Somewhere In Arizona....

I can’t tell you what Flagger thinking is (and I know I’m assuming something not yet proven). But two things about the Flaggers should be obvious: first, their actions are motivated in large part not by a desire to honor the service of the Confederate soldier, but by a desire to draw attention to themselves. Thus we always see the photographs of Flaggers doing this, Susan Hathaway doing that, Tripp Lewis looking goofy, and so on. The pictures are not about the flags or the issues of Confederate heritage, but of the Flaggers having fun (or the numerous images of Susan Hathaway in her red top). Second, the Flaggers and their supporters have a shaky grasp of history that at times reveals less savory aspects of their historical and political beliefs.

It’s not about heritage … that’s for sure

~Brooks D. Simpson    .

______________

Graphic: C.Ward

The Virginia Flaggers and PR

They're tsk-tsking over on Crossroads about an article in the Richmond Times-Disgrace  about the petition against the I-95 flag project. True to what passes for journalism today, Reporter Ted Strong sprinkles a few comments from "the other side" to make his article look objective, and that's what Flogger Simpson and his Floggerettes in the Crossroads Peanut Gallery focus on. Natcherly, I had to snip back at them, and since Simpson is skeered to post my comments on his blog, I hafta do it here.
 
First, from Simpson's post:  

So let me understand this: proposing to fly a divisive symbol isn’t inflammatory, but objecting to doing so is? The Flaggers as victims theme continues.

Pointing out what's happening is not claiming victimhood. Yes, the petition is inflammatory because the "divisiveness" of a symbol is in the eye of the beholder; while a petition is an instrument of divisiveness by its very nature. It exists for the purpose of opposing something others want, or promoting something others don't want. It is not symbolic but a concrete act and instrument of divisiveness.  

“Many” is defined as fifty, as we’ll see below. It’s far less that the number of signatures on the petition who hail from Virginia. Also, to be consistent, the Virginia Flaggers would have to validate the residency of the fifty people who are part of the organization. Just sayin’. Don’t want no outsiders involved, eh? Hear that, Connie Chastain from Florida?

Well, greater numbers don't necessarily indicate rightness... “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."  Just sayin'.
 
Besides, it all depends on how you understand what Jimmy said. I understood it this way: "We (VaFlaggers) are determed that the flag will fly." The "many of us" reference is defined immediately following.  The "many" are we who "have not,  and WILL not forget the honor, valor and sacrifice of our Confederate ancestors.” That's obviously a great many more than the VaFlagger membership, and extends far beyond Virginia.
 
Validate residency? What for? Consistent with what? Nonresidents signed the petition in Lexingtion, and this petition about the I-95 flag.
 
I'm not involved in the flag raising on I-95, except to defend it online. I haven't even been able to make a donation, which I certainly wish I could do.  

I will note that many of the Flaggers believe that the wrong side did win the Civil War.

I'm not a Flagger, but I believe that. 

I never knew that attendance at an event constituted membership in the group.

Nobody has claimed it does, and implying that they did is dishonest and hitting below the belt.  

This makes me a New York Yankee, a New York Islander, and a member of the United States Senate.

No, it makes you a liar.    

Last time I did the math, 50 … or 500 … is much less than 9,800. So who’s a fraction of the Richmond community? The Flaggers are a fraction of the petitioners. Thanks for the reminder, Jimmy.

But the Flaggers aren't the only ones who support the project. And their right to fly the flag on private property doesn't depend on how few or how many are opposed to it. And as noted above, greater numbers don't necessarily indicate rightness... “Enter through the narrow gate..." etc.  

If this constitutes the Flaggers’ new media strategy, when they need to work on it …

The Flaggers have no control over how they are portrayed by a hostile media, or a hostile critic who distorts what they say, how they are portrayed, their motives and actions....

... but then this is the group that embraced Rob Walker...

He approached them wanting to make videos of them. They appreciated the offer because that meant videotaping events wouldn't require taking a Flagger away from flagging. That's not "embracing" Rob Walker.  To say it is, is untruthful, and hitting below the belt.  

 ...and announced that his coming to the group was a sign of God’s hand in the affairs of the Flaggers. As Susan Hathaway announced last May:

There is no denying God’s hand in this… in bringing Rob to Monument Ave. last November, and then, miraculously again last night at the exact moment and time to prevent what could have been irreparable damage to one of our most treasured monuments AND facilitating the first arrest (that we are aware of) of these punk vandals that have no regard for the rule of law:  neither God’s nor man’s.

