Backsass

Monday, January 12, 2015

This Man Is an Embarrassment....

...for the whole country.

Can't be bothered to attend the unity rally in France attended by over a million people, including 40+ world leaders, following Islamic terrorist murders in Paris.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

He Couldn't CHECK First?

An interesting e-mail exchange ....

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:57:13 -0600
From: "Connie Ward" <connie_ward@cox.net>
To: "editor" <editor@firstfreedom.net>

Subject: Olaf, did you have Susan Hathaway's permission

.... to reprint her battle flag article?
Please let me know the answer to this ASAP.

Connie Ward
2015-01-10

* * * * * * * * * *

Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:42:50 -0600
From: "Olaf Childress" <editor@firstfreedom.net>
To: "Connie Ward" <connie_ward@cox.net>

Greetings, Connie. No, I thought it was in the public domain. Why, is she angry or something?

(Emphasis added. --cw)

In a hate-post attacking Susan Hathway (Yeah, another one. Again.) at XRoads, Simpson says:

Over the years Crossroads has carefully documented the ties between the Virginia Flaggers and various white supremacist and nationalist movements. There’s no need to revisit that now.

Complete bullcrap. There are no such ties. What there is, is Simpson stalking the internet looking for any crumb he can distort, spin, stretch and magnify into hate-based slander against the VaFlaggers, especially Susan Hathaway. (And why? Why are they ANY of his business? They've never done anything to him.)

"... recent information shared with Crossroads merits attention ... and once more raises serious questions about the company Hathaway and the Flaggers keep in their efforts to “promote” Confederate heritage ..."

Shared by whom? <Gasp!> He doesn't say! Imagine that! Why is he presumably unwilling to identify his informant? Would people have doubts about the veracity of the information if they knew who was supplying it? But this mega-super-hypocrite gets all bent out of shape with my protecting the identity of a Flagger visitor to Pensacola...

Pots and kettles, motes and beams, and all that... (Brooks D. Simpson -- the "D" stands for Double-Standard, y'all).

And he obviously didn't even TRY to document this latest attack on Susan, although contact info is right there on the First Freedom website. I know this because I sought, and obtained, information crucial, indeed essential, to his claim in a little over 24 hours. The info: that the editor of The First Freedom neither sought nor received permission to reprint Susan's article. His email implies he had no contact with her whatever.

Frankly, Simpson's failure -- or is it refusal? -- to verify whether he was publishing the truth or not THIS time is, in my opinion, nothing new. I don't recall him ever revealing his sources who "share" dirt and crap with him that he throws at the Flaggers from the safety of his Arizona blog. Maybe he did, but it was too infrequent to remember. I also don't recall him ever posting verification of what he claims. Instead of verification, he uses gooey glibness, language manipulation, innuendo, distortion, omission, and outright lies.

So his boasting about "careful documentation" is simply another of his Long, Long List of Lies.

I have been unable to determine when the January 2015 issue of The First Freedom went online. I suspect it was on or before January 6, as that is the only date my browser could find associated with either the .html or .pdf documents. It is identified as the date modified, which admittedly may have nothing to do with upload date.

In any case, I suspect Simpson didn't have the information in question on January 7 or earlier, or he would have posted it then, with quivering eagerness and excitement, instead of the hum-drum, yawn-yawn post about a "short essay" he prepared for Arizona Humanities, blah-blah-blah that appeared on the 8th..

Another day goes by before he posts, on January 9, a diatribe titled Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers: In Bed With AntiSemite White Supremacists?

The question-mark is one of those plausible deniability devices ("Hey! I didn't SAY she was. I just ASKED if she was!"). In that post he says, among other things:

It is only when one examines The First Freedom’s monthly newsletter that we discover something that should trouble people who claim that Crossroads has been unfair to Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers.

"Unfair" doesn't begin to describe it. It takes the following to begin to describe the evidence of Simpson's hatred of the VaFlaggers, especially Susan Hathaway: lies, innuendo, denigration, harassment, intimidation, persecution. Yep, that begins to describe it.

