Connie Provides New Outlet for Suspicious Characters
Apparently Connie Chastain’s website, 180 Degrees True South, was not enough of a platform for her own style of poor history and praise of Southern Heritage that she had to develop a new Facebook page by the same name. Here she has collected various suspicious characters who have never been afraid to show their racism when it comes to discussing the cause of the War of the Rebellion or attempting to downplay the role of slavery in the coming of the war. She has gathered the likes of John C. Hall who recently posted the following…
“Levin is a jewish name of the tribe of the Levites….No doubt his is the typical liberal jew. Most of these types of jewish people are very liberal and see the South as a great evil. Not all are like this…I have a Jewish client from the Bronx….he loves the South and always askes me how is the war going….lol…..So consider the source…He won’t let me post on his blog either to defend the South..the hell with him…..”
You will no doubt remember Mr. Hall from his posts over at Brooks Simpson’s Crossroads.
One of the first people to join Connie’s new site was “Mr. Secession” himself, Michael Hill who founded and runs the League of the South which is known for statements like this…
“If the scenario of the South (and the rest of America) being overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants does not appeal to you, then how is this disaster to be averted? By the people who oppose it rising up against their traitorous elite masters and their misanthropic rule. But to do this we must first rid ourselves of the fear of being called ‘racists’ and the other meaningless epithets they use against us. What is really meant by the [anti-racist] advocates when they peg us as ‘racists’ is that we adhere to ethnocentrism, which is a natural affection for one’s own kind. This is both healthy and Biblical. I am not ashamed to say that I prefer my own kind and my own culture. Others can have theirs; I have mine. No group can survive for long if its members do not prefer their own over others.” — Mike Hill, Web essay
And…
“[T]he Southern League supports a return to a political and social system based on kith and kin rather than an impersonal state wedded to the idea of the universal rights of man. At its core is a European population.” — Michael Hill, essay on League of the South website, 2000″
Finally Connie is supported in her quest for poor historical analysis by Michael C. Lucas. He does not have the racial undertones that the others do, but his understanding of history for a member of our armed forces is atrocious. He is well known for comments on Brooks’ Crossroad and for winners like this…
”I am a Confederate Spartan!”
Whatever the hell that is… and one more…
“To the contrary Mr Levin, and a great many PC historians, PC Radicals, and just people who have nothing better to do have a great contempt and objective distorting facts and perpetuating hate against Confederate Americans.”
Sooner or later the “P” and the “C” are going to break on the keyboards of those who believe in this great “PC” conspiracy.
It is very obvious that Connie is surrounding herself with some very extreme people with extreme ideologies. You can see a complete members list here. I have refused to join her site and take part in the bullshit that is Connie Chastain’s understanding of the War of the Rebellion and history in general. However, my hat is off to Rob Baker and Neil Hamilton for putting up with the antics of those mentioned above. For me, I have grown to tired of it to continue to beat my head against a wall over and over.
Well, we try hard.
Hi Mr. Corey…Meyer…ah another jewish name…..surprise!!!!!……..oh wait…I can’t defend myself……..hiding behind your mantle of PC and abolitionist sentiment……coward….
John,
How is what I post abolitionist? I would call it…and I know this is a hard concept for Lost Causers like you to understand…Freedom!
Why and how can anyone, 150 years after the War ,think abolitionism was wrong?
There are no suspicious characters on that Facebook group. I’m a suspicious character.
As for Ray O’Hara, I answered his question about abolition on my site. After seeing the result of abolition, I am not sure why people are still defending that position.
1.) Meyer is German
2.) What does it matter even if he is Jewish?
3.) You have yet to tell anyone why it is bad to be an abolitionist. I would hope people would be against Abolitionism.
Rob,
You are correct, Meyer is German, but I have heard it is the Jewish spelling. German spelling would be more like Mier or Maier or the like. However, my family is not now, nor has ever been jewish that I know of, but I have some suspicions as to that being part of the reason they left Germany in the 1870′s. The woman that brought my Great-Grandfather here as a boy was named Harmeki Shrieb…and I think that may be Jewish, but I have no proof…and you are correct in you comment to John C. Hall…what does or would it matter?
Thanks
To defend against one’s enemies one must understand them. It just so happens that a lot of liberal jews hate the South and go out of their way to slight Southerners. I am not afraid to call any one or any group out to defend my heritage. PC is just a house of cards I run over. You appear to not be in that category so I will let that be.
Mr. Hall
I think you have made a wise decision not to take me on. And from here on out if you do not use your real name to post, I will not approve the comment.
I will play by your rules……as far as wise to not take you on….you slight my heritage and my pen is drawn sir!
How about you define what “slight” your heritage is…if that includes the fact that the south went to war over slavery then draw that damn pen of yours!