 Susan is a person of faith and trust. People who are not cannot understand it. Like many Christians, she is aware that the Lord works in mysterious ways, and that many times, what appears to be a setback (say, being betrayed by a wolf in sheep's clothing) becomes, with time, an abundant blessing.

For example, Susan's sincere explanation and apology was readily accepted by people because of her candor and serves as a great blessing for the VaFlaggers. For another example, the incident is showing how mean-spirited and predatory you are about the VaFlaggers, by constantly bringing up a minor incident in a continuing attempt to smear them, after everyone else accepted and appreciated Susan's statement, and moved on.

On to the comments section.

Thelibertylamp, who apparently came to Crossroads via the link posted in the Times-Disgrace comment thread, posted this:  

You might be right, they might be successful in getting that flag up, but I think they are going to run into a lot of problems and issues.    I think cost is going to be their major issue. They estimated $3000 for the flag and pole, but have they included the monthly payments for the land it is on? They signed a lease, I am guessing there is some sort of rental payment for the piece of property?

But, let’s just say some good ol’ boy supporter is letting them install their “performance art” for no charge, then what about this paranoid induced need for fencing, lights and … security cams? Who is going to pick up the electric bill for these big flood lights and 24 hour camera surveillance?  How are they going to get the wiring done and make it weather proof? All this just to wave a stupid (and ugly!) piece of cloth that is going to irritate and alienate more people than do any kind of good for society. 

 Ya know, libertylamp, I'll bet they didn't think of ANY of that. Cuz they're a bunch of hicks and morons with third-grade educations and teeth missing and no shoes and no indoor plumbing...  See?
 

They're too stupid in the way of the world for any of this stuff to even occur to them.... Except for, maybe, the fellow with two college degrees, and another who is a retired cop, and another who works in specialized complex commercial construction and another who's an expert in information technology (i.e., programming) ... and except for their pretty lady leader who is a heckuva lot more savvy regarding public relations than any of the Floggers who get their kicks besmirching her.

But just because you're sooo concerned, you know, I'll pass along your comments ........ (Sheesh.)  

Keep fooling yourself, Betty, and fetishsizing (I know not a real word but it works!) a rag that symbolizes some backwards fantasy of the most dreadful part of American history. Yes, it is about SLAVERY, TREASON, and reactionary ignorance. You might have your freedom of speech to wave your rag of hate, but the rest of us have the freedom of speech to call it out for what it is.

 Secession by some of the states was about slavery. Other things, too, but primarily slavery. The fighting was not. Secession and fighting an invading army were not treason. There have been lots of dreadful parts of American history. Most people think slavery is the only dreadful part, and it's mankind's worst sin. The government's attempt to genocide the Plains Indians by allowing the extinction of their food supply, the buffalo, rates right up there with slavery for dreadfulness. So does imprisoning Indians on reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery.
 
You have a right to call it out for what you THINK it is, but to imply that people who fly it are doing so from hatred is, well, something you can't know, unless you can see into hearts and minds, and only God can do that. So basically what you're doing is projecting  your beliefs about the flag onto others, and then condemning them for your projection.  

 I’d agree with the first sentence and dissent from the second. I wonder whether it would be possible to convince you that it was somehow about slavery, although not in the simplistic way pursued by some.

My gosh, MY GOSH! HELL MUST BE FREEZING OVER! I actually sort of agree with Brooks D. Simpson, professor of  history at Arizona State University, about some of this! Yes, it (secession, the war, etc.) was about slavery (among other things) but not in the prevailing simplistic way it is taught and accepted in this country.

 If it was used incorrectly during the Civil Rights Era in order to deny blacks their rights, was it not used to deny them there freedom between 1861-1865?

No, it was used by soldiers to identify themselves on the field of battle. And they were fighting to defend their homes, families and communities from a barbaric invading army, Corey. Secession involved slavery, among other things. The war involved defense against an invading army.  

 Interesting they now bring up “out-of-town” signers of the petition when those Flaggers protesting in Lexington were all “out-of-towners”. Keep it consistant flaggers, keep it consistant.

Corey, there is a difference between those who advocate by public demonstration, and those attempting to use petitions to the government to force their will on everyone. Besides, the real "out of towners" in Lexington were Anna Brodsky's students who signed the petition. The real "out of towners" in Richmond are people from all over the country who are signing Wonder Woman's petition.

