Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Fact-Checking Simpson's Hysterical Attack Post -- Part 4
We finish fact-checking Simpson's attack post with this installment, beginning where we left off. You will remember he falsely claimed that I thought there was something wrong with someon who protested sexual assault, when in fact, I was talking about women who demanded entry into the man's world of politics and then complained because they weren't treated like delicate snowflakes (i.e., complained about being "insulted).
He doubles down on his false claim with this: "That’s right … this controversy about advocating sexual assault is simply “nothing,” and the best proof comes from the sales of a book that is not Chastain’s (jealous, Chastain?). Let’s mock the outrage over such behavior as nothing more than make-pretend about “women’s delicate widdle feelings.”
One wonders how long he can keep up the pretense that I wasn't talking about something else, particularly since one would have to work (or lie) to misunderstand what I actually said in my graphic memes.
What else could you expect from someone who seems obsessed about false rape accusations? So … anger over language advocating sexual assault is nothing more than an act to placate “women’s delicate widdle feelings”? Really?
Actually, HE seems more obsessed with that than I do. I simply acknowledge that false rape accusations do happen. He apparently doesn't agree, meaning he doesn't care of a man's life is ruined, if he is wrongly arrested, jailed, tried, imprisoned... (see the Duke LaCross incident). And, unlike myself, he seems unwilling to put forth the truly minor effort required to distinguish between being raped and not being raped.
(Yes … Chastain’s gone the fake-name route in crafting an alternative identity of “Polly Graff,” although it did not take her long to drop the pretense that it was her.)
There was no pretense involved. I acknowledged from the beginning that the new blog handle was me. What I find most interesting about this is Simpson's dirty double standard in complaining about anonymous internet handles of people he dislikes, but his not uttering a syllable of complaint over the fake names of people on his side.
We await Chastain’s efforts to identify which men engage in such talk. As her previous interaction has been with Republican politicians, Confederate heritage apologists, and false rape accusation protesters, we can’t wait to hear about her experiences about what is said in these locker rooms.
Actually, MY subject was political insults, as I made clear who uses them.
But don’t mistake Chastain for a feminist …
Note the wording: it’s not “pseudo-feministic women,” but “feministic pseudo-women.” Real women aren’t feminists: feminists are “pseudo-women.” And no, folks, that’s not a mistake … she says “pseudo-women” twice.
Yes, do not mistake me for a man-hater. Besides, feminists themselves are the ones who do not like to be identified as women, but prefer "feminist" and even go so far as to childishly change the spelling of "women" to "womym."
We await the usual retort from Virginia Whine Country that protesting lewd talk and endorsements of sexual assault are nothing more than exercises in political correctness from a leftist academic who’s attacking a political candidate … because, apparently, these things should not be attacked. They are nothing more than locker room talk, as if that’s an acceptable excuse.
Usual retort? To my knowledge, this is the first time this subject has come up for discussion among heritage folks. And, once again, there are two subjects (Trump's locker room banter, and public political insults), and the Simpson's purposeful ignoring of that tells us about his alleged respect for the truth.
Finally, note who likes (and retweets) Chastain’s Twitter activity on behalf of sexual predators … Susan Hathaway. The fact is that Hathaway and her followers have politicized their movement in explicit ways by endoring Trump, not just as individuals, but as an organization:
Sorry, no, I didn't tweet on behalf of sexual predator Bill Clinton. Trump said he did not do any of the things he talked to Billy Bush about, and since then, a number of women have come forward to confirm that; while we've known for years that Bill Clinton is a rapist, but you won't hear Simpson acknowledging that; you can't smear heritage folks with it, so what use is it to him?
The heritage of hate continues. If anything, it’s grown, because it now includes people who protest sexual assault and the victimization of women not named Susan Hathaway.
No, what's continuing is the hatred for heritage and its supporters, which permeates Simpson's blog and the blogs of his fellow haters. And note, the true heritage of hate is that which ignores Bill Clinton's sexual assaults and rapes AND his enabler and the victimizer of his victims, the Democratic candidate for President.
He doubles down on his false claim with this: "That’s right … this controversy about advocating sexual assault is simply “nothing,” and the best proof comes from the sales of a book that is not Chastain’s (jealous, Chastain?). Let’s mock the outrage over such behavior as nothing more than make-pretend about “women’s delicate widdle feelings.”
