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."
Levin's Commenters -- Liars or Ignoramuses?
Maybe all of them aren't lying. Maybe they honestly don't know. Maybe they are assuming... buying into what they've been taught by the education system and the popular culture.
I think Mr. James Harrigan doesn't know the truth -- but his attitude says he wouldn't care if he did know. Posted at Levin's blog:
==========
James Harrigan says:
September 16, 2016
I don’t think it is hard. Anyone flying the Confederate flag is engaging in an intentional act of racist provocation – for the simple reason that everyone knows that virtually all black people (and most whites) regard it as a racist symbol. Saying “that is not what it means to me” is incoherent and disingenuous – everyone knows how the CBF will be interpreted. To say “I don’t care how other people interpret it” is a racist statement. So, can someone engage in a conscious and deliberate act of racist provocation and somehow not be a racist? Of course not.
==========
Saying “that is not what it means to me” is incoherent and disingenuous – everyone knows how the CBF will be interpreted.
This is ludicrous. If someone says "that's not what it means to me" -- and it actually doesn't mean that to them, the statement is neither incoherent or disingenuous. It's simply a statement of fact. Moreover, the flag will be interpreted differently by different people. To imagine that everyone all thinks alike on this issue -- that they are all mental clones -- is risible.
We're not all mental clones. Even people who support the flag and its display can have different beliefs about it. If someone interprets differently than I do, that does not negate or override my view of it.
Claiming that To say “I don’t care how other people interpret it” is a racist statement, is equally ridiculous. It simply means they can interpret it however they wish, but that has no bearing -- and shouldn't have -- on my interpretation of it.
To claim that flying the flag is a "conscious and deliberate act of racist provocation" is one of the clearest examples of substituting one's perceptions for other people's intentions that I've seen in a while.
He claims it is an intentional act of racism, "...for the simple reason that everyone knows that virtually all black people (and most whites) regard it as a racist symbol..."
How does everyone know this? More to the point, how does HE know it? Does he gaze into a crystal ball? Call Miss Cleo? Throw chicken bones? Because customary, accepted, reliable methods of determining information do not find that virtually all blacks and most whites regard the flag as a racist symbol.
Less than a month after the Charleston shooting, a CNN poll found that 57% of Americans see the flag as a symbol of Southern pride, not racism. 75% of whites , and 28% of blacks do not see the flag as a symbol of racism. In other words, 25% of whites see it as a racist symbol, which cannot even begin to be "most" whites. And the 72% of blacks who see the flag as a racist symbol is a large portion, sure enough -- but it doesn't begin to be "vitually all" blacks.
In 2011 a poll by Pew Research measured the reaction people have to seeing the Confederate battle flag. The majority (58%) say they have no reaction at all. 41% of African Americans have a negative reaction to the flag, while 29% of whites do. Still, a larger number of blacks (45%) have no reaction rather than a negative reaction to the flag. How can "virtually all" blacks regard it as a racist symbol when 45% have no reaction to it at all?
In 2000, a Gallup poll found that only 28% of Americans say that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, while 59% of Americans say the flag is more a symbol of Southern pride. The slightly lower positive number in the CNN poll (57%) comes after a decade of a vitriolic anti-flag campaign by the NAACP and fellow travelers.
I once had an online conversation with somebody who purported to know how blacks felt about the flag. I asked him how he knew what they felt -- had talked to them, had he asked them, and if so, how many. His reply was, "Well, how would YOU feel?"
Since liberals, leftists and assorted progressives consider their feelings about something to be knowledge about it, perhaps his "feelings" tell Mr. Harrigan everyone knows that virtually all black people (and most whites) regard it as a racist symbol. And the same "source" -- his emotions -- provides him with the information that "Anyone flying the Confederate flag is engaging in an intentional act of racist provocation."
But he's as wrong about this,just as as he is about how "virtually all blacks" and "most whites" regard the Confederate flag, and he's wrong to claim that flying it is a conscious and deliberate act of racist provocation. That makes him the perfect commenter for Levin's blog.