Or why it is bad to be Jewish.
From my rather extensive experience with Jews I’ve found them to be friendly, funny and intelligent people Not “some of my best friends are Jews” but many of my best friends are Jews, at worst they are as a group. smarter than the rest of us.
HW, What ius your site?
LOL…..howdy….glad I finally got one you abolitionists to fight fair……..Ah but the cause is not lost……I like your flag btw….I believe it might be the one that the 3rd Georgia returned after the yanks got whooped …..was your ancestor from the 15th Mass?
What flag are you refering to? If you mean the one as my gravatar then no it is not the one captured by the 3rd Georgia. It belonged to the 60th Illinois and was never captured by the rebs. You are probably familiar with the Western Armies of the Union…they were seldom defeated and were most responsible for defeating the south and its attempt to develop a slave society and nation.
Was the 60th Illinois your ancestor’s unit? My ancestor’s 3rd Georgia never had the stain of union hands on it. Corker broke through the Union line on July 2nd and the letter signed by RELee discusses this. The 3rd Ga Flag is at the Georgia Capital.
Was it not given up at Appomattox?
No….that is the fascinating part. I am researching the 3rd Ga…….It was taken from it’s staff when they stacked their guns. Col. Snead wrapped it around himself under his coat. Snead was in Johnson Island prison with Corker and then paroled 1864.
I see, could not stand defeat…sore losers?
Sorry..This is a waste of my time…I won’t be back………Fort Pillow……
Yep…exactly what I thought…cannot handle the truth so you will run off and complain to Connie and you will make more racial comments to make youself fell better. Maybe you could brag about something or the other as well. So Long!
So they acted dishonorably at the Surrender and violated the terms,
While somewhat understandable it is not something to brag about John.
Snead, isn’t that a Jewish name?
I am in agreement with your comments to John. I’m not letting anyone post on my blog that doesn’t use their real name anymore either. My last post got rather interesting with Hunter Wallace and friends.
I wouldn’t group Ray O’Hara with Rob Baker or Neil Hamilton. Ray has some very serious issues, and is routinely ejected from discussion groups because of his behavior. He’s a very bitter fellow with a rather wild imagination and a mean streak (including a little blackmail). Thus he is ideally suited for Connie’s group.
Think of him as John C. Hall’s mirror image.
Noted and changed…thanks for the info.
Ray recently declared that I had singled out “Connie Chastain the propriator of a very obscure Lost Cause facebook page” and that I had “raised” Connie “above her relevance” and “has elevated what was a the lair of a few cranks to a real force in CW history circles.” Right.
Whereupon he decided to get in on the fun.
Let’s just say that the internet is Ray’s primary source for social discourse. But he’s the perfect fit for some of the exchanges on Connie’s FB page. Why he’s there given his denigration of Connie is best left to him to answer. And Connie’s right … he hates the South and has a Massachusetts superiority complex. Just ask him about the role of race in the Boston busing crisis of 1975.
He serves a purpose because he plays the role of a stereotype.
She has two FB pages it seems, with an audience of dozens{at most}
I was recently added to the 180 Degrees page by a friend who thinks my Union views there will be funny. And unlike you Brooks. I do play there but I leave it there. I don’t stalk . I don’t post her place of work online. {have you done that yet?I know you did it to some other recently , had it led to the harassment you are trying to incite against him?”}
I instead confront and counter her directly. no behind the back, no sock puppets or other tactics you are so fond of. I seem to be the lone Yankee on her page, and to her credit she hasn’t booted me for not being of the Lost Cause persuasion.
Yes, my serious issue is with you Brooks and your despicable behavoir using sock puppets, internet stalking and calling the employers of people you don’t like , such as Maury and Mark Behrendt. things that have nothing to do with the Civil War but are issues of common decency, and strangely I’ve only been banned by your blog and a blog belonging to your toadies.
What kind of a “man”{I use the word loosely } tries to get another man fired from his job over an internet flame war.
And blackmail? you mean when I told you to stop stalking and posting about my family? which you ignored so your personal business was posted in retaliation.
You get a free pass by many because of your “superstar” status,. while I’m just a retired mailman. but if you want to go on about having issues I’m nowhere in your league
As usual, Ray, you offer allegations of all sorts, but you’re mistaken when you aren’t simply lying (I’ve never called an employer). You admit to the blackmail charge. You openly distort what others have said, and you’ve been called on that. You retired due to disability, then mocked that, and it appears you like driving with a suspended license, so we know you defy the law. You criticize people for posting about Connie Chastain, then you go on her discussion group. You get kicked off discussion groups all the time because of your ranting (a FB Group recently celebrated that it was now a “Ray-free” zone … you underestimate your ejections, but then of course that’s to be expected). You engage in ethnic and homophobic slurs, and denigrate people’s family members, especially their mothers. You’ve sought personal information on other posters for more than a decade, and you turned bitter when I cut you off. You still talk about me elsewhere, because you need the attention as you sit in your house … although it seems it’s not really your house. Now you are attacking people right and left on Connie’s group, and we’ll see how long you stay there,and when the controversy you stir is overwhelmed by disgust about what you say and how you say it.
