Losers ... And Winners

Brooks Devious Simpson and his comment-thread myrmidons are at it again -- attempting to mischaracterize a Facebook group of 1,800+ members by the comments of a handful of members -- in this case, three. Count 'em -- three (3) t-h-r-e-e.

I have to wonder why a professor of history at a major state university is so concerned about comments of private citizens on a social network. It's not like the SHPG people have access to rooms full of college students, year after year, awaiting indoctrination, like he does.

I also have to wonder if Simpson and his commenters are so unsure of the morality of their own beliefs and positions that they feel compelled to find people online they can feel superior to -- and say so, in comment threads. Oh, they may not say outright, "See how morally superior I and my beliefs are? See?  See?" But the message comes through loud and clear.

____________________________

Congratulations to Nick Saban, AJ McCarron and the Alabama Crimson Tide on their National Championship victory over the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame -- the team transparently favored by the establishment sports press.  Looks like the cracker @$$holes with the grandiose name showed once again that they are among the Winners of the World!

__________

"The Luck Stops Here" graphic from Facebook.com.

Maybe He LIKES Bein' Bored

On December 23, Brooks Devious Simpson posted an entry at his blog titled, Not Skeered ... Just Bored, primarily about moi.

It's obviously not true. He definitely is not bored. The very day Simpson posted that rant proclaiming how bored he is by my old, stale jokes, rants and whining, he visited my Backsass blog three times, at 3:51 p.m.; at 5:47 p.m.; and at 5:53 p.m.

He's visited Backsass twice since then, on the 27th and the 29th.

He even visited my 180 Degrees True South blog on the 29th.

Here's a thumbnail of a screen capture of my visitor log, with the pertinent visits highlighted. Click the thumnbail to see the graphic full size:


Nope, he's conspicuously not bored by me.  He's decidedly interested in what I have to say.  He just doesn't want me posting my thoughts and observations in the comments on his blog and exposing his sycophantic readers and commenters what I say because it is quite damaging to him. So he's keeping my comments off his blog. 

He doesn't want his his questionable claims and conclusions, his manipulative language, and other flaws and foibles pointed out to his regulars.  For example, that it is highly illogical to proclaim that someone is threat to children if they don't post on his blog that they do not support such threats.  It has to be on his blog. Never mind that he has produced nothing written by them that echoes or promotes calls for violence. All he has to do is set up false criteria, and then proclaim that certain folks didn't meet it.

He is skeered, which is why he steadfastly refuses to debate Southern heritage people anywhere but the safety of his own blog comments, where he holds the power to delete comments before they ever see the light of day.

He wants to say whatever he wishes about them without being challenged. He'll post a few of their "safe" comments -- but when they start seriously challenging him, they're no longer contributing, or they're not adding anything new, yada yada yada, and their comments abruptly cease, thanks to his deft employment of the delete key.

No, he's not bored and, yes he is skeered.

I may give his Not Skeered ... Just Bored rant a  more thorough reply at some point in the future. A lot of it begs to be exposed. We'll see.

Sweet Southern Boys Video Trailer

Finally completed the video trailer for Sweet Southern Boys. Hope you enjoy!

 

____________________

Prologue

Verona, Georgia
January 14, 1994

The vehicle streaked westward on a dirt road through sparse woodlands, kicking up dust in its wake. Behind the wheel, Randy Stevenson, soon to turn eighteen, monitored the road ahead. Tall and broad shouldered, he was a gracefully muscled athlete. Shaggy black hair framed his face – a sensitive, enigmatic face that captivated girls at Verona High School.

Only people who knew him well – and the two boys with him knew him as well as anyone – would know how agitated he was behind his stony expression. His nostrils flared to accommodate his rapid, shallow respiration. His hands were not trembling only because they held the steering wheel in a tight grip.

A crescent moon hung in the sky ahead, glowing through a hazy cloud cover. It was eight o'clock. The temperature hovered around forty degrees and the three boys wore lightweight jackets over their jeans and shirts.

Randy's eyes darted to the rear view mirror. In the distance, a dusk-to-dawn light cast a circular glow in the darkness and shone down on the riverside cabin the boys had departed moments before. The cabin and the half dozen vehicles parked around it disappeared as trees closed in behind the car.

The two-year-old white Sable belonged to Randy's mother and the music playing softly on the radio was one of her oldies stations. On the drive to the cabin earlier, the trio had been in such high spirits, yakking and laughing nonstop, they hadn't noticed the radio was on.

Now it annoyed Randy. He turned it off and broke the ensuing silence. "John Mark?"

"Yeah," answered a subdued voice from the shadowy back seat. "I'm okay."

"Shelby." Randy glanced to his right. The dashboard lights dimly outlined his friend slumped against the door, his head tilted back, wedged between the door and the headrest, and his blonde moptop falling away from his face. His eyes were fixed on the headliner.

"I'll be arright," Shelby muttered.

The road emerged from the woods into a scrubby flatland and Randy eased up on the gas pedal. An intersection with a county blacktop road lay just ahead.

Randy braked at the stop sign and made a left turn toward town. They'd traveled no more than a few yards when Shelby lurched upright and growled, "Pull over!"

The Sable slowed and bounced as its tires hit the weedy, rutted shoulder. Shelby opened the door and hung his upper body out, retching, before the vehicle came to a complete stop.

In the dome light's glow, Randy caught John Mark's gaze in the rear view mirror.

John Mark tilted his head toward their friend. "We need to take him to the emergency room."

"No," Shelby said. He leaned out the door a few moments after his heaving stopped, spit a couple of times, and raised up, breathing heavily between parted lips. He wiped his eyes, glanced at Randy and half turned to look behind him. "No. I'm fine."