I think Mr. James Harrigan doesn't know the truth -- but his attitude says he wouldn't care if he did know. Posted at Levin's blog:
==========
James Harrigan says:
September 16, 2016
I don’t think it is hard. Anyone flying the Confederate flag is engaging in an intentional act of racist provocation – for the simple reason that everyone knows that virtually all black people (and most whites) regard it as a racist symbol. Saying “that is not what it means to me” is incoherent and disingenuous – everyone knows how the CBF will be interpreted. To say “I don’t care how other people interpret it” is a racist statement. So, can someone engage in a conscious and deliberate act of racist provocation and somehow not be a racist? Of course not.
==========
Saying “that is not what it means to me” is incoherent and disingenuous – everyone knows how the CBF will be interpreted.
This is ludicrous. If someone says "that's not what it means to me" -- and it actually doesn't mean that to them, the statement is neither incoherent or disingenuous. It's simply a statement of fact. Moreover, the flag will be interpreted differently by different people. To imagine that everyone all thinks alike on this issue -- that they are all mental clones -- is risible.
We're not all mental clones. Even people who support the flag and its display can have different beliefs about it. If someone interprets differently than I do, that does not negate or override my view of it.
Claiming that To say “I don’t care how other people interpret it” is a racist statement, is equally ridiculous. It simply means they can interpret it however they wish, but that has no bearing -- and shouldn't have -- on my interpretation of it.
To claim that flying the flag is a "conscious and deliberate act of racist provocation" is one of the clearest examples of substituting one's perceptions for other people's intentions that I've seen in a while.
He claims it is an intentional act of racism, "...for the simple reason that everyone knows that virtually all black people (and most whites) regard it as a racist symbol..."
How does everyone know this? More to the point, how does HE know it? Does he gaze into a crystal ball? Call Miss Cleo? Throw chicken bones? Because customary, accepted, reliable methods of determining information do not find that virtually all blacks and most whites regard the flag as a racist symbol.
Less than a month after the Charleston shooting, a CNN poll found that 57% of Americans see the flag as a symbol of Southern pride, not racism. 75% of whites , and 28% of blacks do not see the flag as a symbol of racism. In other words, 25% of whites see it as a racist symbol, which cannot even begin to be "most" whites. And the 72% of blacks who see the flag as a racist symbol is a large portion, sure enough -- but it doesn't begin to be "vitually all" blacks.
In 2011 a poll by Pew Research measured the reaction people have to seeing the Confederate battle flag. The majority (58%) say they have no reaction at all. 41% of African Americans have a negative reaction to the flag, while 29% of whites do. Still, a larger number of blacks (45%) have no reaction rather than a negative reaction to the flag. How can "virtually all" blacks regard it as a racist symbol when 45% have no reaction to it at all?
In 2000, a Gallup poll found that only 28% of Americans say that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, while 59% of Americans say the flag is more a symbol of Southern pride. The slightly lower positive number in the CNN poll (57%) comes after a decade of a vitriolic anti-flag campaign by the NAACP and fellow travelers.
I once had an online conversation with somebody who purported to know how blacks felt about the flag. I asked him how he knew what they felt -- had talked to them, had he asked them, and if so, how many. His reply was, "Well, how would YOU feel?"
Since liberals, leftists and assorted progressives consider their feelings about something to be knowledge about it, perhaps his "feelings" tell Mr. Harrigan everyone knows that virtually all black people (and most whites) regard it as a racist symbol. And the same "source" -- his emotions -- provides him with the information that "Anyone flying the Confederate flag is engaging in an intentional act of racist provocation."
