Wednesday, May 24, 2017

A Little Visit to the Land of Cyber-hate

I haven't noodled around much at Simpson's hate blog in a long time -- a quick looksee now and then...  But I checked out the comment thread that follows the filth he lately hurled at me, and it is fascinating to see how ungrounded in truth they are, what their concepts of certain subjects are, how they--

Well, here. I'll show you.

Charlie sez, "All the leftists and socialists I’ve read really hate Hillary Clinton! Funny how a New York Billionaire has stolen the heart of these southerners…."

Only the Bernie faction, Charlie. And Trump hasn't stolen any hearts -- well, only a few. Most simply voted for him because he was the only alternative to Hillary.

Ohio Guy: "Far left and far right have a lot in common. They are both motivated primarily by hate. And, the extremes of their hate is evidenced when they focus on each other. A pax on both of their houses!"

Simpson's and DeStroy's blogs being great examples of extreme far left hate. Peace on both houses, Guy? Or did you mean pox?

Jason writes, "They deserve each other imo, I just wish our country wasn’t collateral damage while they dishonesty slug it out."

Pretty flimsy country you got there, Jason.

Jason also writes, "Isn’t this the same crowd who keeps ignorantly claiming that the CSA was right that a state can secede whenever it wants, that the Constitution is just a loose compact between states and that the US is just a “federation”?

There may be some who claim that, sure enough. The "crowd" of Southern heritage thinks and claims the whole spectrum. Getting them to speak in unison is like trying to herd cats.

Jason continues, "How is not anti-american, destructive towards the founders achievements and wishes?? How is violating and attempting to overthrow the Constitution on behalf of preserving slavery not polar opposite to the wishes of people like Washington and Jefferson…?"

Nobody violated or tried to overthrow the Constitution -- they tried to LEAVE the union it governed. You know, depart, withdraw, get the heck out, take a powder, scram, skedaddle....

As a matter of fact, in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson established that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are instituted to secure those rights. One right he specifically identifies is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government and create another that suits them better. This right both pre-exists and transcends the U.S. Constitution.  How grotesque, then, that the only time Americans have attempted to exercise this right, the government that was supposed to secure it for them made brutal war on them instead.

Andy Hall sez, "You’re looking for intellectual consistency. That’s sweet."

Just don't look for intellectual honesty at Simpson's blog, or Andy's, or Levin's or the demented DeStroy's blog. But if you go looking for hate, you'll find it in spades.

bob carey muses, "I wonder if Chastain collects social security or does she stand on principle and refuse to accept any benefits."

My personal situation is none of your flippin' business, carey, but how would it be "standing on principle" for anyone to refuse to take a benefit one paid into all one's working life? Giving up something you've contributed to for decades is "standing on principle"? My gosh, I wonder what else "standing on principle" means to you.

charlie (don't know if it's a different charlie) sez, "Look at what one of her masculine southern boys had to say…."

Ah, no sense of the passage of time, eh, charlie? I clearly identified that I was talking about Confederate men -- specifically, those in the armed forces of the CSA. I guess separating "back then" from "now" is too much a strain for charlie.
Nightflyer shows the world the extent of HIS conception of manliness: "I didn’t realize the “Lost Cause” was about the virility of the South and the size of Lee’s and Beauregard’s penises."

Unbelievable. Y'all trip over to and look up viril and virility, and see if you can find "penis size" anywhere in the definition. The closest thing you'll find is that a secondary definition of the word is "the power of procreation."  Why is it when one discusses traits of masculinity and femininity or relationships between men and women, leftists promptly illustrate their prurient interests?

Shoshana Bee quotes me (Our Confederate heroes were some of history’s manliest of men. Even in cold, lifeless bronze, Davis, Beauregard and Lee exuded a level of virility that shames Mitch Landrieu...) and then sez, "A casual observation: Why is it that Chastain has to call upon long dead heroes as paragons of her heritage movement? No current examples? Ooopsie! It seems that a majority of them are tied up in one sort of litigation or another, court dates, sentencing, depositions — you know, heritage hero stuff."