The difference is that in the case of Lexington, the Flaggers sought to dictate what others should do, while in Richmond they claim that they are being dictated to.

They are being dictated to. Or rather, there is an attempt by some to dictate to them using the force of government.

Actually, the petition in Lexington had non-resident signatures, so those were the real outsiders dictating to locals. Most of the people protesting the ordinance were, well, protesting -- the same thing people are doing now that you're defending. And the 10,000 signatures on the anti-flag petition include some from all over the country. More outsiders.  

I’ll let you figure out why it is thus ironic that they lean so heavily upon Connie Chastain.

They don't rely on me, Simpson, except to upload content they email me to their blog, and letting me rip your attacks to shreds, which I'd do anyway -- blog uploading or no blog uploading..

From M.D. Blough    The Flaggers refuse to grasp the central principle of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment...

M.D., I wouldn't worry about this much if I were you. There've been very few complaints of free speech restrictions by the Flaggers, although if the petition is given to governmental authorities in a attempt to force the VaFlaggers to not raise the flag, and government prevents it, that will be a true violation of freedom of expression.  I wouldn't give Simpson's rendition of this much credence. It's never wise to trust his spin. 

If anyone has suggested denying the flaggers their right to express themselves with that flag on private property, I missed it.

Al, check some of the comment threads following news reports about the project. Also, this petition will be given to state and local authorities with the hope they will prevent the raising of the flag on private property. And look at the posts and comments by some of your Flogger buddies and their Floggerette commenters. It isn't always given direct wording, but that is basically what many of them want.

I have a bit of a problem calling confederate veterans American veterans.

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).

_____________________
Image: Judy Smith, Photographer

Hitting Below the Belt

"...who cared about the Flaggers? Not most Richmonders. But that will no longer be the case. The next time Tripp Lewis stumbles, it may get more attention. So might the views of website maintainer Connie Chastain: after all, even Susan Hathaway says she leaves the heavy hitting (below the belt) to Chastain..."  Brooks D. Simpson

The Free Dictionary   
hit someone below the belt
1. Lit. [for a boxer] to strike an opponent below the belt. (An unfair blow.)
2. Fig. to deal someone an unfair blow. 

Dictionary.com Cultural Dictionary
Hitting below the belt
To say something that is often too personal, usually irrelevant, and always unfair..The expression comes from boxing, in which it is illegal to hit an opponent below the belt. 

Brooks Simpson may not like what I write about him on my blogs and Facebook groups, but he can't legitimately say I hit below the belt.

My writings are not personal. Outside his blog and job, all I know about him is that he's a sports fan.

They're not irrelevant. They almost always deal with his smears of Southern heritage advocates and groups, and his demonization of white Southerners. I certainly comment on his  innuendo, falsehoods and other smears of me, and I don't soft-pedal my self-defense or counter-attack.

My responses are not unfair. They may be disrespectful, because I don't believe he deserves my respect; but that is not unfairness.

He accuses me of lying, which I don't do. He may misconstrue what I write to claim unfairness or untruthfulness, but that is actually him being unfair.

Simpson is a hockey fan and a baseball fan. His teams are the Islanders and the Yankees. He sometimes tweets about them, and posts articles and videos on his blog.

They have nothing to do with the civil war and Southern heritage and I have never written anything derogatory about them. In fact, I don't recall ever mentioning them at all,*** and I've certainly never thrown off on his being a sports fan, or on his teams, favorite players, or any other aspect of this interest of his.

Now, let's look at his treatment of me.

I write Southern novels -- stories that portray Southern white people as ordinary decent folks, not the stereotypical scum-sucking racist in-bred hick religious fanatic moron-monsters some writers (and readers) love.  Most of my books incorporate an element of romance.  My novels have nothing to do with the civil war,

Simpson has never read my novels, yet he has posted about them at Crossroads many times, in posts or threads that have nothing to do with them. He has described them, either directly or by implication, as trashy, racist, and poorly written, among other things.

He has brought up the fact that I am self-published numerous times, in a derogatory manner, in posts or comment threads that had nothing to do with me, my writing, my novels or self-publishing. He has used my writing repeatedly to attack me personally.

He has hinted that my characters were like the murderers of Emmett Till, and admitted he brought up one of my novels specifically to entrap me. He has implied that I'm a racist for portraying white Southerners sympathetically -- as honorable and as victimized.

Simpson's writings about my novels are both irrelevant to the purpose of his blog, and unfair to me. They are hitting below the belt.

