.

To be FOR someone or some group -- to be an advocacy force for them -- is not hate. If it was, the NAACP would be a hate group.

Unless things have changed since the last I knew of it, even after it radicalized, the League was FOR white people (they say for white Southerners), not against others. Even the "built-in aversion to non-whites" that was exhibited by the new white nationalist "youth brigade" invading the League is not automatically a desire for harm to come to non-whites, or a willingness to bring it about.

There may be some individual members who have this attitude, but as far as I can tell, it is not an official League position. Granted, I haven't paid a lot of attention to the League since its radicalization -- unlike De'Stroy, I don't obsessively comb the Internet looking for information about the League -- but if the League ever shifts its emphasis from independence for the South and advocacy for white Southerners to enmity for other groups, including actively working for their harm, then I will consider them a hate group and censure them accordingly.

Some patriotic folks in Southern heritage vehemently denounce the League because of its disapproval of the US military's missions abroad, or because of the government's corruption, or because of society's degeneracy (think Hollywood filth, the worship of death in popular music, Planned Parenthood selling body parts of aborted babies, the sexualizing of children, the abandonment of education in our schools for the purpose of embracing social manipulation, the hostility toward Christianity, the flouting of law by favored groups or individuals). Unfortunately, the League is right about many of these things, and a day is rapidly approaching when patriotism will be a vain and empty emotion; and in any case, the League's disapproval of the country's deterioration is not a hate-group characteristic.

Remember, De'Stroy defines certain words and phrases very differently than I do. Thus, when I say "hate" and when De'Stroy says "hate" its a safe bet that we aren't talking about the same thing.