And.

Now, y’all know how this will go. Connie Chastain will scream and rant;

Absolutely. He's lying and attacking and trying to hurt and injure Susan and the VaFlaggers; that needs to be exposed, and I'm happy to do it.

But I did more than scream and rant. I emailed the editor of The First Freedom. My email and the reply are posted above -- and they prove that Simpson's hatred of Susan Hathaway is so strong, he's so eager -- nay, he's so deeply and voraciously desirous -- of attacking and smearing her that he can't take the time or go to the trouble of verifying his attacks.

Susan Hathaway will lose her voice;

Susan has never lost her voice. Not deigning to address Simpson's lies and filth is not losing her voice. But it does get his goat. Bigtime.

...and others will counterattack …

Absolutely. He's attacking, and needs to be counter-attacked, and I'm happy to do it.

...but they won’t denounce, and they won’t disassociate themselves from their comrades.

There is no association to disassociate from.

Ask Matthew Heimbach.

Ask him WHAT?

As for Susan's "silence" and refusal to "disavow" anything, nobody is asking her to do that except people who hate her. Everyone who knows her knows that her very LIFE is a disavowal of what Simpson and others mendaciously claim.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

In the comment thread following is lyin' blog post, Simpson sez,

"The associations are not imaginary. They are documented."

No, they're not. What Simpson is calling "documentation" is photos and snippets of video made at public events, that take anywhere from a few seconds to a minute or so to make. That's not an association

Associations are with people who show up on the Boulevard every week, twice a week, for THREE-PLUS YEARS. People who fellowship together, who hold each other in high esteem, commemorate the passing of members and who visit to console the families, who clear the cemeteries where their ancestors are buried, who help each other, encourage each other, and deeply care about one another. (And who volunteer time, money and work to the Interstate battle flags projects.)

"Indeed, one of the great things about the Virginia Flaggers is that they expose these associations themselves."

In addition to the above activities, they attend public heritage events. They can't control the guest list unless it's their own event, so anyone can show up, and they sometimes get photographed together. Simpson, apparently in all seriousness (or else in total intentional deceit, I'll let you decide which) takes a handful of photos and videos where this has happened, and totally ignores the dozens, nay, the hundreds of photos and videos of VaFlaggers that truly document associations. (If the handful of photos he has posted documented associations, he'd have lots more photos, new ones posted online all the time, so he wouldn't have to keep posting the same handful year after year to try to make his case. In scientific terms, what he does is known as 'grasping at straws'.)

"Recall how Tripp Lewis called Matthew Heimbach a “good guy”? How would he know if there was no association?"

By observation? A conclusion drawn based on Heimbach's wanting to participate in a heritage event? Does this highly edumucated professor of academia seriously believe one can only draw conclusions about another person unless they have an association with them?

"And here’s Susan smiling on the streets of Lexington with another white nationalist, Shane Long:"

So, Shane Long is at a heritage event, and sees the well-known VaFlagger founder and asks to have a selfie made with her, and it takes all of five seconds and that's what Simpson conceptualizes as an association? The time it takes to snap a selfie with somebody? Is this little man for real?

"We are used to Connie lying and dissembling. She confuses her persistence in these endeavors with skill in practicing them."

Well, I was taught not to lie when I was growing up. I was taught that it is charged with grave, eternal consequences, so I don't do it. Thus, if I tried to, I wouldn't be any good at it. But I don't lie or dissemble, Simpson. So I guess what you're mistaking for my unskilled dissembling is your own malicious delusions.

"...as is the case with her writing."

If that's a reference to blogs and FB writings, it's wrong. My writing is at least as skilled as Simpson's. (Note: dull, dry, academic writing isn't the only writing that falls under "skillful.") If it's a reference to my novels, it's also wrong. The only people I've ever encountered who say my novel writing isn't skilled are (a) people who haven't read my novels and (2) people who are motivated by animosity for the author. Simpson fits into both categories, as his fraudulent reviews of my novels on Amazon attest.

