Billy Bearden: Southern Man?

BB FB SH

Billy, thanks for showing us what sort of southern man you are … especially on Valentine’s Day.

Can’t wait for the supporters of the Virginia Flaggers to speak out on this.

 

About these ads

72 thoughts on “Billy Bearden: Southern Man?

  1. Brooks, how much do you know about another fine example of a Southern gentleman, Brad Griffin/Hunter Wallace/Njection/FadeTheButcher/Prozium/Lord Scorpius?

      • It’s so weird how certain pages stop loading on your browser suddenly when certain people are mentioned. Just a coincidence I’m sure.

          • Spelunker,

            If you are interested in my racial, cultural, and political views, it would be much easier just to ask me about them.

            From 2001 to 2014, I have become vastly more educated. I have changed my views on any number of subjects as my understanding of various issues has become more sophisticated. I’ve always liked to weigh theories, discard them, and adopt new ones as my level of knowledge has changed.

            I think part of being an adult is accepting that other people are better than you at all kinds of things, and that it is often for biological reasons. Some women. for example, are born prettier than others. In general, younger women are more attractive and desirable than older women for biological reasons.

            I don’t believe in equality at any level. I think it is self-evident that all men are not created equal and that “rights-talk” (my term for human rights) is just a series of demands that has evolved across history. I don’t think it has any basis at all in the natural world.

            • I think part of being an adult is accepting that other people are better than you at all kinds of things, and that it is often for biological reasons. Some women. for example, are born prettier than others. In general, younger women are more attractive and desirable than older women for biological reasons.

              I’d suggest that you have an idea, not a theory. Theories are hardly interchangeable such as you’ve alluded to above. But regarding your idea; really? Are you arguing that part of becoming more educated is to suggest that perception is biological and not social conditioning? That a woman’s attractiveness is predicated on biology? What model do you use to gauge attractiveness? Is it the old 1-10 (1 Fugly, 10 Marilyn Monroe)? I have a college acquaintance that abides by the “Binary System.” (1 – he’d engaged in coitus, 0 – he wouldn’t).

  2. Just look at the complete lack of support for equality by those southern people. They really must hate the United States to oppose equality. Of course we’ve said they are bigots all along and they have proven us right. We said they were racists and they proved us right. We said they were pigs and they are proving us right every day. What a sick disgusting bunch of little minded people.

    • Southerners have seen your kind of “equality” before. There’s nothing particularly new about the doctrine of racial equality. It was already on display in the time of Robespierre and the Jacobins.

      • Nice try, except that was in France and had nothing to do with race. Unless of course you want to refer to your pet example of race issues with Haiti? The fact that a black person is your equal just pisses you off doesn’t it?

        • Yes, it was in contemporary France in the 1790s that the doctrine of racial equality was so ardently avowed by the Jacobins, and where slavery was abolished the first time around and all the blacks in the French Empire were (temporarily) made into citizens with equal rights.

          Naturally, it was taken to its logical conclusion in Saint-Domingue – my “pet example” – which became modern Haiti after 1804. The Founders of the United States, particularly Thomas Jefferson (who was in office in 1804), were around at the time and were moved by the ruinous course of “égalité” in France, Europe, and the West Indies.

          As I said above, there is nothing new about the Jacobin idea of racial equality or the fanatics who advocate it. It fell into disrepute after the fall of the Jacobins and especially after the world saw the results of their experiment in Haiti when the French were exterminated by Dessalines.

          Enthusiasm for “racial equality” has waxed and waned across history. It waned in France after the Jacobins. It waned in Britain after the result of abolition in the British Caribbean which was widely perceived as a failure. It waned in the United States twice after the Revolution and Reconstruction. Lately, it has waned in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

          It always wanes with time because the idea is sustained by enthusiasm and fanaticism – equality, as such, doesn’t exist. The doctrine can only be maintained by force and even then the desired result is never realized. It succumbs whenever force is relaxed and reality is allowed to reassert itself.

          • Racism is nothing more than a manifestation of the Us vs. Them theory which has been in use since mankind started thinking. Racism can be defeated and has in the past. The problem is that evil scum use racism to divide others in order to create a situation that gives them power and superiority over others. Force only has to be used to prevent that evil scum from using their force to enslave others. So basically if evil agents of Satan like Brad Griffin would stop using racism to construct a power structure with them at the top which involves using force to maintain that false superiority we could defeat racism.

            Brad has basically lied as usual here because he thinks reality involves a situation where racism is always present. This is not true. Human history has far too many situations where racism was not present. Where we do find racism we find people like Brad using it to make themselves powerful at the expense of others and using force to get their way. That’s the reality that Brad doesn’t want you to know.

            • Laughs.

              I don’t think that I have ever been called “an evil agent of Satan” before. I’m sure that sets a new record as perhaps the most hysterical outburst.from a liberal that I have ever encountered on the internet.