But he's as wrong about this,just as as he is about how "virtually all blacks" and "most whites" regard the Confederate flag, and he's wrong to claim that flying it is a conscious and deliberate act of racist provocation. That makes him the perfect commenter for Levin's blog.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
A Backsass Post Worth Repeating
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Comment exchange at Kevin Levin's flog:
Eric A. Jacobson: What is occurring in the heart of the old Confederate capital It is just another example of how the public is moving beyond the one-sided imagery of the Lost Cause. It is also happening across the nation.
In fact, one very important factor that the Flaggers folks, Chastain, etc, don’t understand, and likely never will, is that the vast majority of people really don’t “support” their view of the flag. I deal with guests and tourists who are actually visiting a Civil War battlefield site and the flag issue is so far down on the list it doesn’t even rank.
Odious Andy Hall: That’s a central conceit of the “heritage” folks generally — they have convinced themselves that support for Confederate symbols runs wide and deep, at least among “real” southerners, and if only they could be made aware of their heritage, they’d come out in full-throated support of it the old Confederacy.
At the same time, though, they find it increasingly necessary to go through rhetorical gymnastics to show that people who disagree with them aren’t “real” southerners by one or another measure they find suitable at the moment. Fine, whatever. If they want to wall off increasingly-large swathes of the community — people who shop, and vote, and go to museums, and attend college, and go to church, and all the other things that people do — then they’re only marginalizing themselves as butternut revanchists, more worthy of ridicule and scorn than serious consideration.
______________________________
"... public is moving beyond the one-sided imagery of the Lost Cause...."
Ah, no, it's not moving away. It is being pushed away. The NAACP has been orchestrating a war on Confederate heritage for years, perhaps decades, beginning with their resolution that the Confederate battle flag is an "odious blight on the universe."
Really. On the whole flippin' universe.
Local NAACP chapters across the South (or other groups that are NAACP lookalikes -- in Pensacola, it's the "Movement for Change") have been leading the way in their communities -- being "offended" and then telling local governments how offended they are and they need to have Confederate this or that removed from the community. These efforts in individual communities are so similar, you can tell they've been scripted.
Fellow travelers in other leftist and anti-tradition organizations and, of course, academia and the media, jump on their bandwagon and help push for the change. "Pushing for the change" involves demonizing those who oppose it -- those who support visible items of Confederate heritage and have the gall to say so -- as "racists" and "white supremacists" and, no joke, "KKK."
As time passes, being labeled a "racist" and "white supremacist" and "KKK" has become increasingly charged with serious, negative consequences, and so fewer and fewer people have visibly opposed this war on their heritage, even when they do not agree with it and are appalled by it.
They don't speak out because we in the USA no longer have the freedom to do so without repercussions. It's not that people don't "support" our view of the flag, Mr. Jacobson. And yes, Odious Andy, support for Confederate symbols does run wide and deep, at least among “real” southerners -- but they are disinclined to express it. Well, let's just say it like it is -- they are afraid to show their support for it because of the increasingly negative repercussions.
High school kids are singled out for demonizing if they wear a Confederate flag on their clothing, or fly one from their vehicle -- forced to turn their shirt inside out, or sent home, or expelled from school. People who visibly support Confederate heritage are harassed at work, demoted, fired. Worst of all, heritage supporters have been victimized by crime. A Mississippi man's flag is burned while it is displayed on the owner's property ... a woman and her toddler are shot at and she suspects its because she had Confederate symbols on her car. Bricks through windows, slashed tires, beatings ... People who experience this aren't difficult to convince -- you're safer denying the heritage you love.
Levin has a long-standing position of claiming Confederate heritage is "receding," that more and more people are either becoming disinterested in or averse to it. I'm sure he knows this is not true, and that the incidents of harassment and persecution are increasingly responsible for the effectiveness of the war on heritage. But he continues to pretend.