Ah, Shoshy, have you been off planet? Or under a rock somewhere? I mention Davis, Beauregard and Lee because THEIR MONUMENTS IN NEW ORLEANS HAVE BECOME THE TARGET OF A STALIN-LIKE PURGE... That's what my whole blog post was about. A casual observation: Can you read? Or when you go into snide snippy mode, does the ability to read and accurately observe elude you?

If you don't mind my asking (and I know I won't get an answer) what does it do for you to lie about heritage folks?

Dimmy Jick bleats, "Note that Chastain seems to exhibit a desire for men who dominated women who could not object to being used for sexual gratification by men who owned them. As I’ve said before, Chastain’s fetish is a psychological matter."

Ah, yes, Dimmy, the fake psychiatrist... my admiration for the men whose monuments have become the targets of a cultural jihadist purging is for their awesome abilities as warriors in the defense of the South and their sterling character (something you might not recognize if you saw it). You have just showed us what prurient historical subject is near and dear to YOUR heart...

C. Meyer mutters, "With all the virility and masculine spirit it’s amazing they lost."

It is amazing, but it becomes more understandable when you know that their enemy preyed on civilians -- women, children, the elderly, servants and other non-combatants-- stealing their food and leaving them to starve. Burning and shelling towns across the South that had no military presence or significance. Because the great humanitarian Lincoln blockaded medicine. Because the South didn't have an endless supply of immigrants who could fight for them right off the boat like the north. Because they were fighting to defend what they loved, homes, families and territory; and the north was fighting to destroy, motivated by hate (their treatment of POWs, Sherman's desire to genocide Southerners ... echoed by his wife. Salmon Chase saying he didn't love slaves as much as he hated slave owners -- but he didn't want free blacks in Ohio. John Brown's murderous/terroristic abolitionist hatred). There's more but that should give you an idea

Hey, Simpson-bots. Have y'all looked in a mirror lately? Probably shouldn't. You might not like what you see -- because what you'll see is what you criticize in others... you know, the folks you hate the most.


  1. "How grotesque, then, that the only time Americans have attempted to exercise this right, the government that was supposed to secure it for them made brutal war on them instead."

    It wasn't the Federal Government that made war on the South. It was the Northern people themselves, using the Government and Federal trappings as a personal instrument and as justification for their actions.

    The Confederate Army wasn't resisting the "United States" or the "Union" or the Constitution. It was resisting the Northern people, who were acting as a distinct nation, outside of the Union®.
    They still do.

    As an aside, the Constitution doesn't grant the Northern people supra rights and authority. However, most of them think it does. That's why Northern judges, like Scallia, who insist that the Constitution applies to everybody, not just to the residents of New Jersey or Minnesota, are seen as traitors or criminals.

  2. "Thus Southern wealth may help explain why the North was so willing to wage a major war against Dixie. The haughty Southern barons were due a lesson. In a nation where “all men are created equal” how could Southern men be so much wealthier? It wasn’t right or just, so a typical Northerner might think. Since Southerners had broken the com­pact of Union in Northern eyes, it was free season to pour forth hostilities against them and destroy their wealth, which was gained with the unfair advantage of slave labor in the first place."

    William Cawthon

    Neither the North nor the South were acting within the framework of the Union®. They were acting as two mutually exclusive and hostile nations. Which they were, and still are. The Union® was, and is, a political fiction. The only thing the South and the North have in common, is a continent.

  3. I certainly hope you deloused after you got back from that little trip to the Hate Pages, Connie. I always feel like I need a long shower afterwards.

  4. When I visit, I'm reminded of a line from Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff." -- "The fool killer would have dropped his club and walked away in frustration, overcome by the magnitude of opportunity...." (That's from memory and may not be word for word. Gets the point across, though.)


Comments are welcome, but monitored.