"Now, either Connie speaks for Susan or she does not. If she does, then her flailing around amounts to a “no comment.” If she doesn’t, then let Susan speak for herself."

As if he would believe it, even if Susan did say it. In fact, I do not speak FOR Susan, but I certainly speak in her defense. But what he calls my "flailing around" was actually action he didn't know was occurring -- my contacting the editor of the tabloid newspaper and awaiting a reply -- and it resulted in proof of Simpson's lies and his animosity that spawns them.

"So thanks, Connie. I’m sure the media coverage in Lexington will find this information … informative."

Have you sent it to the media covering Lexington? Do you imagine they'll report it without verifying it with the tabloid's editor, the way you were so slaveringly itchy to do? If you send it to them, and they contact the editor, do you imagine they might find it more informative (and a lot more interesting) to ask why some mendacious professor over a thousand miles away is sending them slanderous material....

Go back to soporific history writing, Simpson, and you won't have to endure me exposing your lies and what lies behind them -- your ugly animosity for people you don't even know, and who have never done a thing to you.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Cluster Floggasm at XRoads

What's going on at XRoads -- a mutual group-floggasm -- is one of those things that's both repulsive and fascinating at the same time.

It seems an article written by well-known heritage activist showed up in an obscure, visually cluttered, almost incoherent racist tabloid newspaper. For some, it's proof positive that Confederate heritage equals white supremacy. For others, it's an opportunity to get their jollies by hatin' and speculatin'. The head flogger-in-charge is waiting to hear that the activist knew nothing about this.

I think that's exactly the case. First, despite all the imaginary "associations" between heritage and racism discussed in the floggasm, there's nothing to indicate there is any such association. Paths occasionally and inadvertently crossing is not an association.

The article in question appeared in two publicly available internet venues, and all the tabloid editor had to do was select-a, control-c and control-v.

It appears that much of the tabloid's content is copies of content found on the internet, which lends great credibility to the speculation that the activist did not know her writing was used.

Articles by the following people or organizations appear in the tabloid:

Lt. Colonel Donald Sullivan (Ret)
Bob Adelmann (New American)
Dennis Kucinich
Leo Hohmann (World Net Daily)
Paul Craig Roberts
Tony Cartalucci
Rt.com
PressTV
Al Jazeera

Some of these folks are conservatives, but who believes they were all contacted and gave permission for their articles/news reports and by-lines to be used? And Kucinich is definitely no right-winger.

This is evidence that even more strongly suggests the activist's writing was filched without her knowledge and consent. But that's of no consequence to the denizens of the floggosphere. They believe what they want.

Hating certain people, even if they have to fabricate reasons for it, is seemingly what they get their jollies from.

Yep, it's pretty pathetic, but that's them and theirs....

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

*snicker, snicker*

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

A Message from History

Friday, January 2, 2015

Ride or Die with Bama, Roll Tide

I am a hard-core fan of Alabama Crimson Tide football. As a teenager in Montgomery, Alabama, I remember watching games occasionally on television, but it's radio that figures largest in my memory. Whatever I was doing on Saturdays -- washing my car, hanging out with my clique -- the radio was tuned to Keith Jackson's coverage ("Whoa, Nellie!") of the Crimson Tide's game.

I don't have any teams that I just hate. I love the SEC and take a lot of pride in the schools and teams that comprise it. I don't have a lot of patience with official athletic organizations -- NCAA, the old BCS and now the CFP (what an ugly logo, btw), etc., though I do like playoffs and national championships, of which Alabama has won many. Exactly how many depends on who is counting, and what criteria they use.

Yesterday's loss to Ohio State was a heartbreaker, sure enough. (How many interceptions did Sims throw, two or three? I quit watching a some point in the second half.)

But there was another Sugar Bowl meeting between these two teams, back in 1978. Final score, Alabama 35, Ohio State 6.