Which brings me to a group of people who are not afraid to stand up for Confederate heritage in a very public way -- the Virginia Flaggers. Why do the floggers Levin, Simpson, Hall and their fellow floggers and floggerettes so hate the VaFlaggers? Why have they kept up a steady drum-beat of lies, ridicule, harassment, and persecution of the VaFlaggers for years, demonizing them as "racists" and "white supremacists" while, paradoxically claiming the group has no effect? Why do they take an exceedingly small number of genuine but tiny negatives about the group (because no human endeavor is perfect) and push the idea that this totally defines them?
Well, I'll tell you why. What the Virginia Flaggers are showing the world is that you CAN publicly and visibly stand in support of Confederate heritage -- and withstand the repercussions that follow. You can push back against the efforts to eradicate Confederate heritage from the daily, public life of the South. You can become a heritage warrior, fighting not only to preserve Confederate heritage but also fighting for the right to honor our Confederate ancestors without repercussions.
Their message to critics and enemies is, "We do not demand that you join us, or even agree with us. However, we do demand that you respect our right to honor our heritage, and that you stop the war on all things Confederate, stop the blatant disrespect of our heroes and their history, stop the removal our flags, monuments and other Confederate artifacts."
Their message to the like-minded but intimidated is, "Join us! We are making a difference in this culture war." And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Virginia Flagger message that the floggers fear and hate the most. The last thing they want is a resurgence of the Southern pride our battle flags engender, and a vibrant and growing heritage community.
The other Virginia Flagger activity critics hate is the raising of large battle flags beside major thoroughfares on private property where they are highly visible -- and where they teach an unmistakable lesson. Battle flags flying as a symbol of the South's culture and heritage, and especially as memorials to the men who fought to defend the South from invasion, don't hurt anybody.
Cities in Virginia where the flags fly have not crumbled; tsunamis have not wiped out the Virginia coast. The flags have not caused crop failures or the breakdown of civil government. As this begins to dawn on the public, they might look at the war on heritage, the flag removals, the name changes and so on, as excessive and unnecessary -- even detrimental to the culture of Virginia and the South.
So, no, Levin, Odious Andy and Jacobson -- the public isn't "moving" away from Confederate heritage. They are being pushed away -- manipulated by a deliberately orchestrated culture war. And we heritage folks are fighting back. We're not very savvy about it yet -- we're not trained "community organizers" and "social justice warriors" carefully schooled in Alinsky-ite rules. We are having to learn OJT. But, inspired by the work and success of the Virginia Flaggers, we are learning.
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-they-hate-virginia-flaggers.html
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Kevin Levin -- Not a Journalist, Not a Historian ... but a Propagandist
Propaganda -- information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. Dictionary.comHere's a more telling analysis of Kevin Levin's hate piece in The Daily Beast (a hate rag if there ever was one) fomenting hate for the Virginia Flaggers, especially Susan Hathaway.
My question is -- where did Levin get the information in his article (and where does he get images he uses with Flagger posts on his blog?) Did he attempt to verify the information? Or did he just copy/paste it as he found it online?
For example: "The organization has enjoyed steady coverage by local media outlets over the last five years, but few reporters have looked closely at Flagger membership or the individuals and organizations with which it has found common cause."
How does he know this? Did he check with the reporters who covered the Flaggers for local outlets? Did he ask them whether they had looked closely (or even not closely) at individuals and organization with which the Flaggers have found "common cause"? And why didn't he identify the "common cause"? Why didn't he cite examples of the Flaggers engaging in such?
More: "Some of these individuals are directly connected with White Nationalist groups such as the League of the South, which openly promote white supremacy. Such a close association blurs the lines between legitimate concerns for the preservation of history and heritage and the racial politics of the present."
It would be most helpful to identify how many is "some." It would be even more helpful for him to ditch the nonspecific "directly connected" and state the actual connection. "Jim Racist is a member of the League" or "Virginia State Chairman of the League" or something. "Directly connected" might mean living next door to a League member and saying, "Good morning Charlie," when walking to the mailbox. Don't laugh, folks. Self-styled anti-racist jackasses will grasp at such straws if they think it will convince their flock....