One wonders how long he can keep up the pretense that I wasn't talking about something else, particularly since one would have to work (or lie) to misunderstand what I actually said in my graphic memes.
What else could you expect from someone who seems obsessed about false rape accusations? So … anger over language advocating sexual assault is nothing more than an act to placate “women’s delicate widdle feelings”? Really?
Actually, HE seems more obsessed with that than I do. I simply acknowledge that false rape accusations do happen. He apparently doesn't agree, meaning he doesn't care of a man's life is ruined, if he is wrongly arrested, jailed, tried, imprisoned... (see the Duke LaCross incident). And, unlike myself, he seems unwilling to put forth the truly minor effort required to distinguish between being raped and not being raped.
(Yes … Chastain’s gone the fake-name route in crafting an alternative identity of “Polly Graff,” although it did not take her long to drop the pretense that it was her.)
There was no pretense involved. I acknowledged from the beginning that the new blog handle was me. What I find most interesting about this is Simpson's dirty double standard in complaining about anonymous internet handles of people he dislikes, but his not uttering a syllable of complaint over the fake names of people on his side.
We await Chastain’s efforts to identify which men engage in such talk. As her previous interaction has been with Republican politicians, Confederate heritage apologists, and false rape accusation protesters, we can’t wait to hear about her experiences about what is said in these locker rooms.
Actually, MY subject was political insults, as I made clear who uses them.
But don’t mistake Chastain for a feminist …
Note the wording: it’s not “pseudo-feministic women,” but “feministic pseudo-women.” Real women aren’t feminists: feminists are “pseudo-women.” And no, folks, that’s not a mistake … she says “pseudo-women” twice.
Yes, do not mistake me for a man-hater. Besides, feminists themselves are the ones who do not like to be identified as women, but prefer "feminist" and even go so far as to childishly change the spelling of "women" to "womym."
We await the usual retort from Virginia Whine Country that protesting lewd talk and endorsements of sexual assault are nothing more than exercises in political correctness from a leftist academic who’s attacking a political candidate … because, apparently, these things should not be attacked. They are nothing more than locker room talk, as if that’s an acceptable excuse.
Usual retort? To my knowledge, this is the first time this subject has come up for discussion among heritage folks. And, once again, there are two subjects (Trump's locker room banter, and public political insults), and the Simpson's purposeful ignoring of that tells us about his alleged respect for the truth.
Finally, note who likes (and retweets) Chastain’s Twitter activity on behalf of sexual predators … Susan Hathaway. The fact is that Hathaway and her followers have politicized their movement in explicit ways by endoring Trump, not just as individuals, but as an organization:
Sorry, no, I didn't tweet on behalf of sexual predator Bill Clinton. Trump said he did not do any of the things he talked to Billy Bush about, and since then, a number of women have come forward to confirm that; while we've known for years that Bill Clinton is a rapist, but you won't hear Simpson acknowledging that; you can't smear heritage folks with it, so what use is it to him?
The heritage of hate continues. If anything, it’s grown, because it now includes people who protest sexual assault and the victimization of women not named Susan Hathaway.
No, what's continuing is the hatred for heritage and its supporters, which permeates Simpson's blog and the blogs of his fellow haters. And note, the true heritage of hate is that which ignores Bill Clinton's sexual assaults and rapes AND his enabler and the victimizer of his victims, the Democratic candidate for President.
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:
_____________________
** 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 Amazon.com, 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 Amazon.com. 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 Amazon.com. Hmmmmm.....
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.” http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2408.htmI 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 Amazon.com, 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 Amazon.com. 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 Amazon.com. Hmmmmm.....
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Fact-Checking Simpson's Hysterical Attack Post -- Part 2
Simpson starts: It’s not been a good week for Confederate heritage advocates. They are unhappy about what’s happened at the University of Mississippi where it appears that advocates of flying a Confederate flag have had a rough time telling the truth ....
Since Simpson doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes there, he can't know that what he's accusing is accurate (as if he cares about that). Sometimes the truth doesn't come out right away, which is why it's usually a good idea to wait for more information and developments before condemning anybody. But with Simpson and his ilk, reverence for the truth isn't much of motivator, and they'll gladly sacrifice it to indulge their excessive need to wield the putdown.
