Golly geepers!

Somebody in Galveston sure is interested in little ol' moi!

From my Backsass visitor log:

This calls for a celebration!  How about a Youtube video of Glenn Campbell singin' Galveston?

Naaa. I'd rather hear Rodney Franklin...

 

HATE-FEST MARATHON at Crossroads Flog

Flogger hatred of VaFlaggers has reached a new high -- or would that be a new low? -- as they wallow in hate of their own spewing...for somebody who has done nothing to  them. The usual orgiastic joy in denigration is on conspicuous display with their comments about the intelligence of the people they hate. What does that do for them? Normal, healthy, decent people don't need to slosh around in such calumny in order to feel good about themselves. 

Yes, I have to wonder about the visceral hatred expressed by BParks for people who have never done a thing to her. Ditto Kristen Konate, who put her own address on Facebook and then accused two VaFlaggers of doing it -- a false accusation repeated by Brooks D. Simpson.

What would cause somebody to do such a thing? I have to tell ya, folks, I cannot relate to it at all. It is truly mystifying.

I might understand it if the VaFlaggers had attempted to hurt these people -- to ruin their reputations, to damage them financially, threaten them in some way. But what have Susan or Tripp done to BParks to earn the spitting, hissing, venomous hatred she belches at Crossroads?

Where are Susan's 133 posts fomenting hatred for Brooks D. Simpson the way he has been fomenting hatred for her, attempting to incite some lunatic to do -- well, goodness knows what would satisfy Simpson in that regard. Suffice it do say there are NO posts from Susan lying about him, harassing him, persecuting him, fomenting hatred for him, and attempting to incite some lunatic to action.

(And no, Simpson, Susan Hathaway doesn't read your feculent blog. People -- including myself -- sometimes relay information to her about filth, crap and slime you have posted about her and the VaFlaggers. But I suspect the number of times she's actually visited your repulsive blog could be counted on the fingers of one hand.)

What's truly fascinating is that they are so caught up in the pleasure of their hate-wallow, they don't realize they are showing to the world just how depleted of decency and integrity they are. I've written about Simpson exhibiting his lack of integrity numerous times ... but it's not just him. Does BParks not understand she's showing the world her lack of ethics when she says, "Don’t they know we have eyes everywhere? We’ve infiltrated their groups, Facebook pages, blogs etc. Nothing gets past us." I simply note that if they are infiltrating with false profiles, they are violating Facebook rules, and thus exhibiting again their lack of integrity.

And does she, and all the rest of them, not realize that decency and integrity trumps intelligence? The Nazis were smart, ya know?

Now ... I'm the first to admit I there may be things I don't know that would have a bearing on this circumstance. So, if anybody knows of something harmful or objectionable the VaFlaggers have done to the floggers and/or floggerettes, that would justify, or even halfway explain, flogger/floggerette odium,  please, post in in the comments. What evil thing has Tripp done to Andy Hall, Brooks Simpson, Kevin Levin or any of their followers to cause such an outpouring of sheer meanness for him

Similarly, what has Susan Hathaway done to Brooks Simpson to earn the animosity, the lies, the harassment, the bullying, the persecution he has been aiming at her for TWO FLIPPIN YEARS. WHAT HAS SHE DONE TO HIM THAT JUSTIFIES HIS HATE AND HARASSMENT,  AND HIS EGGING ON HIS FOLLOWERS TO THE SAME HATRED?

Yes, these are rhetorical questions, because EVERYONE KNOWS, including the haters, harassers, and persecutors at Crossroads and other flogs, that the VaFlaggers have done NOTHING to Brooks D. Simpson or any of his demented followers.

Critiques Begun on My Novella

Prologue from Love in Smallfoot Alley has been critiqued, and that means rewrites are next. The way the crit group works, it takes forever to get a chapter critted, so I'm shopping around for another group.

Meanwhile, here's a picture of the protags. I can't figure out whether they be white or off-white....