His writings about Carl Roden's fan-fiction writing also hit below the belt, because they are irrelevant and unfair. They are written specifically to denigrate and hurt another person. Fortunately, Carl doesn't seem to be hurt by Simpson's attacks. That doesn't change the fact that Simpson's attacks are irrelevant and unfair, and thus hitting below the belt.

Because I once said on his blog that my Cherokee ancestors self-identified as Southerners, Simpson actually did my genealogy and found  an ancestor of mine who he said "helped round up the Cherokee" for removal from Georgia. He put it in a Crossroads post, where he mentioned a reference or two, but I found other sources that indicated that my ancestor had nothing to do with the removal. A professor of history doing the same online research on the same person would certainly have found the sources I found; but he ignored them because they negated what he wished to say. That is dishonest and unfair.

His purpose in doing that was solely to embarrass me. It didn't embarrass me; I mention it because it shows what kind of person he is, and that his post about my ancestor was hitting below the belt for all three reasons -- it was personal, irrelevant and unfair.

NOTE: Susan said: "I leave the heavy hitting to Ms Connie!"  So Simpson's statement, "Susan Hathaway says she leaves the heavy hitting (below the belt) to Chastain..." which adds to Susan's comment something she did not say is untruthful, making it unfair, and hitting below the belt.

 ________________________________

***Update: I did mention Sidney Crosby in a comment thread at Crossroads once... But since I merely expressed hope that Sidney's broken jaw would not permanently disfigure his pretty face, it can't be construed as hitting below the belt.

 

_____________________________
Image: U.S. Government

OH, NOES!!! ITS THE END OF THE VIRGINIA FLAGGERS!!

Hang the crepe! Notify the VMFA! Call Waite Rawls! The floggosphere says that


Yankee floggers Brooks Simpson and Kevin Levin, along with scalawag flogger Andy Hall, all chimed in about the I-95 flag project over the weekend -- recycling much of each other's content. That isn't really significant because they do that a lot. And shared content makes for easier responses, because when you answer one, you answer them all.

But they sometimes do add some original commentary. For example, the manner in which the Flaggers will meet their doom. Babbling Brooks predicts that the Flaggeres will "melt" under the spotlight they've turned on themselves, and Andy says they have withdrawn into indistinguishable Confederate heritage grouphood -- either of which amounts to extinction to these floggers.

Levin isn't predicting the end of the Flaggers by melting or group-cloning. He's just predicting that there will be no Confederate flag on I-95 near Richmond.

Let's look at some of their arguments and see if they have merit.
 
The no-context argument: "...for all of the Flaggers’ talk about heritage, their choice of symbol and location leaves much to be desired, precisely because the flag is presented without context."
 
Without context? It's a Confederate flag flying near the capital of the Confederacy! How much more flippin' context do you need? Well, here's some more for ya -- it's push back against the onslaught to remove all artifacts of the Confederacy from the Southern landscape and all traces of it from American memory.
 
People who are whinging and moaning and bellyaching about the flag going up should have thought about the possibility that such actions as this would happen when they were happily scrubbing the South of all things Confederate.
 
Is that context enough for ya? And it doesn't even mention the context of honoring the soldiers of Virginia (and the South) who fought and died beneath that, and other, Confederate flags.
 
Sorry, gentlemen (and I use that term loosely), this project,and the flag at its center have context out the ying yang.
 
The "critics and opposition" argument: This one is mainly from Babbling Brooks and references the 10,000-signature petition, news coverage, editorial commentary, yadda, yadda, yadda.  I note here that I've seen none of the Flaggers whining about free speech. I'm waiting to find out who the organizers are gonna give the petition to. The Flaggers? Pfffft.


Simpson cites "cracks in the ranks of heritage advocates (I guess he's missed the gulleys, canyons and trenches that delineate different factions of the heritage community) and includes the comment of a "committed Confederate heritage advocate." (See note at the end of this article, edited from my post about this at the Backsass Facebook Group.) What I find predictably laughable is Simpson's suggestion of a mole in the VaFlaggers organization. Ve in Souzern Heritage haf ways of dealing vith moles...if we ever attract any. Right now, there are none -- at least, not in the Virginia Flaggers group, which makes Babbling Brooks' claim risible
 
The "being watched" argument:  Simpson says nobody ever paid any attention to the flaggers. before, (except, of course, for himself and Andy and Kevin and Corey and Tu Quoque, all of whom have been tight-focused on the group since its inception). They were "dismissed as little more than a fringe group..." he sez. (This is an example of his projecting his viewpoint upon everyone else). He takes opportunity of showing how un-watched the Flaggers have been in order to bring up a dead horse he loves to beat -- the Rob Walker non-issue -- not realizing, I guess, that it wasn't the Big Thing he made it out to be at the time, and by now, everyone but him has moved on.