John Mark returned Shelby's glare. "Don't be stupid. If that really was LSD she gave you--"

"I didn't swallow any," Shelby insisted. "I rinsed my mouth out four, five times before we left. Besides, I ain't sure LSD makes you puke. Bein' kissed by Tiffany Bratcher is what made me puke."

Randy gave him a quick appraisal. "You done?"

"Yeah." Shelby shut the door and murmured, "Let's go."

Conversation was sparse on the twenty-minute drive to Verona. It was still early on a Friday night and the cinemas, restaurants and convenience stores were doing a brisk business.

"Guess it's time to call it a night," Randy said as the Sable rolled down busy Chilton Avenue, a brightly lighted commercial thoroughfare.

"No, I don't want to go home," Shelby said. He looked much better, sitting upright, his hands clasped around an upraised knee, but his blue-gray eyes were restless, troubled. "I feel like us sticking together a while."

"Me, too," said John Mark.

Randy nodded. "All right. Where to?"

A momentary silence fell as they considered their options.

"My house," John Mark said. "Let's stay there tonight."

"I thought your folks went to Tennessee," Shelby said.

"They did. But they won't care. I'll call their motel and let them know and y'all can call your folks and tell them where you'll be."

"Works for me," Shelby said.

The light turned green and Randy accelerated, his eyes flitting to Shelby. "I don't like it. What if you have some kinda delayed reaction to that drug?"

"If it even was a drug," Shelby replied. "You know what liars Wes and Tiffany are. I don't feel anything from it. Y'all just keep an eye on me and if I start acting weird, take me to the emergency room."

* * *

A lone observer, standing still and silent in the shadows of the cabin's rustic porch, watched the Sable streak away from the riverside party, its red taillights, clouded by the following dust, finally disappearing into the woods.

The faint smell of beer and cigarette smoke had followed him outside. Muffled conversation and laughter reached him through the cabin walls, overlying the thumping rhythm and lower frequencies of recorded music.

After a few moments, he ambled down the steps into the yard, his longish russet hair glinting in the glow of the security light. He followed a path down a slope to a boardwalk edging the inky Oostachula River.

He found a wooden bench, sat down, and pulled a flip-top cigarette box and butane lighter from his jacket pocket. The only cigarette in the box--thin, filterless and slightly crumpled--had not been made in any tobacco factory. He lit the cigarette and inhaled deeply.

His three rivals had said nothing to him when they departed; just filed past him with stony faces. But he knew from long experience that they were shaken--by now, he was an expert at shaking them up--and a corner of his mouth slanted upward.

Eight years had passed since his first run-in with these three crackers, fisticuffs that had got him detention at school and a talking-to at home. But his father's lecture had ended with a priceless observation:

"...there are other ways to fight, son."

Indeed, there were.

Modern Politics and Culture Wars

At his Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog, Andy Hall sez, "Lots of folks have made the observation that the Confederate heritage movement is, at its core, far more about modern politics and culture wars than it is about events of 1861-65; the 'War of Northern Aggression' often serves as a convenient proxy for beliefs and positions and resentments that are firmly rooted in the late 20th/early21st century, and past events are refigured explicitly in those terms."

Interesting, coming from a man who defines his blog as a "civil war era" blog and then includes posts about:

1. A currently existing Southern heritage book publisher
2. Numerous posts about H.K. Edgerton, who is a conteporary Southerner
3. Ron Wilson's prison sentencing for running a ponzi scheme (occurred in Nov. 2012) 
4. A 2012 movie about Abraham Lincoln
5. A current dispute in Selma, Alabama over a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest
6. Confederate flaggers, especially the Virginia Flaggers, which has only been in existence for less than two years
7. Dixie Outfitters and H.K. Edgerton, a currently existing business and living human being, makin' money
8. Clint Lacy's blog, which is currently online
9. Lynyrd Skynyrd, a currently existing rock and roll group, and the Confederate flag

And that's just since early October, compiled from a quick scanning of his blog, meaning I may not have noticed all contemporary references about modern politics and culture wars that Andy makes.... 

Pot.  Meet kettle.

Andy, just out of curiosity, what ARE the date/time limits of the "civil war era" -- in your estimation?

Motives, Agenda and Character

I want to revisit some of the comments from Brooks Devious Ego Simpson's blog in a little more depth.

"Connie is too busy attempting to draw parallels between Pat Hines’s/Josephine Bass’s and Micheala Levin’s.comments on various blogs. It seems, according to her, that talking about murdering someone and being thankful for evolution are the same thing."

And I replied:

"Michaela has expressed thankfulness for evolution somewhere? I wouldn't know, I haven't seen that. Nor have I attempted to draw any parallels -- I have simply showcased her orgiastic pleasure ("makes my day," she said) over the prospect of early death for Southerners."

His comment reeks with either blatant dishonesty or stupi -- careless mental processing. First, as I noted in my original reply, I wasn't attempting to draw any parallels. When I wrote about Michaela Levin's expressions of joy over the prospect of early death for Southerners (Here, December 6th), Josephine Bass's remarks (December 18) had not been written. And my remarks mention neither Bass nor Hines.

How can you "draw parallels" between things you don't even mention?

Second, Pat Hines's remarks, which I dealt with some time ago, occurred on Facebook, not "various blogs."
Then, Rob says, "It seems, according to her, that talking about murdering someone and being thankful for evolution are the same thing."

The "according to her" part is a blatant lie, since I have not stated that murdering someone and being thankful for evolution are the same thing, nor have I hinted or suggested it, or alluded to it in any way.