Chris "Kit" Dupree
Misogynistic, semi-reclusive, blind to his own loneliness.

Leslie Hoffman
Optimistic, genial, solitary but not by choice

Circumstance brings them together -- and puts them in danger

Kit's Theme -- Fingerprints  -- by Larry Carlton
 

Leslie's Theme -- Love and Paragraphs -- by Chris Standring

Da Badness of Whiteness and Off-whiteness

Following Simpson's ridiculous post about Lee-Jackson weekend in Lexington, Diversity King Patrick Young left a comment at the Crossroads flog:

"Interesting to see the wide diversity of the marchers who ranged from white to off-white."

I think we'll be waiting until hell freezes over for him to tell us what's wrong with that. I mean, there has to be SOMEthing wrong with it, or at least significant about it, for him to make a comment, right?

So his concept of diversity is .... color. Yes, that IS interesting. I thought it was food....

Okay, all you white and off-white folks who attended the festivities and commemoration, can you fill me in on some things?

How many fights were reported over the weekend? How many arrests of visitors/marchers? How many injuries/visits to the emergency room? How much rioting? How many rapes? How many plate glass windows broken? How many stores robbed? How many people robbed? How much vandalism? How many vehicles stolen? How many tires slashed?

Any other mischief I've neglected to ask about? Don't be shy, don't hold back. Inquiring minds wanna know! And since it seems unlikely that Mr. Young will tell us what's wrong with white and off-white gatherings, we'll have to try to pin it down ourselves....

Have at it, folks!

  UPDATE  UPDATE  UPDATE  UPDATE  UPDATE  UPDATE 

We have received the statistics of the number of crimes identified above that were commited by white and off-white marcher attendees of  Lee-Jackson Day in Lexington, Virginia. Many thanks to the person who supplied the info:

Fights ..........................................0
Arrests ....................................... 0
ER trips ...................................... 0
Riots. .......................................... 0
Rapes .......................................... 0
Plate glass broken ........................0
Robberies ....................................0
Vandalism ....................................0
Vehicles stolen. ............................0
Tires slashed ................................0

I guess, whatever is so mean, bad and nasty about white and off-white people getting together with each other, it doesn't seem to be the sort of criminal activity one sometimes finds occurring in situations where crowds gather.

Living Rent-Free? Or Jackhammering?

"...I figured there would be marching and singing and pictures and videos of people marching and singing and meeting old friends. Just like last year. I was not disappointed. However, apparently I was on the minds of some of the participants. As Susan Hathaway, leader of the Virginia Flaggers, declared, “I imagine the great press coverage, turnout, and that inspiring VMI photo and narrative has him twisted ALL up in knots.”

"Nice to know that I’m living rent-free in your head, Susan." ~Brooks Simpson

Absolutely ludicrous.

This is the man who has attempted to JACKHAMMER his way into VaFlagger consciousness with lies, ridicule, harassment, persecution and incitement of others, via 131 -- that's ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONE -- blog posts and/or comments on his own flog since December 29, 2011. (See updated list of Simpson's obsessive flog posts in the left sidebar. <--------  Scroll down.)

And this does not count his comments on other flogs.

Whether with outright lies or innuendo or ridicule or attempted smears by imaginary association, he has done his best to hurt, harass, bully and persecute people who have done him no wrong.

He has falsely accused -- or at least insinuated -- Tripp Lewis of child abuse. He has implied conspiracy in the Rob Walker matter or, at the very lease, ridiculed the VaFlaggers for not being omniscient.He contacted the Richmond Police about the Walker incicent -- just like it was any of his business -- looking for something he could use to stir up hatred for the VaFlaggers. He has plastered information about Susan's employer on his filthy, slimy flog, apparently in the hopes that she would lose her job.  And he has LIED, LIED, LIED, LIED, LIED about Matt Heimbach and the VaFlaggers.