He predicts that the days of non-attention are over and Tripp Lewis is being monitored for a "trip up."  And wouldn't you know it, he mentions little ol' moi! "...why anyone would welcome aboard the baggage-laded  Chastain is a question we need not answer." Yeah, he need not -- dare not -- answer it because he knows what'll happen on Backsass if he does...
 
The "melting" argument: "We might well wonder whether the Flaggers, given their behavior, might melt under the new spotlight they have placed upon themselves."
 


I dunno, folks. They don't look like they're melting to me....  They look cool, calm and a collected, which is probably what led to Simpson's wishful-thinking "melting" hallucination.
 
Most of Levin's hit piece is pretty much unremarkable. I simply note the gratuitous put downs designed to let the VaFlaggers know how unimportant they are, which explains why he is so obsessed with them (smirk), and which might be a bit bothersome -- if anybody cared about his opinions, which we don't.
 
There are one or two points, however, to put under the blade of the ol' Chops-A-Lot.
 
He says Confederate heritage folks are, at times, "painfully vague" about defining our heritage. I would just point out that just because he can't understand it, that doesn't mean it's vague, painfully or otherwise. And if others find how we define our heritage "offensive,' that's unfortunate, but we are under no obligation to bend over backward to accommodate their offendedness, just as they are under no obliation to honor our heritage as we do -- and we don't ask them to.
 
I would suggest, however, that Levin doesn't know that the Flaggers have "...done nothing (beyond talking with passerbyes) to work to improve interpretation of the grounds or take seriously the need to educate the general public. Instead, they chose to protest the opening of the .... new branch of the Museum of the Confederacy..." He also doesn't seem to grasp the notion that the two are not mutually exclusive. Can historians or "historians" not do two things at once?
 
I would also suggest, re: his hit on Susan for not demonstrating "real knowledge" of Civil War history -- her knowledge seems real enough. and as for history "platitudes found on the Internet," may I introduce my readers to Civil War Memory, Crossroads, and Dead Confederates? They're all on the Intenet and they're chock full of history platitudes.
 
Perhaps this hasn't occurred to Levin, but people are free to interpret the Confederate flag any way they choose, whether there is a flag on I-95 or not. And if anything in his hit piece belongs in the Chops-A-Lot, it's this, "...for the vast majority of people it will represent little more than a nameless reactionary movement with a flag fetish."
 
Don't you love how these floggers imply a claim of omniscience in knowing what huge number of people think and feel? People they don't know, have never met, never will know, never will speak with.  Wouldn't it be interesting to hear him explain how he nows this? ("I just know.")
 
All of which means his prediction that there "will be no Confederate flag on I-95 near Richmond.," falls somewhere between hot air and hallucination.
 
Last we have Andy, who has kept himself out of the fray for a good while, but it must've been killing him, because he nearly busted a gut writing his blog post, Welcome to Crackertown (formerly Richmond, Virginia)!
 
Andy's argument: Unless Southern heritage activities challenge institutional or powerful interests or authority, or any rule or regulation or city ordinance ...unless they require winning widespread public support ... unless there are great legal, administrative or public opinion obstacles to be overcome ... it's not really Southern heritage activity.
 
These artificial definitions are somewhat akin to Andy's oft-repeated claim that unless heritage defenders think and believe about everything exactly like "real" Confederates did, they're phony heritage defenders.
 
Here's some more implied omniscience "A giant, automobile-dealership-style Confederate Battle Flag out on the freeway does nothing to “educate” the public about the honor of the Confederate veteran, or any of the other things the Flaggers frequently claim their activities do, one-on-one with the public. The I-95 flag will not change the way visitors to Richmond view that emblem, or encourage people who are now indifferent or hostile to the Flaggers’ view of history to become more sympathetic to it. It will simply reinforce what people already believe about that symbol."

He has no idea what visitors to the city will think of the flag. He has no knowledge that people indifferent to the Flaggers' view of history will become hostile to it because if the I-95 flag. Most of 'em probably have no idea what the Flaggers' view of history is.  Andy sure doesn't, for all his confidence in his omniscience.

