Remember....

...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...

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?

Stupid:
adjective
lacking in common sense, perception, or normal intelligence

Ignoramus:
noun
an extremely ignorant person

Ignorant:
adjective
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned

Dumbed down:
Slang
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.

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....)

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!

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....

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.

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.

 IMPORTANT!  Me: Been there, done that. Back in August 2013, Ol' Al was kinda ambivalent about it himself (here: https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/flagger-pr-needs-work/ ):     

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).http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-virginia-flaggers-and-pr.html

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.

   UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE  

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.

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.