You’re a lonely fellow who turns to the internet in an effort to maintain contact with the outside world, and who turns your bitterness about your fate into attacks on everyone. You’re pathetic, despicable, and disgusting. No more needs to be said.
Haven’t called anyone’s employees? then explain this post of yours from the Google archives, especially the tidbit where you say “haven’t talked to your boss since…” remember its your exchange with Mark Behrendt
Brooks ‘s words are the ones with no > preceeding them Mark Behrendt’s have the > preceeding them. as any can see we have Brooks bragging about getting in touch with something called Blade, an online E-zine I think, and then admitting to calling Packer engineering
Why do you lie about it Brooks? but more importantly, why do you do the deed in the first place, to quote a famous line, “heve you no decency”
From: Brooks Simpson – view profile
Date: Fri, Jan 2 2004 11:36 pm
Email: Brooks Simpson
Groups: alt.war.civil.usa
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:58:15 -0500, Billy Bennett wrote:
>Time, once again, for my annual review of the unique idiocy of Brooks D
>Simpson.
>It’s been a busy year for me and I haven’t had the time to note all the
>stupid things Simpson has done over the year gone by but here goes
>anyway. Ya’ll can fill in your own remembrances.
>1) Simpson was going to inform a reporter about someone’s behavior in here
Done. Actually, two reporters on the Blade. Ask them.
>2) Simpson was going to inform a University where someone was going
to
>give a lecture about their behavior in here.
Done. Note who went quiet on that issue. it wasn’t me.
>3) Simpson was going to inform an employer about someone’s behavior
in
>here.
Haven’t talked to your boss since your biography disappeared from the
Packer Engineering site? Perhaps you should. Just ask.
Brooks would have made an excellent commissar in the Soviet Union.
Your “evidence” convicts you, Ray.
The Toledo Blade reporters were contacted because of what someone claimed they had said to those reporters about an issue of international law. As a historian, it was my job to question that claim. The reporters seemed to have taken that to heart, because they no longer relied upon that source and did not mention it in their book. The Blade did not employ anyone who posted on the group. The Blade’s a real newspaper, not an “online E-zine,” and its coverage of the matter in question won a Pulitzer Prize.
A poster challenged me on a matter of fact about a talk they were going to give, and challenged me to contradict that by contacting the people sponsoring the talk. So I simply responded to the challenge. The sponsors of the talk were no one’s employers.
Packer Engineering contacted me about a poster’s behavior. I declined to speak to their representative. You’ll have to ask Packer Engineering what they did and why. I assume it was because that person highlighted his association with the firm in his posts, and posted on company time.
So what we have here is no evidence that I initiated contact with any employers whatsoever. I’ve said that before. You persist in your lying.
I understand you’re a jilted groupie, Ray. I understand you’re very bitter. Have fun with Connie.
Ray,
I allowed these comments and I will allow Brooks a response and then I would like to keep the comments on the subject of the post.
I’ve said what I needed to say. Thanks.
Sounds like old flames to me Corey…….
I’m not sure Connie will appreciate the change in image.
Well, she complained to me constantly on Facebook that the other picture was copyrighted and she demanded I change it…so I did…I guess you should be careful what you demand and wish for!
It is copyrighted but you are protected under the Fair Use aspect of Copyright law. It was all she could do to be argumentative in this case.
Mr. Meyer,
The picture you have substitued for the 180 degrees true south logo is not really approbriate and a bit mean-spirited, don’t you think? Or are you stating that Connie is a member of the KKK? This is what comes across, whether you meant it to or not.
Neil Hamilton
No I don’t believe Connie is KKK member nor do I believe she endorses the Klan, however she has provided a platform with her new FB site that allows for comments from some people who border on views of the Klan.
Corey, please identify the comments that border on views of the Klan.
I’d agree with that sentiment. You can look on this thread and see one of those characters and his disparaging remarks on members of Judaism.
Kirk D Lyons has poked his head up on 180 Degrees South.
What I see and who I interact with on Connie’s sites are individuals, some voicing opinions I do not agree with and some who are there simply to argue with one another. They should be considered one person at a time instead of being lumped together in the “extreme” catagory.
And what is the final worth of such a thread by you, Mr. Meyer? Feeding the flames of an internet catfight between yourself and Connie? If you have no desire to participate on the thread in question, why go to all the effort to condemn it? Bring notice to it? For the pure sake of argument?
