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.
Here'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.


  1. Those who are white nationalist have been "outed" on Restoring the Honor Blog...don't play stupid.

  2. Nope. Some names have been named. No proof offered. Remember Jacob was supposed to make a list of all the Sulser-organized events the Flaggers attended and all the Flagger organized events Sulser and fellow travelers attended? He never did. And he never will. All the leftist "bloggers" are long on opinion and short, extremely short, on proof (cause it's hard, indeed, impossible to prove what ain't true).

  3. Corey, identify the "pledge" Confederate soldiers took to establish an independent slaveholding republic. There was no such pledge. This is a baldfaced lie by Levin, an act of blatantly spitting on history. Don't tell me it was "figurative" because Levin didn't identify it as figurative. His claim is a deliberate factual inaccuracy... And it throws the credibility of the whole piece into question, because it throws the credibility of the writer into question.

  4. That pledge was their enlistment fight for the cause of the south which we all know was the creation of an independent slaveholding nation. They tell us this clearly in their secession documents.

  5. "...we all know..." Post a copy of the enlistment papers and show me where the pledge is listed. What WE "all know" -- or what some of us believe, in support of our current ideology, or to help us in our hatred of heritage folks -- doesn't matter. It's what THEY knew, what THEY believed (and they said repeatedly they weren't fighting for slavery) -- so show us the pledge, the actual words that said they were pledging to establish an independent slaveholding republic ... or take your place beside Kevin Levin as a bald-faced liar.

    1. If you keep this up you will look more the fool since you honestly know nothing about history.

    2. George, care to explain what you are basing that claim upon?

    3. youcome up with the crap about enlistment, they enlisted to protect there home and country, 98 percent of them did not own slaves and you think they enlisted for rich people to own slaves so the yankee that had slaves did they fought fo for slavery

  6. Damn Connie. There isn't a physical pledge, it is implied by their enlistment. They could have said they were fighting to free the slaves but the government they were fighting for made it was slavery.

    From Mississippi..."Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

    From Georgia..."The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

    From Texas...."Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- "

    The Breckenridge Southern Democratic Platform of 1860..."3. That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery."

    From Henry Benning of Ga. to Virginia Secession Commission..."What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery"

    Do I need to go on?

  7. You can go on as long as you want to. There's nothing in these that are a pledge taken by soldiers....

  8. "Pledge" and "oath" are synonyms. Corey's comment is like claiming Revolutionary soldiers' "pledge/oath" was the Declaration of Independence. No. The soldiers of the Continental Army took an OATH. This one:

    Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army." The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them." More here:

    And so did Confederate soldiers. Some of the oaths were almost identical to the one above, except they read "Confederate States of America" instead of United States of America. The wording might change slightly from state to state... But not a single one I've found says anything about "pledging" to "establish an independent slaveholding republic."

    The oath of Edwin G. Lee:

    "I Edwin G. Lee aged 26 years 7 months, born in Virginia, appointed from Jefferson Co., Virginia, do solemnly swear or affirm that while I continue in the service of the I will bear true faith, and yield obedience to the CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against their enemies, and that I will observe and obey the orders of the President of the Confederate States, and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to the Rules and Articles of War."

    The oath taken by several ancestors of Hugh Simmons, and posted on a civil war messgae board:
    "I [state your name] do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Confederate States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whomsoever; and that I will observe and obey the orders of the President of the Confederate States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the Rules and Articles of War.";id=9032

    Enlistment oath of James Coyle of Monroe, LA...

    None of these say a flippin' SYLLABLE about "pledging" to "establish an independent slaveholding republic."

    Kevin Levin is a liar -- a liar motivated by hate in his heart.

  9. Obviously, for Kevin Levin, it's hate and lies, not history ...

  10. Sorry, Corey. Federal soldiers weren't fighting to free slaves or preserve the union, as is often claimed, because neither of those phrases is mentioned in the soldiers' oath -- their pledge.

    This is the sort of thing Levin didn't think through, so great was his desire to trash and smear Southerners, past and present....

    1. When have I ever said the Northern soldier was fighting to free the slaves.

      It has been shown over and over that the Virginia Flaggers associate with people who are known white supremacists and white nationalists...hell even unabashed Klan members. Yet they claim that they are not racist but don't denounce those they associate with.

    2. Corey, were the federal soldiers fighting to free the slaves? No? A LOT of people make that claim. When people say that, do you correct them?

      No, that has not been shown. DeStroy, Simpson, Andy Hall, Levin, yourself and others have borne false witness against the Flaggers many times, the latest by the false claim that because Susan and some guy both attended an event at Stone Mountain, she knew that his KKK promotion appeared on a Russian/European social media site that neither she nor any other Flaggers knew existed. (Even Tripp, the technology guy, who is quite Internet savvy, had never heard of it.) BEARING FALSE WITNESS. That's what has been "shown" over and over. Showing up at a public event is not an "association". Getting photographed in the same frame with somebody is not an "association." (If that's true, Kevin Levin is a Flagger association and supporter, because he's been photographed with some of them.) Bantering with somebody in a Facebook thread is not an "association." Accepting a Facebook friend request is not an "association" -- it's not even friendship. All you "educated" people saying it is make yourselves look like ignoramuses -- well, actually, what you make yourselves look like is haters, harassers, bearers of false witness, cyber-stalkers, cyber-bullies....