...as they suffer setback after setback.
LOL... The story ain't over yet, so this week is hardly the be-all and end-all he'd love for it to be. It's going to be very interesting, possibly gratifying and a lot of fun, to see how things unfold in the future.
Now comes news that the favorite candidate of most Confederate heritage advocates, Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, is in serious trouble because of his crass and lewd remarks (and that’s kind) anout (sic) women, which most observers believe includes an endorsement of sexual assault.
This one of those times/instances it might be wiser to reserve judgment as the situation continues to unfold.
No word yet from Virginia Whine Country, which has been very protective of candidate Trump, about whether protests against sexual assault are simply new examples of political correctness, the target of many a mindless post that are little more than a clipping service of the alt-right.
Of course, Simpson looks and then sees only what he wants to see. I'm not sure how he defines being "protective" of Trump. I saw no approval of sexual assault made in an attempt to cover for Trump, only calling attention to the media's double standard in attempting to make Trump's words more than shameful than Hillary Clinton's history of attacks on the victims of her husband's sexual predation.
Without a doubt, however, one need only look at what Virginia Flaggers spokesperson and webmaster Connie Chastain says about Trump to understand that some corners of Confederate heritage advocacy are also busily engaged in conducting a war on women. Like Trump, Chastain favors criminalizing the decision of women to have abortions:
And why not? Abortion is the taking of a human life. To say that protecting the lives of the unborn is a war on women is to devalue life itself. And as I noted in the previous blog entry, Simpson didn't even attempt to refute the points in my meme.
Even Trump has thought better of this, but Chastain has not.
Nope, I have not. I hold the same position on abortion that I have always held, and no presidential candidate can change it, because it is based on, and deeply rooted in, my Biblical religious beliefs, and is charged with eternal consequences.
And, just like our friend at Virginia Whine Country, Chastain decides it’s all the fault of the left and the media:
How did this man get to be a professor? Don't you have to be reasonably smart to do that? Notice that it was not the left and the media. As an aside, abortion as it exists in the United States today IS the fault of the left; they are the ones who pushed for the legalized murder of the unborn. But that's only indirectly connected to the second graphic meme.
The salutation simply establishes that the message of the meme is for the leftist news media, because they were huffing and puffing about how the tape was a killing blow to Trump's campaign, blah blah blah. No, it wasn't and the reason why is the message of the meme....
We'll conclude this entry with this bit of Simpson idiocy:
Note also that I guess that one can conclude that Trump’s past is irrelevant, but not so Clinton’s past … or that non-leftists don’t care about treating women with respect.
No, Trump's past is not irrelevant, but Simpson can, and probably will, conclude whatever he wants, even if it's wrong. My point, which he is certain to overlook, dismiss or lie about, is that what's in both Trump's past and Clinton's tells the tale about treating women with respect. Granted, his locker-room banter was petty disgusting but presumably there were no women around to hear it. Clinton's past, however, includes enabling her husband's sexual predation by attacking and intimidating his victims -- who are women, btw.
Of the two, Bill and Hillary's treatment of women far more resembles a war than anything Trump said (and he said at the debate that he didn't do any of the things he talked about on the tape). Moreover, he apologized three times by different methods. As far as I know the Clintons haven't even acknowledged Bill's criminal and horrific treatment of women, and Hillary's "bimbo-eruption" attacks on those same women -- let alone issued an apology.
Leave it to Simpson to ignore the Clintons' past and present war on women... He shares their ideology, so he's happy to let them off the hook for things far worse than Trump has done.
Since Simpson doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes there, he can't know that what he's accusing is accurate (as if he cares about that). Sometimes the truth doesn't come out right away, which is why it's usually a good idea to wait for more information and developments before condemning anybody. But with Simpson and his ilk, reverence for the truth isn't much of motivator, and they'll gladly sacrifice it to indulge their excessive need to wield the putdown.
...as they suffer setback after setback.
LOL... The story ain't over yet, so this week is hardly the be-all and end-all he'd love for it to be. It's going to be very interesting, possibly gratifying and a lot of fun, to see how things unfold in the future.
Now comes news that the favorite candidate of most Confederate heritage advocates, Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, is in serious trouble because of his crass and lewd remarks (and that’s kind) anout (sic) women, which most observers believe includes an endorsement of sexual assault.