Finally, I note that nothing in Michaela Levin's statement that I wrote about had anything whatever to do with evolution. Here it is again as it appeared on a comment thread at Civil War Memory (with the pertinent part highlighted): 

    Michaela Levin October 25, 2012 at 10:09 am 16

    Actually the translation of the German sentence is: “Black man does not belong in the vicinity of our flag”. Of course, as the “elite” minds of the SHPG go, the grammar in the German sentence is wrong. However, I am not surprised to see that they use the German language for racial slurs. If they were in Germany they probably would still find many arguments why Hitler was such a “success”…all in the “gentle” spirit of “heritage”, excluding Jews, commies and the rest of “them”. The only thing that makes my day is that the overall education these people enjoy and their general attitude to life, especially their choice of diet will statistically make enough a difference that they croak earlier than the average person in the US. Bless their heart!

The only question I have about her death-wish is who all she includes in "these people" -- the few identified in the screen shot her husband posted on his blog?  All members of the Southern Heritage Preservation Group?  Or Southerners in general? I think she means Southerners in general -- or rather, white Southerners -- because there's no evidence that the choice of diet for SHPG members is somehow different than the choice of diet for Southerners in general.

So the question comes -- why did Rob make such a false claim? I think we can drop stupi -- careless mental processing as a reason, which brings us back to blatant dishonesty.

And this is a fine example of why these Southern-hating bloggers don't like me, and why they ban me and attack me -- because I don't fall for their phony claims of being all about "history. I am concerned with the motives, or agenda, or character that underlies their purported reverence for "history," which I am convinced is a post-civil rights obsession with "racism" and an overwhelming desire to portray white Southerners, past and present (with a few exceptions) as humanity's greatest manifestation of evil -- violent, inbred, moronic, scum-sucking racists.

It's all right there in their blogs. Oh, sure, they include posts that focus on battles or generals or other war-related subjects to provide plausible deniability against the charges of evilizing white Southerners. But these simply don't neutralize the efforts, or the desire behind them, to demonize white Southerners.

Racist? Or Truth?

Pusillanimous Poltroons

Back in August 2011, I posted a comment at Andy Hall's Dead Confederates blog, to the effect that Brooks Simpson's university had gotten a bad rating from The FIRE.org (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and after they cleaned up their act, the FIRE rating improved.

For some reason, that so incensed Andy Hall, he banned me forever forthwith from commenting at his blog, saying,

"Finally, you’re done commenting here. I should’ve done that last week. You really do contribute nothing of substance to any discussion, and seem to have no interest in doing anything other than finding a way to question the motives, or agenda, or character, or (in this case) the affiliated institution of those who challenge your preferred historical narrative. You have a blog and readership, there and elsewhere; you don’t need electronic real estate here to make your voice heard. I know that you will take being blocked as full vindication of the rightness — indeed, righteousness – of your position, and that blocking you simply affirms that an unwillingness to acknowledge the “truth” you offer. In fact, what you offer, as in the example above, is little more than rhetorical contortions, ugly insinuations and evasions best described using Stephen Colbert’s term, “truthy” — there’s just enough reality behind it to make it seem truthful to those who want to deem it so, if no one looks too closely."

Mercy me! Wordy outrage worthy of a woman, huh? And way out of proportion to my "infraction."

But Andy does give a hint of the real reason why he's banning me ...

 "You really do contribute nothing of substance to any discussion, and seem to have no interest in doing anything other than finding a way to question the motives, or agenda, or character, or (in this case) the affiliated institution of those who challenge your preferred historical narrative."

Why, that is partially right!  In fact, my purpose is exactly to question the motives, or agenda, or character, of certain folks, but not because they challenge my "preferred historical narrative."  I don't really have a preferred historical narrative.  I question the motives, agenda or character of folks who "civil-war-blog" with a political/racial agenda of stroking their overblown egos and showcasing their own "anti-racist" credentials by misportraying others as evil racists.

I am convinced that the underlying motive that Kevin Levin, Brooks Simpson, Andy Hall and hangers-on Corey Meyer and the pathetic Rob Baker (and perhaps others I don't know) have for "civil war" blogging is to portray white Southerners, past and present, as humanity's greatest manifestation of evil: racists.  Of course, those civil war bloggers who are themselves Southerners are exempt from the racist label.

This desire to trash white Southerners as evil racists is tempered by the need to come across as scholarly and evenhanded, so it is cloaked in "civil war" crap. But it is certainly there, and certainly detectable.

This explains why their blogs are not "civil war blogs."  They're "civil war memory" and "civil war era" blogs. And natcherly they decide what constitutes a "civil war memory" or what falls within the "civil war era."  They love trashing the Virginia Flaggers, which have only been in existence a year or two -- meaning NOW is the "civil war era."  And somehow, Kevin Levin's animosity for the SCV and the UDC are civil war "memories."

The overwhelming desire to portray white Southerners as evils racists explains the portrayal, chiefly by Hall and Levin, of the lives of blacks (slave and free) as total and utter misery. Because, you see, white evil exists in exact inverse proportion to black misery.  You see this all over both their blogs.

Andy's over-the-top umbrage at my criticism of Arizona State University is actually anger at my earlier criticism of him for trashing Ann DeWitt's black Confederates research, here:  http://deadconfederates.com/2011/08/08/famous-negro-cooks-regiment-found-in-my-own-backyard/

I posted, "Honest mistakes can be fixed. Purposeful arrogance, bullying and ridicule, even in their written form, are signs of a character flaw that is frequently permanent."