"White Nationalist groups..." (Hey Kev...Daily Beast, "white nationalist" is not a proper noun and need not be capitalized.) So, what are the other groups? Only one is mentioned, but the claim is that some individuals are directly connected with GROUPS, plural. What are some other ones?
Another reason for interviewing -- actually TALKING to the people you're writing about -- especially in the case of League members, is to find out whether they support everything the League purports to stand for. The transformation of the League from a Southern nationalist group to a white nationalist group occurred in very recent years. How many members still support the old nationalism, and simply want the South freed from the oppressive control of the federal government, and how many are in it purely for racist reasons? And, directly to the point, the "individuals" you won't name or quantify, but which you claim have "common cause" with the Flaggers -- which ones are they? What are their beliefs? Did you even TRY to contact and ask them? Do you even know the history of the League, and about its recent change? Or do you blindly swallow every lie that emanates from the Poverty Palace in Montgomery?
Admittedly, there are probably few who would deign to talk to you, considering you have fomented hatred and posted lies about them for years on end ... and I think Susan would be an utter fool to give you the time of day ... but the point is, did you even make the effort? Or did you simply get online to find things you could spin the way you wanted?
Kevin: "According to the Flaggers, the Confederate battle flag ought to be celebrated, along with the men who fought under it." According to them, where? Link? Name of article, blog post, Facebook post, Tweet? All I've ever seen is that people who wish to celebrate them should not be prevented from doing so, either by government authorities or sullen, disapproving but authority-less individuals such as yourself. I've never seen any communication from the Flaggers advocating that everyone should be forced to celebrate the flag and Confederate soldiers. If you have, link to it. Prove it.
"Their understanding of the war falls neatly within the confines of the Lost Cause narrative: Slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the war; relations between white and black Southerners were peaceful before the war; the Confederacy fought solely for states’ rights; and African Americans supported the cause in large numbers." Did you ask them, or even some of them, if this is their understanding? Or is this your interpretation of things you've found online? Did you find something one of them posted that SOUNDS like this (or that you can interpret this way), and you are attributing it to all of them? You can find all sorts of differing viewpoints among supporters of Confederate heritage, including the Virginia Flaggers. To portray them as mental clones, or having a mass belief system or hive mentality (a portrayal consistently presented by haters of heritage people), is mendacity and a deliberately perpetrated fraud. (Southern heritage folks are the original mass assemblage of individualist cats that cannot be herded.... )
Levin: "According to Hathaway, 'As sons and daughters of the South, we have inherited a birthright. Ours is a proud heritage.'" Yeah? So? You disagree? You aren't a son or daughter of the South, and have nothing to say about it....
Levin: "In the face of these defeats..." Critics and haters of the Flaggers like to point out the attacks on and destruction of Confederate heritage as "victories" for some and "defeats" for the Flaggers. Five years of "defeats," is the mantra. I wonder if Levin would call the first 19 years of Senator Kay Patterson's efforts in South Carolina "defeats." For twenty years, prior to 2000, Senator Patterson introduced legislation in every legislative session to remove the Confederate battle flag from the statehouse dome. Would Levin and the other Floggers have told him after five years, "You have failed, your efforts are a failure, it is never coming down." Would they have told him that after ten years? After fifteen? The flag finally game down in 2000 after an unprecedented and ugly campaign by the heavy-handed leftist media and their allies, and a travel boycott by the NAACP (which turned out to not be such an economic hit, after all, despite the "spin" in the leftist media).
The point is, when the Flaggers give up, they will have failed. And it appears that giving up never enters their minds. Southern heritage has no hate-filled allies in the leftist media... we will have to triumph with truth and the help of Providence -- which is a big part of the reason why we don't give up.
Levin: "In 2012 the Flaggers were photographed parading with Matthew Heimbach. Heimbach was the founder of Towson State’s White Student Union and Towson’s Youth for Western Civilization. In 2014 he became the League of the South’s training director and is considered by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be the “new face of white nationalism.”