This one of those times/instances it might be wiser to reserve judgment as the situation continues to unfold.
No word yet from Virginia Whine Country, which has been very protective of candidate Trump, about whether protests against sexual assault are simply new examples of political correctness, the target of many a mindless post that are little more than a clipping service of the alt-right.
Of course, Simpson looks and then sees only what he wants to see. I'm not sure how he defines being "protective" of Trump. I saw no approval of sexual assault made in an attempt to cover for Trump, only calling attention to the media's double standard in attempting to make Trump's words more than shameful than Hillary Clinton's history of attacks on the victims of her husband's sexual predation.
Without a doubt, however, one need only look at what Virginia Flaggers spokesperson and webmaster Connie Chastain says about Trump to understand that some corners of Confederate heritage advocacy are also busily engaged in conducting a war on women. Like Trump, Chastain favors criminalizing the decision of women to have abortions:
And why not? Abortion is the taking of a human life. To say that protecting the lives of the unborn is a war on women is to devalue life itself. And as I noted in the previous blog entry, Simpson didn't even attempt to refute the points in my meme.
Even Trump has thought better of this, but Chastain has not.
Nope, I have not. I hold the same position on abortion that I have always held, and no presidential candidate can change it, because it is based on, and deeply rooted in, my Biblical religious beliefs, and is charged with eternal consequences.
And, just like our friend at Virginia Whine Country, Chastain decides it’s all the fault of the left and the media:
How did this man get to be a professor? Don't you have to be reasonably smart to do that? Notice that it was not the left and the media. As an aside, abortion as it exists in the United States today IS the fault of the left; they are the ones who pushed for the legalized murder of the unborn. But that's only indirectly connected to the second graphic meme.
The salutation simply establishes that the message of the meme is for the leftist news media, because they were huffing and puffing about how the tape was a killing blow to Trump's campaign, blah blah blah. No, it wasn't and the reason why is the message of the meme....
We'll conclude this entry with this bit of Simpson idiocy:
Note also that I guess that one can conclude that Trump’s past is irrelevant, but not so Clinton’s past … or that non-leftists don’t care about treating women with respect.
No, Trump's past is not irrelevant, but Simpson can, and probably will, conclude whatever he wants, even if it's wrong. My point, which he is certain to overlook, dismiss or lie about, is that what's in both Trump's past and Clinton's tells the tale about treating women with respect. Granted, his locker-room banter was petty disgusting but presumably there were no women around to hear it. Clinton's past, however, includes enabling her husband's sexual predation by attacking and intimidating his victims -- who are women, btw.
Of the two, Bill and Hillary's treatment of women far more resembles a war than anything Trump said (and he said at the debate that he didn't do any of the things he talked about on the tape). Moreover, he apologized three times by different methods. As far as I know the Clintons haven't even acknowledged Bill's criminal and horrific treatment of women, and Hillary's "bimbo-eruption" attacks on those same women -- let alone issued an apology.
Leave it to Simpson to ignore the Clintons' past and present war on women... He shares their ideology, so he's happy to let them off the hook for things far worse than Trump has done.
Monday, October 10, 2016
Fact-Checking Simpson's Hysterical Attack Post
So Simpson has gone off the deep end with an extraordinarily hysterical rant. It's a bunch of hooey, but it sure is fun. Still, it's chock full of lies, and refuting lies, even the fun ones and the dumb ones, is the purpose of this blog, so here we go... (Incidentally, this is gonna take several posts to cover -- there's lotsa lies -- so try not to get impatient.)
The falsehoods start right off -- with the subject:
Connie Chastain’s War on Women … And Guess Who Supports Her?
First, there is no war on women -- mine or anybody else's -- in the United States. Women here are some of the richest, most coddled women on the planet. Do bad things happen to some women? Yes, and it's lamentable, but these are individual incidents; they are not some organized rightwing Republican aggression. No, there is no war on women here. That is a deceitful term for the leftwing crusade to justify the grisly war on unborn children.
When women in this country experience what women in, say, many Islamic countries must live with (and that may, indeed, happen here at some point) then they can claim there's a war on women in the USA. When they are stoned to death as punishment for being raped... when they have acid thrown in their face because their husband is displeased... when they are genitally mutilated as young girls ... when they are basically imprisoned in their families, their homes, their very clothes... then American women can say they are being warred upon.