Here are some highlights. (The quality of the video is unfortunate, but how neat to hear Keith Jackson again!)

Tide fans love the Tide, and not just because of recent wins and recent conference and national championships... For some of us, the team's history and traditions are a huge part of its appeal... And here is one big reason...

The 1926 Rose Bowl

That was that game that made the Tide not just the champions of the Alabama; it made Bama the whole South's team -- "Dixie's football pride." Alabama.com has a recap here, complete with video of the players' parade upon their return to Tuscaloosa.

A Look Back at the Game

But Gail Jarvis gives a far more in-depth look at the event, and its significance. And the significance pertains as much to what went on in the South before the game -- decades before -- as to what came after.

He begins with the kind of hardship the South endured after the civil war (some of it deliberately inflicted) that Eric Jacobson and Mousy Tongue either don't believe happened, or think it "wasn't all that bad" (or if it was that bad, then good, more of it shoulda happened...)

Reconstruction and the Rose Bowl

By Gail Jarvis

The War Between the States and the pillaging by General William Tecumseh Sherman’s Union troops left the South devastated. Most properties as well as systems of production and transportation were destroyed. Livestock were slaughtered and crops burned. For most Southerners, survival became a matter of clawing and scraping.

The years of radical Reconstruction following the war further demoralized the South. The region was placed under military rule and an inept attempt was made to redistribute land and resources. But those in charge of Reconstruction didn’t understand basic human nature. Nor did they realize, until it was too late, how easily their programs were being exploited and undermined by corrupt interlopers.

So, within a few years, this social experiment lost its momentum and was phased out, officially ending in 1877. At that point the South began rebuilding efforts but the struggle to regain some semblance of stability continued for decades. Indeed, millions of Black as well as White Southerners migrated to the North in the decades following the War because they were unable to earn a living in the South.

But one form of Reconstruction was simply replaced with another form that, for decades, kept Southern states in a continuous struggle against poverty. Historian A.B. Moore examined this phenomenon in his 1940s paper, “One Hundred Years of Reconstruction of the South.” Moore describes the harsh measures the government imposed on the South following the War. The region was not allowed to collect debts it was owed; however it had to pay its debts in full. Discriminatory tariffs continued to place an unfair advantage on the South while filling Northern coffers. Freight-rates were skewed in favor of the North who could ship its goods southward at cheaper rates than the South could ship its goods to the North. Also, the inequitable rate structure allowed the North to ship its goods to Southern cities cheaper than Southern cities could ship goods to their own Southern neighbors.

Another inequity was the patent subsidy that allowed the North to own almost 90 percent of “the effective money-producing patents.” Of the government pensions paid for the War Between the States and World War One, 7 billion dollars went to the North while only 1 billion dollars went to the other regions of the country. Southern companies and farmers were compelled to finance their ventures using Northern lenders and were charged much higher interest rates than those assessed Northern borrowers. It is estimated that the North controlled ninety percent of the nation’s wealth primarily because of these government differentials that kept the South in “colonial bondage.”

It has been said that, after the war, “tongues and pens” replaced “bullets and bayonets.” The North owned the publishing businesses, agencies of public instruction, news gathering agencies, newspapers, magazines and radio systems. Northern conglomerates also owned most newspapers in the South. In Moore’s words, “This gave the North a tremendous advantage in the shaping of public opinion.” Media became the instrument used “to make the northern way of life the national way.” The North had “the conviction that it was not a section but the whole United States and that, therefore, its pattern of life must prevail throughout the country.When the South failed to conform it was stigmatized as backward, provincial, and sectional.” Southern culture was not simply different, it was boorish. Northern journalists described the South in increasingly unflattering ways although most had never traveled to the region.

By the early 1900s, the South had changed dramatically. It was moving away from an agrarian economy. Although poverty was still a problem, the South had a multiplicity of commercial enterprises and metropolitan centers. Southern universities were incubating a group of writers who would profoundly impact American literature. And the Southern Belle had become a Flapper, influenced by the female need for independence that was sweeping the country. But the northern press continued to portray the South as a rural backwater that could not compete with the hardworking and industrialized North.

