Friday, October 14, 2016

Fact-Checking Simpson's Hysterical Attack Post -- Part 3

Taking up where we left off last time....

Simpson writes: Of course, one remembers that Chastain was also a big fan of claiming that women often made false claims about being raped...

LIE. He can't post about me without lying. I haven't claimed that women often make false claims about being raped -- only that it happens more than our culture, and feminism, will admit.

... (unless the person being accused was Bill Clinton, I guess).

Well, Hillary's attacks on her husband's accusers tend to confirm that SOMEthing really bad happened. I mean, if they were false accusations, why not file a lawsuit for defamation of character or something? Obviously, the Clintons did NOT want those women, and this issue, to see the inside of a courtroom.

This was a theme of two of her underwhelmingly successful novels. **

It's a unique subject, since leftist control of the popular culture discourages it as a theme in books, novels, film, etc. When I decided to write about it, I wondered if anyone else had done so. The first draft was completed when I found the late Michael Crichton's Disclosure, which was published in 1993. Obviously, this novel did not generate the reception of The Terminal Man, The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, etc. Global warming enviroweenies loathed his book, State of Fear, and femnists loathed Disclosure -- a marvelous illustration of how the ideological left hates the free expression of anything they disagree with, even in fiction, and will try to suppress it if they can.

Endorsing sexual assault as a way to approach women is okay in Chastain’s mind...

LIE.  I've never said anything remotely like this. Sexual assault is a crime and a sin, regardless of who -- male or female -- is doing it.

... because we can set it aside as “locker room talk”;

Well if it IS just locker room talk, then you can set it side as such.

...that such talk, if put into action, results in rape seems irrelevant (will it elicit more squawking  from her about false rape accusations?).

Did it? Did Trump's locker room talk get put into action and resulted in rape? The conversation reportedly occurred ten years ago, and the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years in most cases. So if he raped anybody as a result of his raunchy conversation with Billy Bush, there may be barely enough time to swear out a warrant and have him arrested. Hop to it, ladies...the clock is ticking.

It’s a small step from here to the reasoning of sexual predators that women “really want it” and that “no” means “try harder.” After all, just saying one’s sorry is good enough.

My gosh, what a chilling glimpse into his mind Simpson is giving us

After all, Chastain wants Trump to whack people, including Clinton: Funny that she chose that means of expression.

It was in response to O'Malley, Kaine, Clinton and others whacking Trump, primarily at the Democrat convention. It was inspired by Melania Trump saying last spring that when her husband is attacked, he will punch back ten times harder.

And once again, Simpson putting HIS interpretation on the expression whack and attributing it to someone else gives us a stark and chilling look into his mentality, not only his implication that a verbal whacking means something more, but his long-standing habit of attributing HIS mental gymnastics to other people so he can condemn THEM for what HE said.

Mind you, Chastain thinks something’s wrong with women (“cackling hens”?) who protest such treatment:

LIE. Or maybe Simpson is just incapable of thinking the meme through, though everything necessary to understand it is there. They (the hens guesting on Fox)  are all up in arms because Trump (they perceive) is insulting women. Apparently, insults to men are okay, though, because they express no dismay whatever over insults to men. What this says is that these women think insults to women should not be allowed. Presumably, this either means women are above criticism and insults and they never do anything deserving of them, or else they think women are delicate, easily hurt widdle snowflakes who must be protected from criticism and insults.

My point remains. men have been politically insulting each other since, well, probably before Sargon's reign... and in the ancient Roman republic, political opponents were fair game. Remember this was almost exclusively a man's game:
From: ROMAN POLITICAL INVECTIVE -- by Richard Armstrong  
Favorite accusations concerned insatiable greed; drunkenness and gluttony, even public vomiting. Also, ignoble birth, connections to a dishonorable trade or consorting with low-life rabble, especially pimps, thugs, and actors. They alleged impiety and sacrilege; effeminacy; sexual deviance, including incest; murder, even accusations of killing wives or family members. Making fun of a physical defect was also considered fair play. There were devastating broadsides, like calling someone “a measureless abyss or whirlpool of all vices and indecencies.”
I will remind the guest hens cackling on Fox News, women, especially feminists, were the ones who wanted to enter this world. This is how it has been for thousands of years. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Stop citing your loftiness or delicateness and take the verbal punches like a man.

** For the record, my novels have been underwhelmingly promoted. I don't have the funds to buy promotion, and I've been less than interested in finding out how to do it myself on a shoestring.
Recently, I've discovered that methods for self-promoting one's books have been developed since I first published that don't seem like such a chore, and I've conceded the necessity of learning to use them.

As P.T. Barnum said, "Without promotion, something terrible happens. Nothing." One estimate says that there are 1.8 million printed books for sale on, which is where I make my books available for purchase. Potential readers simply aren't going to find particular titles unless they are promoted.

Of course, it does something for Simpson to belittle my writing ... I have no idea what or why, but he's done it many, many times on his blog, and in comments elsewhere.

And then there's the matter of his leaving fraudulent reviews of my titles at Apparently, he's been tiptoeing around at Amazon, erasing evidence that he posted those reviews. The wish-list page for Brooks Simpson that connected him to the fraudulent reviews has been removed. He even took down the review for Sweet Southern Boys, which wasn't actually a book review, really, but a personal attack on me. I guess he got tired of my reminding him and anyone who read my blog, and my comments in other places, that he posted reviews at Amazon for books he said he had not read, which made the reviews fraudulent. And that indicated his motive was solely to hurt me and my books.

What's interesting is that my "underwhelmingly successful" novels and stories have overwhelmingly positive reviews. In addition to Simpson's, the handful of negative reviews were left by people antagonistic toward me  (I know who they are) because of my religion, conservatism and/or Confederate heritage.

Stay tuned for the next installment of Fact-Checking Simpson's Hysterical Attack Post


Update 10-22-16 -- The "Not Connie's Sister" reviews for Sweet Southern Boys and Storm Surge are back up at  Hmmmmm.....

No comments:

Post a Comment