But the struggle to save babies in the womb from being murdered is not a war on women, particularly when it is so simple, easy, quick and cheap to not get pregnant in the first place. So why don't more women do that? Because expecting them to not get pregnant in the first place is warring on women....
Whatever happened to I am woman, I am strong, hear me roar? Well, it morphed into I am woman, I am mollycoddled, hear me whinge. At least, that's what you'd conclude listening to the progressive left. In fact, women are strong and always have been.* And if there were a war on women, it is the strong, traditional women who would form an army to fight back; the delicate snowflakes feminism hath wrought are the ones who need government and the bureaucracy to protect and pamper them....
Lots more coming, folks. Next: a 153-word paragraph that contains five, maybe six fudges, half-truths and outright lies. Stay tuned
_______________
* Examples of strong women from my own family... One of my grandmothers went to work in a cotton mill when she was thirteen years old, and worked there until she retired. Along with that, she married, raised five daughters and buried one baby son when he was a few days old. My other grandmother was in labor at my grandfather's funeral; he and two couples and a young boy had been killed in a horrific car-train collision. She never remarried, but raised her five sons, including the posthumous baby, my father, alone; and lost her oldest in WWII. For almost sixty years, the family believed his plane had gone down in the Pacific, but in 2003, the plane with the remains of the crew was found in New Guinea, and he finally came home in 2011, thirty-nine years after his mother died... Women of that generation, and to an extent, the one following, shed tears of sorrow ... but they did not whine...
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2015/10/remembering-another-october.html
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/news/story/2011/jan/30/home-at-last/40846/
(Let's see how long it takes this to "inspire" Simpson to tear up the Internet doing my "genealogy," looking for some way to embarrass me. He has a track record of trying, though it didn't work)
The falsehoods start right off -- with the subject:
Connie Chastain’s War on Women … And Guess Who Supports Her?
First, there is no war on women -- mine or anybody else's -- in the United States. Women here are some of the richest, most coddled women on the planet. Do bad things happen to some women? Yes, and it's lamentable, but these are individual incidents; they are not some organized rightwing Republican aggression. No, there is no war on women here. That is a deceitful term for the leftwing crusade to justify the grisly war on unborn children.
_______________________________________________________
 |
| A meme I made seems to have had a powerful trigger effect on Simpson, although he doesn't even attempt to refute it |
_______________________________________________________
When women in this country experience what women in, say, many Islamic countries must live with (and that may, indeed, happen here at some point) then they can claim there's a war on women in the USA. When they are stoned to death as punishment for being raped... when they have acid thrown in their face because their husband is displeased... when they are genitally mutilated as young girls ... when they are basically imprisoned in their families, their homes, their very clothes... then American women can say they are being warred upon.
But the struggle to save babies in the womb from being murdered is not a war on women, particularly when it is so simple, easy, quick and cheap to not get pregnant in the first place. So why don't more women do that? Because expecting them to not get pregnant in the first place is warring on women....
Whatever happened to I am woman, I am strong, hear me roar? Well, it morphed into I am woman, I am mollycoddled, hear me whinge. At least, that's what you'd conclude listening to the progressive left. In fact, women are strong and always have been.* And if there were a war on women, it is the strong, traditional women who would form an army to fight back; the delicate snowflakes feminism hath wrought are the ones who need government and the bureaucracy to protect and pamper them....
Lots more coming, folks. Next: a 153-word paragraph that contains five, maybe six fudges, half-truths and outright lies. Stay tuned
_______________
* Examples of strong women from my own family... One of my grandmothers went to work in a cotton mill when she was thirteen years old, and worked there until she retired. Along with that, she married, raised five daughters and buried one baby son when he was a few days old. My other grandmother was in labor at my grandfather's funeral; he and two couples and a young boy had been killed in a horrific car-train collision. She never remarried, but raised her five sons, including the posthumous baby, my father, alone; and lost her oldest in WWII. For almost sixty years, the family believed his plane had gone down in the Pacific, but in 2003, the plane with the remains of the crew was found in New Guinea, and he finally came home in 2011, thirty-nine years after his mother died... Women of that generation, and to an extent, the one following, shed tears of sorrow ... but they did not whine...