  As for "Welcome to Crackertown" -- right on, bro!
 

---

My encounter with the Southern heritage advocate Babbling Brooks suddenly finds to be the soul of veracity...
 
Somebody named John Zakrzewski at the Southern Heritage Preservation Group wrote this about the Virginia Flaggers I-95 project: :
 
"I hope they can get their project completed, however after reading countless stories on this I am not sure if this is for a publicity stunt or just a compete lack of vision. I have read for two weeks the posts on this, I have seen some of the interviews, and all the buzz sturred up. If this is on private land, put it up! Stop with the media onslaught, and the odd responses. Seems that there is more here than we are being told."
 
Although that group is attacked mercilessly by Brooks Simpson and his cohorts, Mr. Zakrzewski advised me that my battles with Simpson on behalf of Southern heritage had no place on the SHPG ... so I quit. I rather regret that now, because I have something to say about his post copied above and I'd like for him to hear it.
 
Yes, they will get their project completed. Countless stories? From whom? It makes a difference -- a huge difference -- who's writing them. Leasing land and committing to the pole installation, fencing, lighting, etc., takes time. You can't just wave a magic wand and >poof< it's done.
 
Lack of vision? The Confederate flag is under attack from one corner of Dixie to another but these folks are going to put one up beside a busy freeway in the capital of the Confederacy and you call that a lack of vision?
 
The "stur" you have noticed is from people who are opposed ot it and opposed to Southern/ Confederate heritage in general, which is what your group is SUPPOSED to be preserving.
 
Put it up? If you are as on top of this as you claim to be, you will know that Grayson Jennings has already explained to the media that the ground is wet due to recent and continuing rains, and it has to be dry for the truck that will set the set the flag. If you are genuinely concerned about the nonexistent delays (they did say, did they not, that the gaol for completion was some time in September, why don't you go blow on the ground and dry it out?
 
How, pray tell, are the Flaggers supposed to stop the media onslaught? Odd responses? WHAT odd responses? Every response I've seen from the Flaggers is direct and to the point. I'm not sure what you'd consider odd about that. There's more here than you're being told? I don't doubt it. No organization tells everything. You've been told what you need to know, now shut the heck up.
_____________________
Images: Connie Chastain, Facebook and the Public Domain

Great News!

Trespassing lawsuit against Tripp Lewis dismissed!

From Tripp on Facebook:

Oh Goodness Gracious have you heard the news? My charge of Trespassing was dismissed this morning in court. Court was scheduled for 9:30am but the kids and I were there at 9:00am. The Commonwealth attorney and my attorney were both early at

9:10am so in we went. At 9:17am we left the court room with what I consider a victory! Dismissed!! While instructing my attorney on how I would like him to attack the retreating enemy we saw "sweat suit guy" (Rick Peasants) heading into the court room. I wonder how long he sat in there before he realized he was late for the party?
 
I would like to thank everyone for your words of support and for those who helped with a financial donation to the defense fund. This is not just my victory but our victory! The true victor though is that of the Confederate Soldier and his good name.
 
Plans are in the works to counter strike.. Stay tuned.

Thanks, Tripp, for keeping us informed.

And now....

Silly? Then Why the Obsession?

Reply to Kevin Levin's ultra stupid question, Did Confederate Veterans Hate Confederate Heritage? and the post that follows it.

Kevin Levin writes, "Looks like I missed a great deal of Virginia Flagger silliness while away on my Civil War road trip."
If it was really silly, he wouldn't be so obsessed with it.

He continues, "This obsession with the visibility of the Confederate flag on the part of the Flaggers stands in sharp contrast with its use during the height of monument dedications at the turn of the century. It should come as no surprise that Confederate veterans didn’t prance about or demand the flag be placed in locations simply so it could be seen for miles around."

Different time. Different people. People fly the flag today for different specific reasons, but from the same general sentiments. Oh, not the sentiments of Confederate veterans, but those same men when they were Confederate soldiers. Their battle was physical; the one today is cultural.

"... they would not be the biggest fans of the goals of the Virginia Flaggers."

If they understood the culture today, in the face of their being demonized by academia, the popular culture ... bloggers ... and such, I suspect Confederate veterans would be joyful that SOMEbody in this godforsaken era is taking up for them, their sacrifices and their good name. And if they knew and understood the obesity of the federal government,its enormous violations of the Constitution, and its bullying around the world, I don't know that they'd feel warm and fuzzy about displays of the US flag.