Andy sanctimoniously came back with, "I have always been careful to criticize Ms. DeWitt’s work, not to impugn her character. ...  My criticisms of her work have always been focused — I don’t just say, “she’s wrong,” but go into considerable detail to show why and how."

My reply: 

"Andy says, “My criticisms of her work have always been focused — I don’t just say, ‘she’s wrong,’ but go into considerable detail to show why and how.”

Why, sure you have, to wit:

“You don’t hear much about them because they had to be stationed way, way in the rear. It’s just not possible to do a decent souffle with the concussion of artillery nearby.”

 and

“Cupcakes were a critical resource, but in the South it was very difficult getting sprinkles in through the blockade. Bragg was reportedly grumpy all the time about that.”

Oh, that’s focus, all right. Real focus. ... The most impeccable historian credentials in the world can be totally nullified by rigid adherence to a hostile and/or self-aggrandizing agenda.

THAT is what really got me kicked off Andy's blog -- that and his fear of taking me on.

Thus, the claim by Simpson, Levin and Hall -- that I don't "contribute anything  of substance" in my comments on their blogs --  is their acknowledgement that I'm not there to comment on history but on their motives, agenda and character.  I think those are legitimate subjects.  They are afraid to take me on because because they know I will mercilessly question their motives, agenda and character and, frankly, they can't answer me.

I notice they don't ban folks who are overly emotional, or people whose loyalty to the South and its heritage may outweigh their book learning or understanding of history.  These hate-bloggers LOVE to slap around these folks. They get off on it.

They also love to put on their phony displays of outrage over "violence" and "threats" that they know are not real. If they thought for a minute some crazed Confederate lunatic would actually come after them, they'd notify the authorities and then go silent and lay low on their blogs and completely ignore the threat -- what any reasonable and prudent person would do -- rather than bait and antagonize the lunatic.  You can ALWAYS know whether they think a threat is real by whether they provoke and badger the threatener...

But because I'm not awed by their education or other credentials, because I point out their inconsistances and lies, because I see through their motives and  say so, because if they try to slap me around, I'll slap them back, twice as hard -- they're skeered of me. So, they ban me.  Cowards.

Backtalk

The following comments, in italics, are my OPINION of the ideas expressed in the post and comment thread at Brooks Simpson's Crossroads hate blog:


What Is It With Some People?
Dec19 by Brooks D. Simpson

Several months ago Crossroads reported on violent threats against schoolchildren made by southern nationalist Pat Hines, who in the past has won the approval of people such as Mike Lamb.

Note, children, the hate-making here -- the attempting to smear Mike Lamb for "approving" of such a despicable person as Pat Hines. Why showcase someone who "approves" of Pat?  Why not showcase someone who disapproves?  There are numerous folks who have posted their disapproval on Facebook.  Why not showcase them?  He could find them if he wanted to.  After all, this is the fellow who said, "... I tiptoe through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War."
 
Well, that's what he says.  What he means -- what he does -- is look for Southern heritage folks to smear, lie about and drum up hatred for.  (I note that there's no evidence Mike Lamb approves of Pat Hines for his threats, though that is what Simpson expects you to think).
 
 I note that not a single southern nationalist has taken exception here to his comments.

As I've noted in a previous blog post -- why must they do it "here" -- i.e., on Simpson's blog? And note that because they haven't done it there, we're supposed to believe they haven't done so at all, anywhere?  That's what he expects his myrmidons to believe. I guess they don't have the critical thinking skills to see through his hate-mongering.
 
Now comes word that Josephine Bass, a.k.a “Josephine Southern,” has offered the following comment on Corey Meyer’s blog:

Bless Your Heart, I do think you are lucky that no one has shot you in the face or gone to your kids school and shot up the place. 

What is wrong with these people? Is this the way advocates of Confederate heritage and southern separatism intend to go about their business?

Uh, no, it isn't, and you know it, Simpson.  This is over-the-top emotionalism, likely brought on by the hate-mongering on your blog, and Hall's and Meyer's and Levin's. As closely as you monitor Southern heritage, you know there have been absolutely zero episodes of violence from Southern heritage folks, so you're dishonestly attempting to equate emotional rhetoric with violence.
 
There’s been a lot a talk about the face of evil lately. There’s also been a lot of talk about mental health and social responsibility. There’s also been a lot of talk about how schools should be safe from violence.

Yet this is what we hear from certain folks in the name of Confederate heritage and southern separatism.
Sometimes, people, confrontation is not only the right thing to do, it’s something that we all must do.

P.S.: Ms. Bass says that in making these statements she’s acting as a defender of southern honor. Really?
 
25 comments to What Is It With Some People?

==========

Louis Burklow says:

They couldn’t “take their country back” – now all they know to do is lash out. The result is they sound like schoolyard bullies with superior firepower. These folks are now starting to realize how demographics is changing the country and it will never go back to the way they want it.

They?  All both of them, Burklow?  LOL!  And how do you know what they're starting to realize?  Do you have a crystal ball?  Well, do you call Miss Cleo?  Throw chicken bones?
 
==========
 
Michael Confoy says:

Maybe it’s time for a colonization scheme for southern nationalists?

Nah.  Secession will do just fine, thanks.
 
==========

Missouri Tenth says:

Mr. Simpson, I’d respectfully put forth that a number of Southern folks are waiting for you to engage them (per your comment on confrontation being the right thing to do). I’ve posted a number of “open” invitations awaiting your response (on differing worldviews, historical interpretations, etc) over at Missouri Tenth. If you would prefer not to dialogue about this openly, please send me an e-mail. I agree there are some hot heads out there, but my aim is to bring together folks on both side of the debates and try to work some of these issues out.