Not surprisingly, the immense power of the media was even influencing the way Southerners viewed themselves. So it is understandable that, in the 1920s, the South was a region devoid of regional pride. But, finally, an incident occurred that marked the beginning of a change in the South’s image. Oddly enough, it was a football game: the 1926 Rose Bowl. This game pitted the University of Washington against the University of Alabama, the first Southern team in history to be invited to a bowl game. This contest would always be remembered as “The football game that changed the South.”

It has been called the Rose Bowl’s most spectacular game and many believe it was the most exciting college football game ever played.

Read the whole thing, here: Reconstruction and the Rose Bowl

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Yes, indeed! You're Dixie's football pride, Crimson Tide!

___________________
Photo credits: Matthew Tosh and Rebel Nation Photo Stream via Creative Commons license, and the Public Domain.

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Promises, Promises I

"But I wonder about giving these fringe elements too much attention, and, after having reviewed some of their blogs and a Facebook page over the past few weeks ... I have come to the conclusion that to feature these groups and blogs is in fact to grant them a sort of recognition and legitimacy that they do not deserve.... I think that to give these fringe ranters undue attention is a disservice to the South and all southerners. Other bloggers may continue to draw attention to these folks, but, aside from highlighting specific examples of research claims, I will let them languish and stew in their own scalding juices of hate and resentment."

Brooks Simpson
August 11, 2011

The very next day, he posts about the League of the South, and two days later, he devoted an entire blog post to .... ME!

And a mere four months later, on December 29 2011, he made the first of his 242 Virginia Flagger posts (including mentions or comments), the most recent of which was posted on December 31, 2014.

Somehow, I don't think he meant what he said on August 11, 2011

BParks, It's January 1, 2015....

From an XRoads comment thread:

December 31, 2013
BParks

....This post will become a motivator as we work to eradicate Connie, M Lamb and the rest of the VA Flaggers in 2014. Thankfully they will eventually hang themselves by their own rope of hate, but we will keep exposing them at every opportunity and hopefully their internet presence will be all but a bad memory by 2015. My New Years resolution is to do my part to erase them and their ignorant influence of racism and sexism from the World Wide Web.

* * *

December 31, 2013
Brooks D. Simpson

I expect that once more people will inquire what you mean by eradicate and erase. I think it is preferable to expose and then challenge their message. I find the implications of “eradicate” and “erase” suggest behavior I would not endorse.

* * *

December 31, 2013
BParks

I simply mean remove their hateful influence via the web.

(Emphasis mine. ~cw)

Oops! Missed yer deadline, huh, BParks?

Of course, with BParks, like it is with so many of our critics, our "hate" and "racism" are figments of the critic's imagination -- a result of their desire to create/fabricate somebody they can feel morally superior to. The deficiency of morals and ethics that leads to such a desire must be powerfully uncomfortable. Completely intolerable, perhaps.

In any case, I'm still here, and so are the Virginia Flaggers, and they're bigger and more influential than they've ever been.

Awwww. Too bad for BParks, and all her fellow haters. We're still here.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Thinkin' and Sayin'

Simpson quotes Jerry Dunford...

You use history as your vehicle to blog and to spread the mistrusts about the flaggers and Southern heritage groups and history.

...and then replies....

Absolutely. Several bloggers have been very active in sharing their understanding of history through their blogs (as well as through other venues).

Ah, no. Both of these statements are incorrect.

The floggers don't use history as their "vehicle" and they don't "share their understanding of history" -- they use history and their blogs as WEAPONS.

They don't just "spread mistrust" about the Flaggers and Southern heritage groups. They (especially Simpson) LIE about them, attack, denigrate, harass and attempt to persecute them.

In fact, there's a typical Simpson lie in this very post: "This, of course, is why Confederate heritage apologists advocates spend so much time telling us that they don’t care what their critics say."