He has joined with deceitful persecutors of the VaFlaggers in the Richmond area regarding the I-95 flag project. He has attempted to stir up hatred for the flaggers by namecalling them, labeling Barry and Grayson, (who are, by all accounts I've seen, decent, honorable and good-hearted men) as Susan's henchmen (and who really believes he was applying the third usage?), accusing them of putting Kristen Konate's address online WHEN SHE HERSELF WAS THE ONE WHO DID THAT. He has tried to sic the Richmond media on them. He regularly switched back and forth between calling them ineffective and implying they are dangrous racists.

Why? I've asked my blog visitors to offer an opinion as to the motives of floggers and floggerettes. Now I'm inviting replies to a question specifically about Brooks D. Simpson.

What is the motive behind his obsession? What does he want the result of his VaFlagger flogging to be?

I will tell you what I think -- and this is solely my opinion.

I think he wants to see them come to harm. I think he would love to see some crazed leftist, goaded by criticism like that which he spews forth, attempt to hurt them. Either physically, by violence, or to cost them their jobs, ruin their ability to make a living, or to harm their reputation. Any sort of damage, harm, injury, pain they could experience would please him, I sincerely believe. But I think physical violence is his secret heart's desire. Or can you really call it secret, in light of 131 obsessive, sliming, lying blog posts?

Femme Natale

The more I see of academic types online, the more I think they either aren't very smart, or aren't very ethical. Take, for example, Susan Natale, whom I identify by her last name to distinguish between her and Susan Hathaway, VaFlagger Extraordinaire.

I don't know how Natale pronounces her surname, but I pronounce it "Natalie" -- as in Natalie Wood, the actress, because Natale is such a drama queen. I don't think she'll ever make it up to the level of BParks and LibertyLamprey, but maybe with practice, she'll get closer. The primary difference is the type of anger leading to the drama. With BParks and Lamprey, it's heat -- far more heat than light, while Natale's appoach and delivery is glacial.

In a comment she recently left at Simpson's Crossroads flog, she quoted this recent blog post by me here at Backsass: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/01/more-fun-than-bparks_22.html

Apparently date stamps on internet posts and comments go right over her pretty little academic head. What's amazing is that she actually has a LINK to the TRUTH, but LIES about it.

No, no, no, no sugah...  You don't have to visit a site to copy a quote from it if the quote has been sitting on your hard drive for over three years. What happened on January 13, 2014 is that I made a graphic meme from the quote and posted it on Backsass, here:http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-thought-to-ponder.html

But for those to whom the truth means something, I requested permission to use the quote from the person who posted it at The Spearhead (screen handle, Jabberwocky), on July 20, 2010, not January 13, 2014.

Jabberwocky replied the next day, July 21, 2010:

I did a copy/paste on that very day, made it a rich text document and saved it to my hard drive under the name JabberwockyQuote.rtf. Miraculously, it survived a couple of hard drive crashes and OS reinstalls, as most (though not all) of my data did -- with the original save date intact. Here's a screen shot of the directory it's stored in, made today:

What happened on January 13, 2014, as already noted, was my creation of a graphic meme using the quote by Justin Brown, identifying him by the name he gave me permission to use, and noting the date he posted it online. Here's a screenshot of the directory where the image file is stored, and the date I created and saved the jpg.

And here is Justin's quote all gussied up as a graphic meme --

While we're at it, let's note another of Natale's lies. In commenting on this meme at the Crossroads flog, she sed -- 

January 13, 2014
Susan

It is a tad concerning that Connie’s new quote of the week comes from a man who claims that he wants to be the next Paul Elam. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Elam

Well, no, Justin didn't say that, did he?  He said, "I'm prepared to make this movement part of my real life and actual identity, like Paul Elam."  That doesn't say he wants to be the next Paul Elam. Frankly, folks, unless she can produce a link to where he actually said that -- used those words -- that  he wants to be the next Paul Elam, it is an outright lie to claim he did. What he said in this comment means he is prepared to participate in the MRM using his real name, like Paul Elam has done -- not a pseudonym... you know, like "Jabberwocky" or "LibertyLamp" or "Spelunker."