But I notice there does seem to be a certain enjoyment for some to “raid” each others blog, to denounce one another or challenge those who disagree with our own views on the history of the American Civil War and its causes. But during such back and forth name-calling and back-handed insults, I see little in the way of discussion and debate concerning the history of the period itself and instead see the immense satisfaction of simply arguing with one another, which really gets our attention. Nothing satisfies like a good fight and getting in a zinger or retort seems to be the real reason for such posts.
But whatever satisfies and motivates to keep this and other blogs going, but it might be advisable to be more honest when stating the purpose of one’s blog. If one’s blog is to study the history and causes of the Civil War, or to preserve one’s heritage, history and culture, fine. If it is merely to confront others for the sake of arguing, why not rename it the Fight Club blog?
Neil Hamilton
Interesting observation. Doubtless there are some of these exchanges, which seem to me to be like solar flares. And those who are no engaged in such exchanges question their worth … until they find themselves in one.
My own view is that people should involve themselves in the discussions they want to be involved in. Posts that are about other blogs or bloggers (including yours) lead to more of the same, so it’s a slippery slope.
I’m not surprised about the content of Connie’s FB group, and I’m not surprised at the unevenness of the historical information displayed. Does someone really think that the American Revolution was caused by tariffs? Apparently. Does someone really think the garrison at Fort Sumter was being supplied by the citizens of Charleston? Apparently. It’s hard to wage a war to protect a proper appreciation of southern heritage in ignorance of history. Is that confronting for the sake of arguing?
But to point these missteps out would invite the very sort of retort you deplore. Yes, I see discussions there between people who want to learn. I also see all sorts of confrontations that promise to be endless. And so it goes. As for myself, I see no need to engage the exchanges there, although I’d doubt I’d disagree with most of Corey’s characterizations of individuals. It’s an inconsequential FB group. And, to be fair, it seems if you are going to admonish Corey, you should also admonish Connie, given that she falls victim to the same shortcomings that you single out in Corey’s blog entry.
Finally …. if you don’t like a blog or how a blogger goes about their business … don’t visit the blog.
Professor Simpson,
Thank you for your comments above and replying to my post.
I agree that one should attempt to present actual historical facts vice emotional tirades, but the involvement can be quite taxing a choice that must be made by anyone involving themselves in any blog.
There are confrontations (Indeed!) of the ‘solar flare’ variety that contribute absolutely nothing to learning or history. Some personalities seem doomed to an eternity of shot, counter-shot and nothing more. I fully understand why you would not wish to invest in such blogs.
Which is why I questioned why Mr. Meyer wishes to do such and why I agree totally with your own final sentence.
Sincerely,
Neil
Neil–
What I observe is that elsewhere, despite your best efforts to maintain a sense of restraint and decorum and a commendable desire to hold people accountable for what they post, you are seeing what happens when certain folks invade a discussion group, make unsupported accusations, engage in unseemly, rude, and offensive language, and turn the group into a place where casting aspersions and not engaging in discussion is the theme of the day.
This creates a problem for the manager of the discussion group/blog. How long do you let this go on? Does it not indeed attract attention over the short term? When should one cut it off? At what point does it become destructive and counterproductive? Moreover, in addressing controversy, challenging what is said elsewhere, or highlighting hypocrisy, does not the blog owner/discussion group manager invite such commentary? You can see many of these issues in the commentary to Corey’s initial post.
Moreover, other contributors/commenters soon have to make a decision as to whether they want to continue to participate in a group that’s degenerating due to the actions of a few.
Years ago I became part of a moderating team for a group that was formed in large part because people had become tired of the antics of a few people in an unmoderated group. Sure enough, the troublemakers came calling for admission. I advised that we give them a clean slate … until they abused the privilege, which in most cases came soon enough. I took the same approach with my blog, and when certain commenters went off the deep end, they learned that their comments no longer appeared. Some simply accepted ejection, while others test it upon occasion, making it a judgment call as to whether to post their comments. If I’ve erred, it’s on the side of giving people second, third, and fourth chances. In several cases, I’ve seen the same people engage in the same sort of behavior until someone made a decision to deprive that person of a forum for such behavior, whereupon they move elsewhere and resume.
Whether it’s writing a blog or moderating a discussion group, it’s a matter of learning by doing, and learning what you want to do. I’m aware of groups that embraces controversy for controversy’s sake to pump up participation and membership … and in most cases, those groups died off when certain people decided not to feed the monster any more. That’s when commenters can play a useful role in determining the atmosphere in which they post. For a new discussion group, it may seem wonderful at first to have people flailing away at each other. Before long, however, they’ll learn that that’s all their forum has become … an embarrassing reality show that will soon lose its amusement value.
Best, Brooks
* groups that embrace … sigh.