1. How many photographs? How many parades? Which ones? 2. Were these Flagger-sponsored parades/events, or events that both the Flaggers, Heimbach, and many, many others showed up for? Did the Flaggers have some responsibility for his showing up at these parades? Did they invite him? Did they "pose" with him for these photos? 3. Even the infamous photo of him standing behind the VaFlagger parade banner -- did HE instigate that by taking that position? Why isn't he behind the banner in other Flagger parade pictures? Why just that one? Did Levin ask any of these questions? Did it even occur to him to ask them?
And of what possible relevance to the Flaggers is it that in 2014 Heimbach became the League of the South’s training director?
Why did you truncate Mr. Cash's statement? Why did you cherrypick what you thought would cause the most damage? That's typically dishonest of heritage critics, especially Flagger haters. Someone on your own comment thread noted his whole statement, which you did mendaciously tried to hide. More lies racked up against you, Levin.
Levin: "While the Flaggers refused to respond to the (Agnor) controversy at the time there is every reason to believe that they share Agnor’s racial outlook." Name them, you diabolical liar. NAME THE EVERY REASON. Name ANY thing Susan, Tripp, Barry, Grayson or other Flagger leaders, or any regular members (not people they happen to do business with) have ever said that even comes CLOSE to this. Or hinted. Or suggested. Do it or stand branded before God and the world as a hate-motivated liar, not to be believed or trusted, except by hate-motivated leftists...
The war against Confederate flags and monuments will likely get worse before it ends, but it will end. This is temporary. It is one of the last-ditch efforts of the left as it sees its power and influence deteriorating in the face of good, decent people who are sick of being slandered by liars like Levin with the "racist" label. (And being victimized in mumerous other ways.) The latest crop of "social justice warriors" are delicate snowflakes who are traumatized by chalk words on a sidewalk. The left's oppressive dominance of this country is coming to an end. The final stroke (no pun intended) will come when Hillary Clinton, with her blatant hatred of Americans, is soundly repudiated by the people, who will usher Donald Trump into the Oval Office.
Just one thing, Levin. How about linking to, or even copy/pasting, the "pledge" Confederate soldiers took to establish an independent slaveholding republic? You can't. There was no such pledge, so nobody is attempting to justify that nonexistent "pledge" 150 years later.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Kevin Levin's Verbal Hit Piece on Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers
Today, we fact check and truth check a blatantly hostile piece of writing by Kevin Levin that appeared in the ultra leftist Daily Beast. You can read the whole thing here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/21/for-the-virginia-flaggers-it-s-hate-not-heritage.html The piece strives to make a case that the title, "For the Virginia Flaggers, It's Hate, Not Heritage," is the truth. It fails.
Levin writes,
Levin's use of nonspecific quantifying ("some of these individuals") could be considered misleading, and the term "has found common cause" is highly misleading. Besides the League of the South, what "white nationalist" groups is Levin talking about? He identifies no others. To use the plural makes it sound like the Flaggers have found "common cause" with many groups, but unless he names them, we have to conclude that the "white nationalist groups" accusation is deliberately deceptive.
That a small handful of League members have attended heritage events does not give the League "common cause" with Confederate heritage. Regardless of how the individuals may feel, the League has grown increasingly hostile to Confederate heritage. No "common cause" there. Nor is there a "close association" between the Flaggers and the League, or any other non-heritage organization. I am calling this terminology an outright lie.
Levin writes,
What Levin neglects to mention about the banning of flags in Lexington for one weekend a year is that the push was spearheaded by an immigrant with hostility toward the South and its heritage, and no respect for us and our traditions, or that very likely, the petition to remove the flag included signatures of people who were not residents of the town. He also neglects to mention that the flags removed from Lee Chapel were done so at the behest of a small handful of African-American students, at least one of whom wished to recreate and step into the role of a demonstrator from the 1960s civil rights glory days. Levin did not mention how the "trauma" of these students over the sight of the battle flags in a small alcove of the chapel stacks up to (and, frankly, trivializes) the horrors that real civil rights activists encountered in the mid-20th century.