So, what do y'all think? Is all the untruthfulness in the floggosphere deliberate or inadvertent?

Background Reading (use your browser's back function to return here):

My Comments at The Spearhead   ~   My Time in the Manosphere
My E-mail to Paul Elam
___________________________________________________

   UPDATE    UPDATE    UPDATE    UPDATE    

This isn't so much an update as it is an addendum for clarification. As I have written earlier, I perceive that the men's rights movement has its extremist wackos just as feminism has. My exact words were "fanatics, extremists and crazies." My exchange with Jabberwocky/Justin Brown appears in a comment thread that follows a guest post by Paul Elam at The Spearhead. Many of Paul's ideas are what I consider to be extremist, and there's not much he espouses that I agree with, primarily because I perceive them to violate the teachings of Christianity. Many of my differences with feminism are based on the same thing -- its violations of Christian beliefs. That and its basic dishonesty....

Arizona State Has a Racism Issue

No! Really?

So sez the Rev. Jarrett Maupin, an Arizona civil rights activist at a news conference after the story broke that a fraternity at ASU had held a "Racist MLK Party."

But-but-but-but didn't Simpson tell us just days ago how "diverse" the student body is at ASU? Why, to hear him tell it, it's a paragon of diversity out there in the desert, a veritable paradise of multiculturalism. Never mind that there are three times more WHITE faculty members than there are non-white members. We're only supposed to look at that lovely diverse student body.

But wait! What good its it to have this wonderfully diverse student body --  if they're a buncha scum-suckin' racists?

Where do these kids learn such blatant racism? Perhaps from an educational establishment that preaches diversity and multiculturalism, but then puts together a faculty that is 75% WHITE?

And don't you wonder how many of these little Tau Kappa Epsilon white supremacists have found themselves in history classrooms taught by none other than Brooks D. Simpson? 

Even if they're not in his classes, doesn't he have a share of the responsibility of seeing to it that this kind of scum-sucking racism does not rear its ugly, lily-white head on that sunnily diverse campus where he is supposedly such a force to be reckoned with? Obviously, he's fallin' down on the job. He needs to stand up, take responsibility for this, and vow to do better....

Fox News reports, "ASU Frat Suspended After Racist MLK Party"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/22/asu-frat-suspended-after-racist-mlk-party/

Benson Minute: MLK's legacy lost on ASU frat
http://www.azcentral.com/video/3088023823001

Arizona State University Frat Celebrates MLK Day By Being Extraordinarily Racist (VIDEO)
http://www.azcentral.com/video/3088023823001

Once again, the true, hypocritical nature of leftism erupts for all the world to see. And we begin to see the reason behind flogger obsession with evilizin' the South and bashing the Confederacy... Diverting attention away from the white supremacist left, the scum-sucking racist educational establishment.

It's Not History....

Simpson makes a post about Grant and gets 31 comments. So he immediately makes another post about Grant and gets .... 1 comment.

This will never do.

So his next post is about Jerry Dunford. He figuratively holds Mr.Dunford immobile, arms behind his back, so floggerettes can line up and punch Mr. Dunford in the gut. Figuratively, of course.

For us, as they say, it's not history, it's heritage.
For them, as we say, it's not history, it's hatred.

Who Approves the Merger...

... of the Museum of the Confederacy with the civil war whatchamacallit at Tredegar, and the name change?

Floggers and floggerettes who hate the Confederacy, and likeminded PC indoctrinees.

The reason they approve is because it will destroy the museum's name and mission, and replace them with something else. The aim is no longer the memorialization of the Confederacy and her soldiers, but their demonization. The merger will greatly enhance that aim.