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2015/10/remembering-another-october.html
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/news/story/2011/jan/30/home-at-last/40846/
(Let's see how long it takes this to "inspire" Simpson to tear up the Internet doing my "genealogy," looking for some way to embarrass me. He has a track record of trying, though it didn't work)
Saturday, October 1, 2016
For Kevin Levin, Whiteness Isn't REALLY a Problem...
...unless it's Southern and connected to the battle flag in some way.
Discussing a new book about the history of Forsyth County, Georgia, he posts a picture from 1987 of maybe 100 people marching with a half-dozen or so battle flags and a sign that says, "Forsyth Stays White."
Sez Levin, the photo "...connects the battle flag’s history as a potent symbol of 'massive resistance' during the civil rights era with its increasing visibility in recent years, including its presence at Donald Trump rallies.
He sums up, "...it is no accident that this group embraced the battle flag as its symbol of resistance in the 1980s. They embraced a symbol whose connection to the preservation of white supremacy extended back to 1861."
And he concludes with this melodramatic finale: "No other symbol can convey such a powerful and unmistakable message."
One has to wonder how powerful it can be when a Pew Research poll found that the majority polled (58%) say they have no reaction at all to seeing the flag.
What Levin repeatedly shows us is that vast swaths of white America do not bother him, because 1. they're not in the South, which he holds in deep and abiding contempt, and 2. they're not connected to the battle flag.
Today, Forsythe County is 75% white, which is also the national average. Let's see how that stacks up to a couple of other places:
Eureka, Illinois, 95.7 white
Edina, Missouri, 98.64 white
Regardless of flags, marches, signs, etc., if you live in a community that's 95%+ white your community is de facto white supremacist -- whites own the place, and they run it. These two small towns should have significance for Levin, because two of his fans, commenters and fellow anti-racist jackasses live there -- Corey Meyer in Eureka, Jimmy Dick in Edina.
How did these two places get to be so white? In fact, how did the whole midwest get so white? Well, read the debates about keeping slavery out of the "western territories." The real motive was to keep blacks out. It worked then and it's still working 170 years later.
But how have they stayed so white since the middle of the 20th century, when political correctness, diversity and multiculturalism swooped down on the United States, determined to change the demographics, dismember Christianity, re-define the family, etc.? Well, they've stayed white because culture and politics in this country have kept minorities in the midwest trapped in major cities and their suburbs.
Does this bother "anti-racists" in Eureka and Edina? Apparently not. It doesn't bother Kevin Levin, either, because it doesn't matter to him that fellow heritage haters live lily white lives that white supes elsewhere can only dream of.... Because, you see, they talk the talk. Like Levin, they screech about the battle flag and heritage folks, call them racists, etc... and that's all it takes to get you off the hook for walking the walk.
Why isn't Levin screeching about this disparity? Why isn't he demanding that they become more "diverse" and "multicultural"? Because he doesn't CARE about that. He cares about his contempt for white Southerners, past and present; he cares about his animosity for the heritage community; and he cares about his unreasoning hatred of the battle flag....
Discussing a new book about the history of Forsyth County, Georgia, he posts a picture from 1987 of maybe 100 people marching with a half-dozen or so battle flags and a sign that says, "Forsyth Stays White."
Sez Levin, the photo "...connects the battle flag’s history as a potent symbol of 'massive resistance' during the civil rights era with its increasing visibility in recent years, including its presence at Donald Trump rallies.
He sums up, "...it is no accident that this group embraced the battle flag as its symbol of resistance in the 1980s. They embraced a symbol whose connection to the preservation of white supremacy extended back to 1861."
And he concludes with this melodramatic finale: "No other symbol can convey such a powerful and unmistakable message."
One has to wonder how powerful it can be when a Pew Research poll found that the majority polled (58%) say they have no reaction at all to seeing the flag.
What Levin repeatedly shows us is that vast swaths of white America do not bother him, because 1. they're not in the South, which he holds in deep and abiding contempt, and 2. they're not connected to the battle flag.