Levin writes,
What Levin neglects to mention is that this handful of photos were not made at a Flagger sponsored event, and that most of the Flaggers had no idea who he was (and probably still don't), what he believed, where he was from, and what he had done at Towson, which they also did not know was the university he attended. Is a stranger walking next to you as you enter or leave a stadium for a football game a "close contact"? No. Thus, Levin's term, "close contact" is not just a lie, it is a blatant lie.
While it is unfortunate that a couple of the landowners the Flaggers have a business arrangement with made bigoted remarks that have been reported on the Internet, that is not any sort of indication that anyone in the group shares those beliefs. Probably everyone has had to do business with people whose beliefs they find repugnant... for example, I've had to share a workplace with people who blatantly supported the killing of children in the womb, but you can rest assured, I did not and never will share that belief.
Levin's hostility to the VaFlaggers is rooted in his hostility to the South and our heritage, of which the Confederacy, the war and their aftermath, are an indelible and essential part. He takes the politically correct view of the evil, dirty South, because of slavery, while totally ignoring the north's enabling of slavery, and the north's enormous economic benefits from slavery. I think he probably has a lot of animosity for Southerners regardless of their views of the war and Confederate heritage.
I suspect if he doesn't share the view of his wife, as expressed on his blog a few years back, he doesn't really object to it. She was upset because she misinterpreted a graphic image of Obama as having a "bloody" face. It doesn't depict that, as I demonstrated here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-wish-for-early-croakin.html
Because of her own misinterpretation of the image, and her blowing the comments up all out of proportion, she expressed this wish for an early death for Southerners:
The Heimbach Files at Backsass
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-year-and-half-late.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-floggers-heimbach-maneuver-part-one.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-floggers-heimbach-maneuver-part-deux.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/nope-hes-still-not-flagger.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-to-assess-gooey-glibness.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/more-tiptoein-and-pogo-stickin.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2015/02/shes-still-confused.html
Levin writes,
"...few reporters have looked closely at Flagger membership or the individuals and organizations with which it has found common cause. Some of these individuals are directly connected with White Nationalist groups such as the League of the South, which openly promote white supremacy. Such a close association blurs the lines between legitimate concerns for the preservation of history and heritage and the racial politics of the present."
Levin's use of nonspecific quantifying ("some of these individuals") could be considered misleading, and the term "has found common cause" is highly misleading. Besides the League of the South, what "white nationalist" groups is Levin talking about? He identifies no others. To use the plural makes it sound like the Flaggers have found "common cause" with many groups, but unless he names them, we have to conclude that the "white nationalist groups" accusation is deliberately deceptive.
That a small handful of League members have attended heritage events does not give the League "common cause" with Confederate heritage. Regardless of how the individuals may feel, the League has grown increasingly hostile to Confederate heritage. No "common cause" there. Nor is there a "close association" between the Flaggers and the League, or any other non-heritage organization. I am calling this terminology an outright lie.
Levin writes,
"Their (the Flaggers') understanding of the war falls neatly within the confines of the Lost Cause narrative: Slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the war; relations between white and black Southerners were peaceful before the war; the Confederacy fought solely for states’ rights; and African Americans supported the cause in large numbers."This is completely and totally his opinion, and not only a mistaken one, but a hostile one. Certainly slavery had something to do with the war, most people understand that. What heritage folks reject, however, is the binary, elementary-school view that the evil South was fighting solely to keep an entire race in chains, and the sainted north was fighting solely to free them. Everything in Levin's description is designed to paint heritage people as mental clones, all believing the same thing about one of the most complex events in our national history. Anybody who has been around the heritage community for a while knows how hard it is to get us to agree (like "herding cats") and knows about our legendary disagreements, the circular firing squads, etc. As much as Levin has obsessed over the heritage community, I'm sure he knows this. Thus, I'm calling this statement another deliberate falsehood.