You bloggers so frequently try to impose their time, their views on their descendants and admirers all these generations later, especially heritage activists, but you eschew our attributing to them our views. if they could know the world today. I suspect we are closer to them and they are closer to us.

BTW, the Virginia flaggers in particular, and heritage advocates and activists in general, aren't attempting to establish a monopoly on what that past means or how it should be interpreted by others. We are trying to keep others who claim such a monopoly from making a bizarre mutation of our heritage as justification for wiping it out.

Yes, I posted these to the comment thread at his blog, and no, he did not allow them through moderation.

Coward.

CHALLENGE! FIND THE HATE!

On his personal blog, Crossroads, Brooks D. Simpson, Professor of History at Arizona State University, posts a list of items that he characterizes as a "heritage of hate."  On that list, he includes an earlier post on his blog featuring graphics I have made to counter multicultural lies. Below is one of them. I challenge ANYONE to find HATE in the graphic. Please post your findings, and why you consider them to be HATE in the comments. Thanks.

(Disclaimer: Since there is no hate in this graphic, and hate did not motivate the creating of it, finding hate in it doomed to failure. But, hey, give it your best shot!)

Richmonders (?) Against the Flag?

The Facebook community, Richmonders Against the Confederate Flag on I-95, or something like that, created around August 7, is a most interesting page. Here's what the "About" section sez:

About --Let's do whatever we can to discourage the "Richmond Flaggers" from putting up a massive 10x15 foot Confederate Flag on I-95!

No creators, no owners, no administrators. Completely anonymous.

Howsomever, I think it's very interesting that the person putting up the most comments is not a Richmonder at all, but a Gilberter -- as in Gilbert, Arizona, which is either 2241.87 or 2335.37 miles from Richmond (driving distance), depending upon your route, or 1946 crow-flies miles.

Another interesting thing is that this Gilberter, in the past, has waxed adamant that only the residents of a community should have a say-so about flag issues that occur there -- for example, Lexington, Virginia.

I believe a certain Galvestoner and a certain Bostoner have echoed the Gilberter on that subject, but at last look, they have not spammed the Richmonders-Against community like the Gilberter has.

I Have Pissed Him Off ... AGAIN!

It's fascinating to see how a little retired insurance claims secretary in L.A. (Lower Alabama, aka west Florida) can get a famous academic soooo wound up!

He trolled Backsass for over 40 minutes earlier this morning, and all he has to show for it is this:

The Under Belly of Flagger Support

I wonder what did it this time.

Maybe it was this: Ghost People At the SHPG 

Or it coulda been this: Bullying Floggers

Or this: Lying By Omission...

Or this:  He ... Just ... Can't ... Stop

I've got a few chores lined up -- a book to finish reading and review, and several other reviews to write.  I have a website update to finish, and some other little things that need to be done.

Oh, and I wanna play on Facebook for a while.

But I'll be back to talk about this some more when all the important stuff is out of the way.

He ... Just ... Can't ... Stop

Brooks Simpson to Carl Roden:

...it is a little embarrassing for folks to find out that you place an adult sexual spin on Nickelodeon cartoon characters.

It is? Embarrassing for whom? Is it embarrassing for you, Simpson? Or is it a verbal taser-equipped cattle prod for you to wield?

And what folks are you referring to? Maybe the witch hunters who follow your blog, but they're predators, so what do you expect?  Normal people have a more, well, normal attitude. Besides, "adult sexual spin" is a weasel phrase that does not accurately descibe Carl's story.

Basically, you are trying to leave people with the impression that the story is erotic or pornographic. It is not. Not even close. But even if it was, what's it to you? Are Nickelodeon cartoon characters sacrosanct in the world of civil war blogging?

It is a little romantic story, and it has an element of sexual attraction common to all romance writing.

If memory serves, it was Eric Berne, developer of Transactional Analysis, who described romance as friendship plus sex.In romance writing, sex means sexual attraction. People who write romance must include both the "friendship" (caring for another person) plus sexual attraction. Without sexual attraction between the characters, it's just a friendship story. Without the friendship, all you have erotica or, worse, pornography.

What used to be the romance genre has become inundated with erotica (which Carl's story emphatically is not, btw). This transformation is a reflection of the hedonistic culture we live in; the inevitable result of the leftist, especially feminist, war on family and religion.