This is in response to something I wrote -- only I didn't write "what our critics say about us." I plainly, clearly said we don't care "what they think of us."

Do you suppose somebody with all of Simpson's edumucation doesn't know the difference between THINK and SAY? (See, Jacobson? THIS is why dictionary definitions are necessary.)

And in this case, online writing (i.e., blogging) is a form of saying.

So, yes, I take great interest in what they say -- in the lies, the denigration, the harassment and attempted persecution. And THAT is what I monitor their blogs for (especially XRoads).

But me care what Simpson thinks of us? It'll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

Eric Jacobson Has a Nervous Breakdown

Over at XRoads, Jacobson posts:

I have tried to stay out of this, but I can’t help myself any longer. What I find particularly galling is Chastain’s absolute ineptitude when it comes to the Confederate military and its history. She blathers on about the flag, but I highly doubt that she can carry on any substantive conversation that doesn’t involve some long post-war application of it. In that sense, it is all about heritage (her skewed version of it). Note her bloviating about how the South was screwed by intestinal bugs, railroad scams, price manipulations, and the like until well into the 20th century as prime examples. Funny how that sounds like the very kind of victimhood she usually rails against.

Now she also likes to talk about rape and fire (especially as it relates to Sherman and his troops), but that is also mostly post-war poppycock nonsense that was the ultimate creation of the Lost Cause movement. Chastain would throw her walker into the street if she knew how former Confederate AND Southern civilians who had lived through the oft-repeated barbarity of Sherman’s movements actually lauded and celebrated his return to Atlanta in the early 1880s. But, of course, its all about her view of heritage – facts be damned.

Also, most people like Chastain conveniently forget that schools and highways were named for Forrest, Lee, et al, almost 100 years AFTER the war, and as a show of defiance against the winds of change that were blowing in the mid-20th century. Same with the battle flag and battle flag displays that went up and then inevitably came down. They can scream “heritage” violations all they want, but that is false. It’s called time moves on and things change. And sometimes, things just change.

Some folks in Brooklyn and Baltimore have never gotten over their teams leaving them. Same with marriages, and Presidents, and friends, and on and on. Yes, it seems Chastain has a hard time with the ol’ life sometimes sucks mantra.

Capisce?????

I can provide endless quotes about how Confederate soldiers viewed the battle flag, and how in the post-war years they were very particular about how it should be displayed and by whom. I doubt they would agree with this bantering, and bickering, and fussing about the flag going up and the flag going down and the lack of the flag being flagged because they didn’t see it as a necessary public display. I’m sure Chastain and others will claim to speak for the veterans, but they have about as much right to that as I do, or anyone else.

I say let her flag away. It won’t accomplish a thing, except to make her feel good, and if that works for her then so be it. I’ll send her new tennis balls if she needs them in 2015.

P. S. – In closing, no sensible person repeatedly quotes the meaning of words from the dictionary. It such a sign of someone who really doesn’t understand the meaning of droll, even if its meaning was quoted from said online dictionary (or an old fashioned printed one).

Goodness gracious sakes alive. One hardly knows where to begin....

Well, that's a joke. I know exactly where to begin....

First, to clarify, when I discuss what Southerners endured after the war (and during it), it's not to showcase victimhood. It's to show (1) what they stoically bore largely without resorting victimhood and (2) who perpetrated it against them.

In typical yankee fashion, Jacobson minimizes the horrors Southerners lived with after the war (as he has in the past minimized what they endured during it). He calls pellagra and hookwork an "intestinal bug"-- and he rails against MY ignorance? Pellagra is a horrific disease with devastating mental and physical manifestations caused by a nutritional deficiency -- said nutritional deficiency caused by poverty-stricken diets. Hookworm was caused by a parasite (hardly a bug) that plagued people who went barefoot -- BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO POOR TO BUY SHOES. Both were very widespread in the South in the generations following the war.