Just my opinion, but you're showing entirely too much deference and respect to someone who doesn't deserve a syllable of it, Missouri Tenth.
 
==========

Brooks D. Simpson says:

These folks know where to find me. You do. I tend not to frequent your blog except for a few recent posts from you, and, having seen how you allowed Mike Lamb post rather self-serving and incomplete accounts of supposed conversations, I see no reason to trust your venue as a place where responsible discussion takes place. Nor do I see Mr. Lamb as a responsible individual, let alone a southern historian. I’ve given you the attention you deserve …. some would say more than you deserve, and I’m not sure I’d disagree with them.
Let’s see you engage those southern nationalists who advocate violence, especially against children. Seems you’re afraid to confront them. Why is that?

Absolutely HILAROUS!  The serial liar Brooks Simpson doesn't trust the Missouri Tenth?  And once again, we see Simpson expecting proSoutherners to state approval or disapproval ON HIS BLOG -- and if they don't, they're "afraid" or maybe they secretly approve of violence.  He expects every thing to take place on his blog.  Why is that?
 
==========

Connie Chastain says:

Skeered?

==========
Brooks D. Simpson says:

More like amused …

Oh, no. No, no.  You aren't the least bit amused.  You're madder'n a wet hen and that's why you've gone deeper than usual into nasty mode, and why you're more determined than ever to stir up hatred for heritage folks.
 
... if we’re talking about the blog bluster. But perhaps you mean the threats against children? I take those seriously. Why don’t you?

I do take serious threats seriously.  I don't take nonserious threats seriously solely for the purpose of stirring up hatred, as you do.
 
It seems that Connie Chastain also has a problem denouncing Ms. Bass. Guess she’s skeered. As alarming as these threats against children are, the author of Sweet Southern Boys doesn’t really worry about threats made against American children. That’s sad. But then she’s defended, justified, and excused bad behavior and bigotry in the past.

Like I said, I take serious threats seriously.  I don't pretend to take nonserious threats seriously for the purpose of drumming up hatred for folks the way you do, or for trying to portray written over-emotionalism as violence.
 
So much for your cry for attention, Connie.

LOL.  You ARE skeered of me, aren't you?
 
==========

Connie Chastain says:

I was talking about your being skeered to visit the Missouri Tenth. You know I’m not talking about threats against children because that isn’t mentioned in either Missouri Tenth’s post or your reply. So why’d you bring it up? Cuz you needed an excuse for gratuitous smear?

There was no threat to children in Ms. Bass’s comments It was in poor taste, but not a threat. BTW — and you know this — I am on record at my blog and on Facebook (several places) as vehemently opposing not only Pat Hines’ threats against children, but his apparent worship of violence in general. So you’re lying about me and you know it. Hard habit for you to break, iddinit?

==========

Brooks D. Simpson says:

Yawn. Elsewhere you dismiss Hines … today, on your own blog.

Today? As I've noted elsewhere, liar...
 
November 6th is not today.
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/11/stay-out-of-my-lower-regions.html
 
November 3rd is not today.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/272315346193652/files/
 
You just don’t threats of violence against children seriously and you don’t deplore those fellow travelers of yours who make those threats.

I take serious threats seriously. And I take your hate-mongering very, very seriously, even when I may respond to it with sarcasm and satire..
 
And, of course, you just can’t stop lying as part of your bitter rage.

Hope y’all got your Connie Chastain fix … how ’bout you, Matt Gallman? :) Back in the jar …

Yep. You're skeered of me, Simpson.  You're skeered because I'm not shy about pointing out your lies and questionable ethics.  

Other than the bare minimal respect everyone deserves simply for being humans, I have zero respect for you -- as a man, as a historian, as a professor.  Zero. That's Z-E-R-O.  In fact, I have extreme disrespect for you because of your serial lying, your questionable ethics and your toxic ego.
 
==========

Rob Baker says:

Connie is too busy attempting to draw parallels between Pat Hines’s/Josephine Bass’s and Micheala Levin’s.comments on various blogs. It seems, according to her, that talking about murdering someone and being thankful for evolution are the same thing.

Michaela has expressed thankfulness for evolution somewhere?  I wouldn't know, I haven't seen that.  Nor have I attempted to draw any parallels -- I have simply showcased her orgiastic pleasure ("makes my day," she said) over the prospect of early death for Southerners.
 
==========

Missouri Tenth says:

Mr. Simpson – thanks for the reply. Yes, I do know where to find your thoughts – and I have to say I enjoy your writings (even if I happen to disagree). Yes, I’ve allowed Mr. Lamb to post his thoughts, as I enjoy hearing from a variety of people on a particular subject. It’s my blog, I have that right. And if you should choose to come over and comment – I would always deal fairly in posting your thoughts as long as there is no bad language or insults.

I would throw your last comment back to you (as I personally see one individual speaking out of turn and being paraded about as the voice of Southern Nationalism to be a bit silly). But saying that, the Federal Government has certainly perpetuated a lot of violence towards children, and you seem to be afraid to confront them. Why is that?

You're showing entirely too much respect for this liar, this ethical midget, this cowardly hate-monger, IMHO, Missouri Tenth....
 
==========

Brooks D. Simpson says:

See … no one paraded someone as the voice of southern nationalism … although it appears you don’t seem bothered by those threats of violence against children. You demonstrate why your forum is untrustworthy, because you can’t be honest. Fair enough.