    3. Do I correct them, Absolutely.

      It isn't that Susan knew at the time, she knows now and issues not denunciation of these people. That is the point. I believe Susan didn't know Steven Monk was a KKK member when the image was snapped or that Matt Heimbach is a white supremacist or that Jason Sulser was a kiddy porn artist...but she knows now and she is silent.

      Why is Susan Silent?

    4. What you and your hater buddies mean is, she didn't denounce them in a way that YOU know about. How long is it going to take to get through your bony heads? She doesn't CARE what y'all think! You are going to hate, hate, hate her no matter what she does or doesn't do. You're saying the issue isn't that she didn't know at the time, but she knows now? Absolutely wrong. The condemnation flies the INSTANT a photo appears on the net, before even hearing an explanation, and continues to fly, for years, with no let up ... Simpson is still screeching about an article Susan wrote being stolen by Olaf Childress, who put it in his "newspaper" (despite not knowing any of the circumstances of that, before and after it appeared) and both Simpson and Levin are still screeching about Heimbach, who went to maybe 4 events the Flaggers attended, years ago -- YEARS AGO, COREY -- and he hasn't been back since. They still screech about that like it's still happening, and they screech about him posting FOUR FLIPPIN' COMMENTS, on an open VaFlagger page/group ANYBODY could comment on (the comments were not racist at all). Simpson still tries to make something significant out of Heimbach receiving an "invitation" to the Flagger's picnic, as if it was sent especially to him (the invitation was issued via a Facebook function that sends an email to everyone on a page/group's member list -- presumably he thinks somebody should have waded through the member list of several hundred people and removed some names from the picnic invitation, but ain't nobody got time for that, especially since it was a public group, and very likely nobody KNEW who all the people where who had joined. I created and admin a Facebook group with over 1600 members, and I know maybe one of them outside Facebook. Y'all attempt to hold people to impossible requirements, and condemn them for failing to meet said impossible requirements, and condemn them for things you know nothing about.

      If y'all are the honest, upright, ethical people your love of condemning others implies, you need to accept that there are things YOU DON'T KNOW that change what you believe, or that you know isn't true, but that you lie about, anyway, in order to condemn people you don't like.

      All this stuff y'all do meets the definition of cyber-stalking and cyber-bullying, and it shows that for all y'alls "concern" about what's right and not right, Y'ALL are the ones who are NOT right, and who are motivated by maliciousness in the heart....

    5. Susan's denouncement should be done publicly so that the rest of the world knows the Va. Flaggers are not racists. She doesn't have to care what we is the public at large that she should be concerned about and it is becoming more and more obvious that that public rejects the actions of the flaggers since more and more flags are coming down.

      Can you find a photo of me on the internet with any racists? Nope...not one. So when photos show up online with Susan and racists its a big deal...especially for someone who says they are not racist. Those accusations continue to fly for years only because Susan has not denounced a single racist she has been photographed with.

      Years ago? The Va. Flaggers are only 5 years act as if Heimbach attended these events 100 years ago. So knowing what you know now about Heimbach, why not publicly denounce him and his old association with the flaggers?

      If someone posted a racist comment on my blog, I have the ability to delete that post and did while running my blog. You can say anyone can post on the Flaggers pages but I can't. So don't tell me that those post cannot be moderated...deleted...etc.

      You call us cyber-bullies...yet what do you call it when the flaggers don't get their way concerning a flag taken down off of public property. I call it a hissy fit.

      Keep spinnin' isn't working!

    6. Corey, you don't speak for "the rest of the world." You speak for yourself, and when it comes to heritage, you're a buzzing gnat, not worth listening to.

      What's obvious is what you anti-racist jackass civil war floggers throw fits about the VaFlaggers. And it is obvious that elected officials and certain community "leaders" infected with the PC virus are taking part in the war on our heritage. What's also obvious is that anti-racist jackass civil war bloggers are infuriated that the VaFlaggers are still around to celebrate their fifth anniversary, and that accounts for the banshee wails coming from all of you. Y'all are a small, select group; you are not "the public" and you don't speak for "the public."

      The accusations continue to fly, Corey, because anti-racist jackass bloggers who hate Susan and the Flaggers continue to fly them.

      Heimbach and the VaFlaggers HAD no association, and, yes, the handful of peripheral contacts between him and the VaFlaggers occurred YEARS ago. The infamous photo of Heimbach behind the parade banner was taken in DECEMBER 2012, a little over a year after the Flaggers were formed. Nobody even mentioned it for a year and a half. In August 2013, Heimbach posted a comment on a public Facebook Group, the Confederate Flaggers, and Simpson screeched, "Heimbach and VaFlaggers, Together Again." Heimbach was no more "together" with the Flaggers than anyone else who posted in the public group. That being the case, do you see how y'all's claims look? Stupid, mendacious and bullying.

      You are beating a dead horse, Corey. There has never been an "assocation" between Heimbach and the VaFlaggers. That means your calls for "denouncing" are harassment that flows from malice.

      The Flaggers protest the removal of objects of Confederate heritage, which is their right, so that's what I call it. I don't care what you call it.

      The VaFlaggers are #winning, and I'm not spinning, Corey. You are just dizzy from your malice and your totalitarian belief that you should get to tell people what to do.

  11. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

    1. You're so full of hate and lies your heart is black ( in case you ignorantly think that's a racial slur).

    2. You assume way to much about me always have and you are dead wrong.

    3. Not nearly as much as you assume about us -- you always have and you are even wronger than dead wrong.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.