Apparently, Jacobson doesn't like acknowledging what the greedy union and its diabolical military did to the South and the aftermath of their devastation and ruin...bless his heart...

He sez, "Chastain would throw her walker into the street if she knew how former Confederate AND Southern civilians who had lived through the oft-repeated barbarity of Sherman’s movements actually lauded and celebrated his return to Atlanta in the early 1880s."

Yup, I don't know that they did that, and Jacobson didn't offer any substantiation. I do know that when I was growing up in Georgia I never heard anyone say a nice thing about Sherman. I'd have to see proof that people who lived through Sherman's barbarity lauded and celebrated the thieving, murdering arsonist's return to Atlanta. Interesting that the folks who criticize me for not offering PROOF (when I'm simply expressing an opinion or making a suggestion) let their own off the hook when it comes to substantiating their claims about history.

"Chastain conveniently forget that schools and highways were named for Forrest, Lee, et al, almost 100 years AFTER the war, and as a show of defiance against the winds of change that were blowing in the mid-20th century." It's not forgetting, conveniently or otherwise. It is knowledge that there was not much opportunity to name schools, roads, etc., after ANYBODY in the South until the mid-20th century because the region was still mired in poverty (much of it externally imposed) before then.

I also note that the flippin' CENTENNIAL of the war occurred 100 years after the war (amazing, huh) and that likely accounts for some naming streets, schools, parks, even private businesses, after Confederate heroes.

He can provide endless quotes? Somehow, I doubt that. And I don't care what HE doubts. I am convinced, though, that Confederate soldiers would know who loves and reveres their memory and honors their sacrifices, and who hates their memory and slanders them as traitors, backward hicks, barbaric racists and slavers.... Moreover, I think if they knew what was going on in our culture and nation today, they'd not only agree with our side of the bantering, bickering and fussing, they'd join in (and they might even take up arms again to defend what's left of the republic).

Jacobson, my appeals to the dictionary for objective word meanings is to showcase the leftists' deliberate, muddle-headed crusade -- aka, political correctness -- to make words subjective (at best) or meaningless (the extreme) to weaken our communication and thus our cultural cohesiveness and, on a personal level, so they won't have to be held accountable for things they say.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Pullin' Simpson's Strings....

So, Simpson is posting what he thinks (I guess) is really bad stuff about me and flagging in West Florida. He made a big deal out of my protecting the identity of a guest flagger in my last WFF report.

Sez he, "Of course, this is because the 'Flagger' in question at best does not want to reveal his identity..."

Not true. A lot of people know his identity. This is Simpson's oft-displayed three-year-old mentality ... if he doesn't know about it, nobody does. LOL!!!

He notes, "However, he is wearing a jacket with the logo of 'The North Face.' Oops."

Well, boy, that really narrows it down, don't it?

So then he sez, "... come to think of it, there are no pictures of the Pensacola Flagger actually flagging, either … just pictures of her walker..."

Here's a pic. No, I didn't get the name of the hunk who helped old folks down the sidewalk. Yes, if he's there next time, you BET I'll remember to ask!

Do you suppose Simpson and the navel-gazing academic "civil war blogging" circle will ever catch on that we don't care what they think of us?

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Found Online

Why does Nathan Phillips' story about the Covington MAGA teens change from outlet to outlet? ~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a Hollywood producer who thinks that these boys need to be put head first into a wood chipper.
~~~~~~~~~~~
“Sandmann in the letter wrote that he was 'singled out' and approached by the Native American man, who has been identified as Nathan Phillips, an Omaha elder.” (An Omaha elder, AKA “Dances with Soros”) ~~~~~~~~~~~
Native American leftist activist making money off slandering good kids. He's claimed "harassment" before.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Name a successful corpor- ation that has 800,000 non-essential employees on the payroll.
~~~~~~~~~~~
If masculinity was toxic, as we are told by feminists and leftists, nobody would be safe. Ever. Because men are everywhere.