If the merger supported and strengthened the original purpose of the MoC, these folks would be spitting nails.

More Fun THAN BParks

I'm talking about a new floggerette in Simpson's peanut gallery. New to me, anyway. She posts under the name Susan Natale and I have no reason to doubt this is her real name. I will refer to her mostly as Natale, however, to distinguish her from VaFlagger Extraordinaire Susan Hathaway.

Judging by her comments, Natale is a feminist, and she doesn't much like me --  not only because I'm not a feminist, but because I am quite adamantly opposed to feminism ... although I am also quite certain that her concept of feminism and mine are very different. Then there's the little matter of my being a neo-Confederate (which is also likely defined very differently by each of us). But her biggest problem with me is the feminism thing.

At least twice in comments at Simpson's flog (that I know of) she's mentioned me and Paul Elam in the same comment. For those who don't know, Paul Elam is a big kahuna in men's rights blogging -- founder and publisher of A Voice for Men. But beyond a brief, nominal internet acquaintanceship several years ago, I am not connected with him or his blog in any way. I don't regularly read it, or any other men's rights sites or blogs, anymore.

Several years ago, when I was researching sexual harassment for the writing of Southern Man, I came across a blog titled The Spearhead -- and with that as my jumping off point, I went on a rollicking ride through the men's rights movement, online version. I had considered feminism to be anti-religion and destructive dating back to my first acquaintance with it back in high school. But I had never considered just how damaging to men it was until these blogs opened my eyes.

What I learned is that the men's rights movement has its excesses -- its fanatics, extremists and crazies, just like feminism, and the concept of men's rights runs the gamut from the Christian view of manhood to PUA/Game. But I also saw they had legitimate grievances, and I found many things I agreed with them about. I read the forums at AntiMisandry (even posted, very infrequently).  I read sites like The National Coalition  for Men, Dr. Helen, Hawaiian Libertarian, In Mala Fide and others. I knew what "MGTOW" meant. I knew who Roissey was.

At the time, Elam's A Voice for Men was just getting started. Since he and I had exchanged a few comments on other sites and blogs, I emailed him and asked him if he would read and review Southern Man, which I described to him as anti-feminist. He said he would read it, but also said it likely would not be compatible with his views, so he could not commit to a review. I mailed him a paperback version.

I didn't hear anything from him and no review showed up on his new blog. I checked for  it a few times, and took the opportunity to look around his blog. And in so doing, I came to understand why he didn't review my novel.

The last scene in the book probably best sets up the explanation.

     At home, Troy headed for the bedroom, suddenly drained, both emotionally and physically, and sleepy. He took off his shoes and coat and stretched out on the bed fully clothed. He drifted off only to be half awakened moments later by a soft, rustling sound somewhere in the room. Coming closer to consciousness, he recognized it as whispering. The whispers of his family.
     "He’s already asleep," Patty said. "Let’s let him rest."
     "I’m not asleep," he said, slitting his eyes to see them hovering near the doorway. "Come here to me, all of you."
     They piled into the bed and snuggled next to him. His arms stretched around them and he held them close. His eyes closed and he smiled.
     "Y’all are what I live for."

Best I can tell, this scene depicts the polar opposite of what Paul Elam believes, summed up in this segment of the mission statement of A Voice for Men: Promote a rejection of sex based chivalry in any form or fashion. More elaboration can be found in AVfM's editorial policies, which Elam identifies as his own opinion.  He believes the era of traditional masculinity is over, and the "old world arrangement" is a death trap for most men. His site is "anti-marriage" and supports "post marriage culture." Anti-traditional also means "rejecting  traditional values where they apply to expectations of men...including men’s roles as protectors and providers."

Oops. Southern Man is saturated in sex based chivalry and in promoting men's roles as protectors and providers (but also in promoting women's roles as scripturally submissive wives and mothers). Eh bien... C'est la vie.

I hope Natale won't be too disappointed that Elam and I reside at opposite poles.