Today, Forsythe County is 75% white, which is also the national average. Let's see how that stacks up to a couple of other places:
Eureka, Illinois, 95.7 white
Edina, Missouri, 98.64 white
Regardless of flags, marches, signs, etc., if you live in a community that's 95%+ white your community is de facto white supremacist -- whites own the place, and they run it. These two small towns should have significance for Levin, because two of his fans, commenters and fellow anti-racist jackasses live there -- Corey Meyer in Eureka, Jimmy Dick in Edina.
How did these two places get to be so white? In fact, how did the whole midwest get so white? Well, read the debates about keeping slavery out of the "western territories." The real motive was to keep blacks out. It worked then and it's still working 170 years later.
But how have they stayed so white since the middle of the 20th century, when political correctness, diversity and multiculturalism swooped down on the United States, determined to change the demographics, dismember Christianity, re-define the family, etc.? Well, they've stayed white because culture and politics in this country have kept minorities in the midwest trapped in major cities and their suburbs.
Does this bother "anti-racists" in Eureka and Edina? Apparently not. It doesn't bother Kevin Levin, either, because it doesn't matter to him that fellow heritage haters live lily white lives that white supes elsewhere can only dream of.... Because, you see, they talk the talk. Like Levin, they screech about the battle flag and heritage folks, call them racists, etc... and that's all it takes to get you off the hook for walking the walk.
Why isn't Levin screeching about this disparity? Why isn't he demanding that they become more "diverse" and "multicultural"? Because he doesn't CARE about that. He cares about his contempt for white Southerners, past and present; he cares about his animosity for the heritage community; and he cares about his unreasoning hatred of the battle flag....
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Odious Andy Shows His Crude, Foul-mouthed Side
At Civil War Memory, Kevin Levin does verbal cartwheels of delight over the show of disrespect for Confederate monuments by the gay community in Charlottesville. It leads into a discussion of how best to show contempt for these monuments and the history they honor, short of actual removal. The post gets interesting comments. Andy Hall's are particularly interesting....
Posted by Andy Hall at Kevin Levin's "Civil War Memory"
Andy, the people who placed the boa weren't embracing the Lee monument. Sheesh. The boa and the crepe paper decor aren't the same at all. The first was intended to show extreme disrespect to the subject of the statue, the latter is not.
Your boorish, foul-mouthed description of the heritage community's reaction to the wood plaques is faulty; it was mostly Facebook posters in groups like the Southern Heritage Preservation Group who were insulted by the homemade plaques. And, as I recall, it wasn't because they honored historical blacks, but because historical blacks were used as an attempted insult of Confederate heroes and those who honor them. Isn't that pathetic -- to consider blacks as a vehicle for showing disrespect?
"...so that they can touch themselves..." More crass mind-in-the-gutter imagery from a heritage hater. Aside from that, what Odious Andy says here is not even true. In fact, it's a flat-out lie. Heritage people just demand that Confederate monuments remain where they are and not be vandalized. We don't demand that you show them respect, Andy -- just that you don't vandalize them. It would also be nice if you wouldn't lie about them, but there isn't much we can do about keeping you honest.
Religiosity wielded against others like a cudgel. Ah, no. It's probably just that any show of respect for Christianity is automatically perceived by anti-Christian Andy to be a cudgel. He has already exhibited contempt of white Christians and implied they should not be protected from a larger, uncongenial environment.
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-has-andy-hall-got-against-white.html
More from Andy at Civil War Memory
Andy, duh ... you and your allies in the anti-racist jackass community are the AUTHORS of the "memo."
Posted by Andy Hall at Kevin Levin's "Civil War Memory"
There’s a strong argument to be made for keeping monuments, which is that they themselves become part of the community over time, entirely apart from the people or events they commemorate. So it’s better to proceed with caution in all the cases where there are demands for their removal.
But having the monument embedded in the community’s identity comes at a price, which is that members of the community embrace it in different ways, such as with the boa. At my kid’s school, there’s a bronze, equestrian statue near the center of campus that, by long tradition, is completely mummified, head to hoof, in crepe ribbon in school colors on football game days. Is that disrespectful to the subject of the statue? I certainly don’t think so, and it serves a great purpose for the students themselves as part of a ritual that binds them together as a community.
========
The Virginia Flaggers shit their drawers a few years ago when some clever and industrious person attached faux historical markers honoring Denmark Vesey, the Lovings, and other historical African American figures to the fence around one of the Confederate monuments in Richmond, an act that did no damage to the fence — let alone the monument itself — and required all of five minutes’ work with a crescent wrench to remove.