Said the serial liar, Brooks Devious Ego Simpson... Missouri Tenth  is a Christian, so I expect he is a lot more bothered about threats of violence against children, or anybody, than you are.  You're treating threats of violence against children is simply a really cool tool for smearing proSoutherners....

Still no expression of disgust or outrage … or even dismay … at the comments made by Hines and Bass? I wonder why.

You mean, no expression ON YOUR BLOG COMMENT THREAD.  Disgust and outrage don't have to be expressed in order to be felt, ya know?  And they don't have to be expressed on your blog to have been expressed somewhere.  But leave it to you to palm off the lying notion that if somebody doesn't  express something on your blog, they don't feel it... Liar.
 
Good try to turn this on the feds Perhaps gun control and a ban on assault weapons would be a first step toward a more compassionate federal government. Carry on with that idea, and good luck. In the meantime, as you say, this is my blog, and you can carry on your crusade at yours. Take care.

==========

Jimmy Dick says:

I think Dr. Simpson as well as many others have given you the facts and information you requested. You just don’t like the answers and therefore dispute the facts that you disagree with. You read what you want in the past and ignore the context because the context makes your opinions erroneous.

Or, it could be that Brooks Simpson is a liar and hate monger with a morbidly obese ego....
 
==========

Bummer says:

Bummer is old school and for this guy, every day above ground is a blessing. However, the world this student comes from, you would have to be mentally unhinged to “threaten” a man or his family. The threat alone, opens the door to a reality of “what ifs” and that question alone, can generate defensive tactics. As an “old guy” whose greatest possession is his family and their well-being, the statement of “shooting someone in the face” could be taken personally and should not be just disregarded as the ramblings of some demented and tortured lost soul.

Bummer
.
Bummer, please. Only serious threats should be taken seriously.  Josephine has been posting on the Internet for years without shooting anybody -- in the face or the arse or anywhere else, capsice?
 
==========

Ken Noe says:

You left out the end of her threat: ” Ah well there is always next year.” School reopens in January.

==========

Brooks D. Simpson says:

Yup. It’s one thing to make comments on blogs and FB pages about people they don’t like, but these folks now target innocent children, make light of such targeting, or give it a pass. Such is the mindset of certain folks.

Nobody has targeted innocent children.  There has been no making light of, or to giving a pass to, such targeting, since there has been no such targeting.  You know the threat isn't serious. That makes you a liar and a hatemonger.
 
==========

Michael C. Lucas says:

Another fine example of promoting your anti-Confederate prejudice again Brook’s. This is not confrontation this is bigotry, you know very well Pat Hines does not speak for the South, Southern people, Confederate heritage groups. I abhor what he said, but you are just as negligent in using his words to condemn Confederate descendants as a whole.

I would suggest, Mike, that Pat Hines talks big but doesn't mean it.  I would also suggest that Brooks Simpson means every syllable of hatred he posts on  his blog.
 
==========

Brooks D. Simpson says:

But I haven’t condemned Confederate descendants as a whole. Nor did I say Pat Hines spoke for the South, southern people, or Confederate heritage groups as a whole.

You implied it.  And you've used it as a litmus test, implying that if anyone doesn't denounce it HERE on your freaking Blog of Lies, they agree with killing children.
 
So why do you lie about these things?

A question far better directed at you, Liar Simpson.
 
What else do you lie about?

A question far better directed at you, Liar Simpson.
 
Meanwhile, here was your chance to denounce Ms. Bass, and you appear to have failed in that regard.

Why must he denounce her on YOUR blog, and if he doesn't, he's failed?  That's just another of your lies, Simpson.
 
Why are you so quiet about these matters? Tell us. Are you telling us you don’t abhor what she said?

Well, he's obviously posting about SOMETHING ELSE, capisce? And no, he's not telling us that he does or does not abhor what she said.  He's not discussing that at all.  He apparently believes, as I do, that your blog is not the only place where people can -- where, indeed, people MUST -- make declarations YOU expect them to make, under penalty of being lied about.
 
==========

Michael C. Lucas says:

Brooks, if you and others like you were more humble and stuck to academic disciplines rather than using your blogs as contemptuous sounding boards of anti-Confederate propaganda against Confederate descendants, you could all make a positive difference! Consider helping to preserve Confederate American history fairly, because, in truth, not everything they fought for was as you and others have propagandized and that includes Confederate Preservationists with issues of delusions, as well.

Mike, Mike, Mike.  The only reason Brooks Simpson and his fellow bloggers don't want the Confederacy totally wiped from the American memory, and all traces of it scrubbed from the Southern landscape is because they need it in order to indulge in what they love best -- trash, trash, trashing  Confederates and white Southerners, past and present, as the most evil people who have ever lived.
 
 But, the difference is Confederate groups are not on the offensive to attack anyone, but on the defensive to preserve the truth of what they know is being distorted by others. You’re not seeking understanding, or truth. Your blog is manifesting hate and that begets hate. The country needs to take a step back from these over-zealous attacks on Southerners, Confederate history, flags, monuments and their descendants.

Forget it, Mike.  Hate begetting hate -- that's what he WANTS.  Don't try to reason with him, or look to the "better angels" of his nature.  He don't have any better angels, and he's NOT INTERESTED in reason. You might as well try to reason with the Kraken.
 
It was not all one side’s thing or another thing! It was not at all about good against evil, except in the delusions of sanctimonious zealots! It was not all about slavery and African Americans, but they had something to do with it. Confederate history, black, white, and other descendants deserve the same equality of inclusiveness as any other ethnicity in this nation’s diversity. Until that happens, for all considered, it’s foundations are crumbling with malice and hypocrisy and will come to naught!