As for her comment about "pro-rape friends," I don't have any of those, nor am I "pro-rape" myself.  (Good Lord, what a accusation). I simply retain the intellectual ability to distinguish between rape and not-rape. I know that feminists and leftists in general have a breathtakingly distorted lens when it comes to their viewpoints about rape. I actually had one anti-Confederate tell me once that female slaves would not have been capable of distinguishing between being raped and not being raped.

The feminist view, though, seems to be that the only thing necessary to punish a man for rape is a woman's accusation of it. Even if a man is innocent of the accusation, it creates a horrible trauma for women to acknowledge his innocence and let him go unpunished. I hafta wonder if, when it comes to false accusations of rape against men, whether Natale would agree with Catherine Comins, who argued (in Time Magazine in 2001) that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience.

    "They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions."

Or maybe her views are more in line with those of Amanda Marcotte. From Wikipedia: :

Marcotte attracted criticism in January 2007 for her views on the March 2006 Duke lacrosse case, when three students were accused of rape; the students were charged, but the charges were later dropped and the players charged were pronounced innocent by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper.[18] Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the accused were "rape-loving scum."[19] One comment in particular attracted attention:

    I've been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f------ g-- is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f----- her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.[20]

Does Natal perhaps agree with Wendy Murphy, who famously told us,  “Stop with the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t apply to Duke ... I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar.”

In any case, when I was skating through the MRM, I came across a call by Pierce Harlan of The False Rape Society blog (now called The Community of the Wrongly Accused), seeking writers. I replied, and the upshot was that I wrote about 40 articles on Rape Culture and Gender Feminism for the FRS blog. I'm in the process of putting them online all in one place, and will make sure a link to them is very visible -- for Natale's convenience.

Until I get that done,, here's a sampling for her and other feminists and assorted leftists to get all bent out of shape over:

_________________

The Patriarchy I Grew Up With

Perhaps by now, regular readers of The False Rape Society may be wondering about my adamant opposition to feminism. In the interest of disclosure, here's a bit of background.

I grew up surrounded by a sea of good, honorable, gentlemanly men (and very good women, too, despite their not being feminists) -- men of principle, high-minded men who exercised self-control and who had huge hearts full of love, men who continuously did good things for others, and not for praise or honor, because most of it was unknown and unacknowledged except to a few others.

These were ordinary men untouched by celebrity, unacknowledged by the world -- men who lived quiet lives in small towns in the South, who worked at a variety of occupations and earned various incomes. Among the hundreds upon hundreds of wonderful, loving men in the churches where my daddy preached when I was growing up, there were a few bad apples; I can count them on my fingers.

The eight or ten bad apples I knew personally are the only men feminism would look at.  It would try to smear all men with the deeds of those few.  It's the same thing with patriarchy. All they want to look at is the bad it "caused." But when it comes to good things...well, look at the way feminists refuse to acknowledge the good men have done, including things that greatly benefited women, and that they would have gotten no other way.

I acknowledge and respect the differences between men and women and I don't denigrate men for being the way God made them. But I don't engage in male-hero worship. I do love, respect and honor men who are loving, respectable and honorable, and even some who aren't, when caught up in circumstances beyond their control. And I don't try to smear all men, or maleness, with the bad deeds of some, as feminism does.

That's why I have so little respect for feminism. I'm much more willing to acknowledge the few good things it has produced for women -- far more than feminists are willing to credit men's accomplishments. But just because some good things resulted from feminist efforts doesn't mean I have to swallow every chunk of bitter falsehood they're trying to cram down my throat.

Like claims of  "rape culture." 

Patriarchy has some bad aspects--it's an institution of flawed humans and cannot help being flawed--but it is not the total evil feminism would have us believe.  I will always be grateful to those wonderful, honorable men of my youth, who showed me the reality of maleness and manhood, and thus inoculated me against the virulence of radical feminism.