The heritage folks aren’t content that Confederate monuments remain where they are, so that they can touch themselves every time they drive by them; they insist everyone else view them with the same reverence that they do.
========
You’d think that people who make such a big deal of their own religiosity and wield it against others like a cudgel would have taken a lesson from the story of the Golden Calf, but apparently not.
Andy, the people who placed the boa weren't embracing the Lee monument. Sheesh. The boa and the crepe paper decor aren't the same at all. The first was intended to show extreme disrespect to the subject of the statue, the latter is not.
Your boorish, foul-mouthed description of the heritage community's reaction to the wood plaques is faulty; it was mostly Facebook posters in groups like the Southern Heritage Preservation Group who were insulted by the homemade plaques. And, as I recall, it wasn't because they honored historical blacks, but because historical blacks were used as an attempted insult of Confederate heroes and those who honor them. Isn't that pathetic -- to consider blacks as a vehicle for showing disrespect?
"...so that they can touch themselves..." More crass mind-in-the-gutter imagery from a heritage hater. Aside from that, what Odious Andy says here is not even true. In fact, it's a flat-out lie. Heritage people just demand that Confederate monuments remain where they are and not be vandalized. We don't demand that you show them respect, Andy -- just that you don't vandalize them. It would also be nice if you wouldn't lie about them, but there isn't much we can do about keeping you honest.
Religiosity wielded against others like a cudgel. Ah, no. It's probably just that any show of respect for Christianity is automatically perceived by anti-Christian Andy to be a cudgel. He has already exhibited contempt of white Christians and implied they should not be protected from a larger, uncongenial environment.
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-has-andy-hall-got-against-white.html
More from Andy at Civil War Memory
Note that two commenters on the original news story are asserting that this act is one of disrespect or hatred against white people. If there was a memo circulated that Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy are now synonymous with “white people” living in 2016, I must have missed it.
Andy, duh ... you and your allies in the anti-racist jackass community are the AUTHORS of the "memo."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Levin's post includes butt-covering phrases like, "I do not take a firm position on this..." and "Joe may have been punished for.." and "Evans may have owned ... additional slaves..." and "Perhaps he hoped to have this account shared with his other slaves..."
All this means that Levin doesn't know these things but he likely believes them, and he wants to put the seed of the idea into your brain where it will take root and you will believe them, too.
But the cake-topper is when he uses this one instance of one man's brutality to make the case (unsuccessfully) that most enlisted men in the Confederate Army had an interest in perpetuating or defending slavery. The purpose of this is to negate the claims of those who say most CSA soldiers did not own slaves and weren't fighting to perpetuate slavery. This one instance proves something about hundreds of thousands of soldiers who did not participate and presumably knew absolutely nothing about it. (Smearing the many with the few, or the one, is an extremely common, oft-used tactic of the left.)
He concludes, "The more you read about impressed slaves and camp slaves the more you begin to understand that the distinction between slaveowners and non-slaveowners makes little sense within the context of the army." (I.e., owning slaves wasn't necessary to make white Southerners evil. They were all evil, evil, evil.)
The best illustration of Levin's motives, however, occur in the comments. Someone asked how this treatment differed from the flogging of white sailors and soldiers for similar offenses, before flogging was banned. Another commenter replied that the short answer is there is no difference between flogging a white soldier or sailor and a black slave.
Levin fires back, "Of course there is a difference. One is subject to military law and the other the absolute power of the master."
What are we supposed to take from this? That military floggings HURT LESS than slave whippings? That white skin wasn't capable of feeling the depth of pain that black skin felt?
That is one of the principles that underlies Levin's entire concept of slavery and the white South, and underlies the writing on his blog and elsewhere -- slave misery exists in exact inverse proportion to white evil. Levin is really, really obsessed with slave misery -- the better to make the case of Southern white evil. And he brings that assumption of Southern white evil into the 21st Century, with his crusade against the Confederate heritage community.
Do you have a case against his obsession? Even an exception to it? Forget it. Don't expect him to consider it. He has an elaborate smokescreen, and a mountain of convoluted "reasoning" to maintain his concept and not recognize that another way of looking at it even exists.
His mind is made up.