Brooks Simpson's Fraudulent "Reviews" of My Novels at Amazon

Update Oct 2016 -- Apparently Simpson is quietly removing Amazon evidence that ties him to these fraudulent reviews. He's even taken down two of the reviews themselves.

~Southern Man
~Sweet Southern Boys
~Storm Surge

Fake Simpson profiles that have appeared at Amazon:
~None of your business
~One Skeptical Observer
~True Confederate Patriot
~Not Connie's Sister

~Amazon's evidence that
these fake profiles are
Brooks Simpson

Simpson has even manage to review a novel I haven't written yet, on his blog. His comments tell us a lot more about him than they do about me and my book ... for example, he fantasizes about a slave-owner raping slaves.... He fantasizes that the slave Dorsey doesn't have a wife and children because he was "hired out for breeding purposes." Then he mentions someone getting lynched.

Now we see why he has such and interest in slavery and the civil war. To him, they are just sex and violence.

*********************

Notices, Updates & Quickies

More MAGA hat drama...Guy at the Other Forum sez, "The "nasty white boys" have already lawyered up. They'll soon be rich." Another guy sez, "Really? Whom will they sue? And on what grounds? Their school and the local diocese has already said they'll be investigated and disciplined." Various organs of the leftist media, Sherlock, that's who. The people who tried to damage them. The ones who lied about them to the whole flippin' country, who ran with stories that weren't true. I don't care whether they get rich, but it would please me to no end if the settlement involved making the lying media admit their lies, admit their motives, identify both clearly, and apologize to everyone they targeted.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lunatic Leftists Doxed a Random Kid Thinking He Was in the Covington Video — Family Now Receiving Violent Threats This is why leftists are dangerous. I suspect the doxxers don't care whether this was the kid in the video or not. They just want to hurt the "right" people.
~~~~~~~~~~
The leftist mainstream media will not tell the truth about the MAGA hat boys. Just wait and see. They will persecute these boys mercilessly, and a professional Indian activist will make lotsa money from it.
~~~~~~~~~~
David G. at the Other Forum sez, "Again I wonder at the Catholic school 'adults'. Whose idea was it to turn the kids loose in a mob, at a location where the passionate/vocal/angry go to give voice to their issues? And wearing potentially inflammatory MAGA gear?" David, they weren't "turned loose in a mob. They went where they were told to wait for buses. Follow the link below to Nick Sandmann's statement, if you've got the guts for truth
~~~~~~~~~~
WILL THE HATERS AT THE OTHER FORUM ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG? What a stupid question. Of course not.
Statement by Nick Sandmann, the young man in what the the tolerant leftists at the Other Forum called the "nasty little white boys" video. He's an evil kid -- he's white, he's a Christian, he's a Catholic, he's male, and he wore a MAGA hat.
Actually, he sounds much smarter, more mature and tolerant than numerous people who post in that forum, particularly the guy who posted a photo of a kid holding an anti-integration sign from d-e-c-a-d-e-s ago, and conflated him with Nick.
Why do leftists hate so much? Some of them are not going to be happy until white Christian conserv- atives are concentration camped or mowed down with bullets and tanks.
~~~~~~~~~
Somebody at the Other Forum posted, "They were there in the first place to demand male control over a women's body, that a pretty low rung to start with." This was in reference to the slander aimed at some white boys for "harassing" a Native American (which they didn't do). They were students from a Catholic school there to participate in the March for Life. Only in what passes for the mind of a committed leftist is an appeal for the sanctity of life transmuted into "male control over women's bodies." As if there were no women participating in the March for Life.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another look at how the leftist mind deliberately skews and misconstrues:
Me: Yes, the destruction of my country, which I love, and have loved since I was old enough to concept- ualize nations, bothers me greatly.
Leftist Male: It sounds like you live in a constant state of worry and agitation. What a shame.
See how "bothers me greatly" becomes "constant state of worry and agitation"? I can't believe a reasonably intelligent and educated person could make such a mistake. I can only conclude it is intentional.