One of the reasons I, as a writer, cut back on participation in crit groups was that too frequently, I found myself in the position of having to help someone improve the grammar, spelling, composition, GMC of sheer smut and outright obscenity. No, thanks.

I would just point out to Simpson that different types of writing have different objectives and are aimed at different audiences. If something’s not your cup of tea, fine, but that in itself does not make it embarrassing, or a reason to try to embarrass someone.

The impression Simpson is trying to project about Carl's fan fiction is a blatant lie, prompted by his hatred of someone who doesn't worship his "authority" about the civil war. It is yet another manifiestation of Simpson's desire to denigrate, his thirst to hurt other people. There's absolutely no other reason for him to reference Carl's fanfic writing at all.

Brooks Simpson on the Virginia Flaggers

I am saying that they have a fondness for the camera, which is what drew them to Mr. Walker in the first place.

Simpson has put forth this lie repeatedly. It remains a lie every time he does it.  Mr. Walker approached them, not the other way around.

Regarding Susan Hathaway, he has said,

So she wants to admit that she’s a fool who invited a spy into the camp of the Flaggers, only to be betrayed?  

And,

Hey, if Susan Hathaway wants to draw attention to the fact that either she’s been fooled or she lied, I’m fine with that.

As I made clear in an earlier post, if Walker had given any indication he was out to set up the VA Flaggers and embarrass them, they would not have accepted his services.

But Simpson just can't leave it alone. He tells Tripp Lewis,

"But you're a coward to fail to admit that you welcomed Mr. Walker into your group and bought his story."

All that has been explained, but that's STILL not good enough for Simpson. He needs an excuse to use his verbal, taser-tipped cattle prod, and he'll misconstrue nearly anything for a chance to use it. He prefers a living person, but if he can't find one, he'll happily beat a dead horse with it.

But why shouldn't they have bought Walker's story? As I've noted, he gave them no indication that he was anything other than he appeared. Only God is omniscient, but I guess Simpson is now expecting Flaggers to be omniscient, and will verbally taser-cattle-prod them if they aren't.

I wonder if Simpson voted for Obama. I can't imagine he could resist showing what a good little non-racist he is by voting for the black guy.  If he did, he's a far bigger dupe than any Virginia Flagger, and he needs to turn his cattle prod on himself -- and about half the people in the country -- because they knew what Obama was long before the election (buddies with domestic terrorists, absentee U.S. Senator, bullying "community organizer" [Obama's cattle prods were the knee-pad media, i.e., Ezra Klein's left-leaning Journ-O-List, and SIEU]-- and they voted for him anyway.

As for a "fondness for the camera" -- you betcha. Mr. Simpson, you may have a blog, and you may Tweet and get on Facebook, but you don't seem to be really comfortable with the digital revolution, or other people's use of the technology that has resulted -- i.e., the democratizing of communications, promotion, organization and a host of other endeavors.

Video is a huge part of the revolution. The days of monopolies by ABC, NBC and CBS are long since over. Over 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. More than a billion unique viewers visit YouTube each month (http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html). Anybody with a cause ignores this resource at their peril. It is not to the discredit of the Virginia Flaggers that they use this medium. Indeed, they'd be crazy not to.

Brooks Simpson being a blatant liar

Now learn something about the people who support the Flagger proposal.

This comment accompanied a graphic on the "Richmonders against the Confederate Flag on I-95" Facebook community page, whose creators are not named, which has all of 33 likes thus far, and which Simpson seems to have taken over.

(Hmmm.... I wonder if he's the creator? But even if he's not, insinuating himself into a a flag issue of a city where he does not live, that is in fact 2241 miles from where he lives, negates all his criticism of non-residents of Lexington insinuating themselves into the flag issue there -- and shows him for the colossal hypocrite that he is.)

The graphic is from his blog,  a screen shot of a thread from the Southern Heritage Preservation Group. It is supposed to show how "racist" the group is; but his Facebook comment is a blatant lie because of one word --  "people," plural.  Because,  you see, only one person in the copy-paste made objectionable remarks and he was removed from the SHPG for doing so. But, of course, Simpson doesn't tell you that.

BTW, I've already dealt with that idiotic hate-mongering, HERE.

Dare I say to him,

"But you're a coward to fail to admit that only one person made the objectionable posts and he was removed from the group for it." 

Yeah. I dare.


____________________________
Images: U.S. Gov. (Public Domain) and Wikimedia Commons (GNU Creative Common license)