==========
Jeffry Burden says:

Gee, Michael — I’m sorry to disturb your vision of rainbows and unicorns, but have you perused the LOS, SCV or other modern-day-wannabe-Confederate websites? Not much love and tolerance there.

The League's intolerance is for the government and the yankee mentality -- and for the hate-mongering done by Simpson and his fellow travelers.
 
In fact, I see a lot of bile and anger and lightly-coded racial and ethnic bias. They make Brooks and other writers of “contemptuous sounding boards of anti-Confederate propoganda” seem tame in comparison.

Baloney.
 
You may want to drop those sites a note about that whole tolerance/love/inclusiveness thing you propose.

==========

Brooks D. Simpson says:

Thanks for reminding us of your position, Mr. Lucas. I guess that you think Ms. Bass and Mr. Hines aren’t manifesting hate, and certainly you don’t seem to mind what Ms. Bass said, so I guess it’s okay by you. Fair enough.

I don't know about Mike but, nope, I don't think they are manifesting hate.  Pat's posts about violence are the posts of a guy too old and out of shape to do anything about the destructiveness running rampant through his culture, and Josephine just let runaway emotions take hold of her keyboard. You, on the other hand, have relentlessly and consistently posted hatred for Southern heritage week after week, month after month.
 
==========

Michael Bartley says:

Ms. Bass should be ashamed of herself. Here is the second part of her despicable response, “I wonder when the haters and dividers get their due in this country. Ah well there is always next year.” Apparently, it escapes her that threatening us and most importantly our children is not hateful or divisive.

She didn't threaten you or your children.  Sheesh. Get a grip.
 
I just wanted to add my voice from the Rocky Mountains to Prof. Simpson’s in condemnation of this irresponsible and stunningly immature potentially dangerous rhetoric. See, Michael and Connie, it’s not that hard. Please join us in a simple straightforward rejection of this madness.

As I have stated more than once, Mr. Bartley, I take serious threats seriously.  And I think Simpson's long-standing hatred of proSoutherners, expressed repeatedly on his blog, is far more damaging than some over-the-top but non-serious one-time emotionalism.
 
==========

Jeffry Burden says:

Brooks, do you notice that there is still no Southron with the courage to denounce, or even express mild disapproval of, poor Josephine’s words? Bless their hearts, why is that? (Sorry if I’m being confrontational. :-) )

I said plainly on my blog that I don't agree with her sentiments.  What?  You're like Simpson and think it doesn't count unless it's said on HIS BLOG?  Gimme a freakin' break.  There's more to the world, more places to express oneself, than a comment thread on Brooks Simpson's hate blog, capisce?
 
==========

Brooks D. Simpson says:

Oh,I see one blog owner, as well as our dear friends Chastain and Lucas, coming over here to comment, but not a single word against Bass. The are free to carry on their continuing support elsewhere.

I said I don't agree with what she posted on Corey's blog.  The difference is that you're trying to paint it as some kind of serious, big-deal threat, and I know it isn't.
 
==========

Michael C. Lucas says:

Your lie not I! As for Ms. Chastain you completely take her responses out of context!

LOL!  And he lies, too.
 
==========
Brooks D. Simpson says:

You keep telling yourself that. Take care.

Why shouldn't he tell himself that? It's true.  You lie.

Feeding the Hungry Ego

The problem with Brooks Simpson and people like him is that they have such gargantuan egos that have to be fed off the denigration of others. 

This is why he likes to portray proSoutherners as diabolical and violence prone, simply for posting something a little over the top on the Internet. Most people can tell the difference between big, empty talk and seriously reprehensible comments. But he has to pretend they're all seriously reprehensible -- so he'll look like such a shining example of goodness by comparison.  Apparently, that's the tastiest ego food...

I have encountered no Southern Nationalists who agreed with Pat Hines about destroying kids in a Yankee school.  The ones I've discussed it with either denounce the notion, or believe Pat is simply talking big and doesn't literally mean the threat. 

Although I think Pat's comments about the Beslan Siege and threatening to repeat it at a "yankee school" are reprehensible, I don't think for a minute he means it or would do it. Regarding those comments, and his other posts about violence, I once told him on Facebook, "Pat, to paraphrase Ned Pepper in True Grit, 'I call that mighty bold talk for a gray-haired fat man.'"

Pat couldn't begin to carry out threats he hints at, even if he wanted to, which I seriously doubt.  He's old and out of shape -- we're not talking Che, here, folks. Besides, some of what he pretends to advocate would get him blown to pink dust by the U.S. military if he attempted them.  He knows it, everyone knows it. And I really, really don't think he wants to become a pink cloud.

But back to Brooks Simpson.  If people disagree with and denounce Pat's comments but Simpson doesn't know about it -- to him, that's the same as their agreeing with Pat, and endorsing his ideas. If he doesn't know about it, why they didn't do it!

He's exhibited this childish behavior before.  Little kids often think if they don't know about something, it never happened, but you'd expect an adult, especially one who claims to be educated, to know that he doesn't know everything.  Still, with a straight face, Simpson says things like, "... we both know southern nationalists who embrace someone who advocates such mass slaughter as part of his vision of the future....I would think that southern nationalists would move quickly to disavow what he said."

How does he know they didn't? Because he's not privy to the conversations?  Because the disavowal didn't take place in a comment thread on his blog? LOL.  Of course, by implying Southern nationalists didn't disavow what Pat said, simply because he, Simpson, wasn't in on the conversation, he can demonize them on his blog and look squeaky clean and shiny by comparison.