What Levin neglects to mention about the banning of flags in Lexington for one weekend a year is that the push was spearheaded by an immigrant with hostility toward the South and its heritage, and no respect for us and our traditions, or that very likely, the petition to remove the flag included signatures of people who were not residents of the town. He also neglects to mention that the flags removed from Lee Chapel were done so at the behest of a small handful of African-American students, at least one of whom wished to recreate and step into the role of a demonstrator from the 1960s civil rights glory days. Levin did not mention how the "trauma" of these students over the sight of the battle flags in a small alcove of the chapel stacks up to (and, frankly, trivializes) the horrors that real civil rights activists encountered in the mid-20th century.
Levin writes,
"In 2012 the Flaggers were photographed parading with Matthew Heimbach. Heimbach was the founder of Towson State’s White Student Union and Towson’s Youth for Western Civilization. In 2014 he became the League of the South’s training director and is considered by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be the “new face of white nationalism.”
What Levin neglects to mention is that this handful of photos were not made at a Flagger sponsored event, and that most of the Flaggers had no idea who he was (and probably still don't), what he believed, where he was from, and what he had done at Towson, which they also did not know was the university he attended. Is a stranger walking next to you as you enter or leave a stadium for a football game a "close contact"? No. Thus, Levin's term, "close contact" is not just a lie, it is a blatant lie.
While it is unfortunate that a couple of the landowners the Flaggers have a business arrangement with made bigoted remarks that have been reported on the Internet, that is not any sort of indication that anyone in the group shares those beliefs. Probably everyone has had to do business with people whose beliefs they find repugnant... for example, I've had to share a workplace with people who blatantly supported the killing of children in the womb, but you can rest assured, I did not and never will share that belief.
Levin's hostility to the VaFlaggers is rooted in his hostility to the South and our heritage, of which the Confederacy, the war and their aftermath, are an indelible and essential part. He takes the politically correct view of the evil, dirty South, because of slavery, while totally ignoring the north's enabling of slavery, and the north's enormous economic benefits from slavery. I think he probably has a lot of animosity for Southerners regardless of their views of the war and Confederate heritage.
I suspect if he doesn't share the view of his wife, as expressed on his blog a few years back, he doesn't really object to it. She was upset because she misinterpreted a graphic image of Obama as having a "bloody" face. It doesn't depict that, as I demonstrated here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-wish-for-early-croakin.html
Because of her own misinterpretation of the image, and her blowing the comments up all out of proportion, she expressed this wish for an early death for Southerners:
"If they were in Germany they probably would still find many arguments why Hitler was such a “success”…all in the “gentle” spirit of “heritage”, excluding Jews, commies and the rest of “them”. The only thing that makes my day is that the overall education these people enjoy and their general attitude to life, especially their choice of diet will statistically make enough a difference that they croak earlier than the average person in the US. Bless their heart!"Both of the Levins have exhibited hostility toward Southerners, their culture, history and heritage, and that hostility -- or is it outright hate? -- is clearly on display in Kevin's "Daily Beast" hit piece.
____________________
The Heimbach Files at Backsass
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-year-and-half-late.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-floggers-heimbach-maneuver-part-one.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-floggers-heimbach-maneuver-part-deux.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/nope-hes-still-not-flagger.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-to-assess-gooey-glibness.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/09/more-tiptoein-and-pogo-stickin.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2015/02/shes-still-confused.html
Welcome!
The purpose of this blog is to fact-check and truth-check blogs, websites and social media posts that are hostile to Confederate heritage. Disagree with the heritage community about the civil war? That's fine, but there is a huge difference between disagreement and hostility that translates into lies, attacks, and slander. Keep it civil and you probably won't find your comments taken apart here. ~ Polly
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.