This is just one example.  He has a history of demonizing people in his posts and comment threads, for "infractions" he thinks he knows about -- and then "challenges" them to "redeem" themselves in comment threads on his blog.  (Never mind that the "infraction" may occur basically in his own mind.)  As if, if they don't do it there -- or somewhere where he knows about it, but preferably on his blog -- they're guilty, guilty, guilty.

And of course, that makes him saintly, saintly, saintly by comparison.  And if there's a chance you might miss how saintly he is, he tells you.  (Make sure you understand folks, that he's "horrified and repulsed by what happened at Newtown.")

There is a reason why I don't take Josephine Bass's comments on Corey's blog seriously, and here it is: a screenshot of a graphic she shared on her Facebook page. Of course, she didn't share the graphic in a comment thread on Simpson's blog, so to him, she may as well have been a cheerleader at the Connecticut shooting...

Simpson's willingness, eagerness to wrongly demonize other people for the sake of inflating his already overblown ego is what's truly reprehensible.

* * * UPDATE * * *

What did I tell ya?  Go look at this blog post and the comments following it. 

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/what-is-it-with-some-people/

I left this comment:

There was no threat to children in Ms. Bass’s comments It was in poor taste, but not a threat. BTW — and you know this — I am on record at my blog and on Facebook (several places) as vehemently opposing not only Pat Hines’ threats against children, but his apparent worship of violence in general. So you’re lying about me and you know it. Hard habit for you to break, iddinit?

Brooks Devious "Ego" Simpson replied, 

"Yawn. Elsewhere you dismiss Hines … today, on your own blog. You just don’t threats of violence against children seriously and you don’t deplore those fellow travelers of yours who make those threats."

The lyin' liar just keeps on lyin'.

Today?

November 6th is not today.
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/11/stay-out-of-my-lower-regions.html

November 3rd is not today.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/272315346193652/files/

I take seriously serious threats of violence against children -- or anyone else. Pat's threats weren't serious, and although I found them deplorable, I never took them seriously.

I didn't take Josephine Bass's comments at Corey's blog seriously, either.  Why? Because she posted them on December the 18th -- and on the 14th, four days before, she shared a prayer chain post on her Facebook page for the victims, family, friends and loved ones affected by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Of course, Brooks Devious Ego Simpson makes his judgments about people only on that evidence he chooses to -- that which seems to support what he already believes, or wants to believe. 

But then, what more should you expect from a lyin' liar?

Yeah... What IS It With Some People?

Brooks Devious Simpson posts on his blog:

What Is It With Some People?
Dec19

Several months ago Crossroads reported on violent threats against schoolchildren made by southern nationalist Pat Hines, who in the past has won the approval of people such as Mike Lamb. I note that not a single southern nationalist has taken exception here to his comments. Now comes word that Josephine Bass, a.k.a “Josephine Southern,” has offered the following comment on Corey Meyer’s blog:

Bless Your Heart, I do think you are lucky that no one has shot you in the face or gone to your kids school and shot up the place.

What is wrong with these people? Is this the way advocates of Confederate heritage and southern separatism intend to go about their business?

There’s been a lot a talk about the face of evil lately. There’s also been a lot of talk about mental health and social responsibility. There’s also been a lot of talk about how schools should be safe from violence.

Yet this is what we hear from certain folks in the name of Confederate heritage and southern separatism.

Sometimes, people, confrontation is not only the right thing to do, it’s something that we all must do.

First, Simpson apparently thinks -- like children do -- that if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist. He sez, "I note that not a single southern nationalist has taken exception here to his comments."

HERE?  On his blog?  Why must it be done there?  I've heard from Southern Nationalists who do not agree with Pat's comments. I've heard from others who think his threats are empty big-talk.  But they didn't do it on Simpsons blog, and because they didn't do it there, he thinks it hasn't been done.

What kind of infantile thinking is that?

Keep in mind, folks, that the juvenile-minded Simpson is a professor of history at a major state university.

As for Josephine Bass's comments at Corey's blog, I don't agree with such sentiments, but I don't construe them to be a threat, which is how Meyer, Hall and Simpson are striving assiduously to present them, complete with feigned outrage.  (Little is more entertaining than the feigned outrage exhibited by these haters.)  I see Josephine's outburst as more empty talk, born of frustration and infuriation over the supreme dishonesty with which South-hating bloggers ply their wares on the internet.

And note how he takes the statements of TWO -- count 'em, two, (2) -- people and attempts to translate those statements into intended action by "advocates of Confederate heritage and southern separatism".  Presumably, he's attributing such "intended action" to ALL such advocates, because if it was just two, it wouldn't be worth a blog post.  (Josephine's statement, btw., had no intent or advocacy, despite Simpson's trying to fool his readers into thinking it did.)

And I can't help but wonder, where were Brooks, Andy, Corey, etc., when Michaela Levin was posting orgiastic joy over the early deaths of Southerners?  It "made her day," to think of it, remember?  And as long as these hate-bloggers ignore that, their "outrage" over Hines and Bass (two out of hundreds of thousands of Southerners, and tens of thousands of Southern heritage advocates) brand them as colossal hypocrites, not worthy of any respect, or even attention.

There's a great deal of  hatred for white Southerners, past and present, lurking in the blog posts of Kevin Levin, Brooks Devious Simpson, Andy Hall and Corey Meyer.  Hatred, as we know, begets hatred -- and it is from such hatred that violence grows.  Is that the end result these bashers of white Southerners have in mind?  Violence against white Southerners?  Or white Southerners provoked to violence against others? Who knows... But as long as they indirectly promote hatred of white Southerners (or at least of Confederate heritage folks) and don't advocate violence outright, I guess they think their asses are covered....