              As for human history, I can think of several examples where slavery has been abolished, the racists have been toppled, and the racist “power structure” has been wiped out and replaced by black power. The “white racist” has been pretty much dethroned across the world.

              In 2014. there are the two traditional aircraft carriers of black freedom, the republics of Haiti and Liberia. There’s the flagship of black freedom in the United States, Detroit, and its supporting destroyers like Birmingham, Camden, Memphis, Jackson, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New Orleans.

              Freedom now reigns in Zimbabwe, Democratic of Congo, Nigeria, South Africa, Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and lots of other places. Why don’t you bury all of us “racists” with tales of the fabulous results of liberty, equality, and democracy after their trial in these places?

              • Oh look, more references to Haiti. More stupidity from Brad because he just has to see equality as failure. More references to places where blacks are blamed for all the problems because whites ran like the cowards they are instead of dealing with the problems they created.
                Really? No one ever told you what an evil person you are? You may not have noticed because you were too busy ignoring what Jesus said while you were constructing racist propaganda. I’m not surprised. You only pick and chose what you want to believe. Fortunately you are a minority and a relic of the past.

                • I’ve spent a lot of time researching Haiti.

                  As the world’s first black republic, it is a very interesting place. It was founded in 1804 on the basis of liberté, égalité, and fraternité – for the blacks – a kind of United States in reverse, a “City on a Hill” for blacks all across the world who were eligible to become Haitian citizens.

                  The Haitians made a point to exterminate the French. Whites were banned from owning land there until the US occupation in 1918. The plantations were broken up and the land was redistributed to the former slaves. In Haiti, the land gradually became more fragmented and was distributed more equally than anywhere else in the Western hemisphere.

                  Slavery was abolished. White supremacy was overthrown. Colonialism was defeated. Elsewhere, these things endured in the Caribbean much longer in places like Guadeloupe and Martinique – Saint Domingue’s sister colonies – which were incorporated into France in the 1940s.

                  The Founding Fathers of Haiti such as Henri Christophe (who corresponded with abolitionists like Thomas Clarkson) were quite clear that their country was founded as an experiment that would discredit “race prejudice” and vindicate the capacity of blacks to govern themselves.

                  Fifty years later, the results of that experiment was already a subject of commentary in the American South:

                  “No country has been more favorably situated for receiving these blessing than the Queen of the Antilles. Her independence, achieved early in the present century, every enemy banished, or exterminated from her soil, placed in the very focus of civilization, midway between the two greatest nations of the earth, the cynosure of tens of thousands of friendly eyes, the object of Christendom’s prayers, the spot of all others on earth that could command the philanthropists of every nation, possessing a soil of unbounded fertility, a corps of laborers well instructed in the culture of those articles which ever return most renumerative prices, and a climate better adapted to the constitution of its inhabitants than any other under the sun – with all these advantages, it was to be expected that the empire of Hayti would soon assume an important rank in the family of nations, or at least occupy a respectable position as a land of industrious, moral, and thriving men.

                  And, indeed, such were the expectations of the friends of the negro race. Let them be but once free, remove the depressing shackles of slavery, unbind their arms, said they, and soon we will see a race fully equal to the whites; agriculture will progress, commerce be fostered, and the cause of education and religion be advanced; Euclids were to spring from the mountains, Aesops and Dumas’ were to write verses and romances in the valleys, and the golden shores of the Artibonite were to witness a pastoral peace and happiness, unequaled in the happy valley of Amhara, or in the famous Utopia of the Jesuits, on the banks of the Panara!”

                  210 years after winning its independence, Haiti is still “the spot of all others on earth” that commands “the philanthropists of every nation.” There are more NGOs in Haiti than anywhere else in the world. At least $15 billion dollars in foreign aid has been spent there since the 1970s.

                  Do you agree that Haiti’s history is a powerful vindication of the liberal faith in human rights, equality, and progress? I’ve read that rape recently became a crime there in 2005.

                  • Always the scholar Brad, aren’t we? I’ve read recently that some people, “don’t use “n****r” that often, not because I object to the term, but because “African American” is the new “n****r”, and because the term is most effective when used sparingly.” I read that as recently as 2013! Crazy, right? You know? Saying things like that will get a guy booted from the League of the South lickety split, but one’s clearly got to do much better than that to get thrown out of the Council of Conservative Citizens, I imagine.

                • “Oh look, more references to Haiti. More stupidity from Brad because he just has to see equality as failure. More references to places where blacks are blamed for all the problems because whites ran like the cowards they are instead of dealing with the problems they created.”

                  I can’t agree with this more. I called Brad out on his own blog recently for this very same reason. Why is it so important for him to prove the reasons for “failures” of certain countries?

                  • It works towards his agenda in order to argue that biological race is a factor in demise. To do this, he dismisses external factors (influence, economic, political, environmental) and sociological factors (the human condition) to focus primarily on race. He will usually cite a long list of resources on his blog (a great many are discredited as predicated on race not reason) in order to make these arguments. They go over great with like minded individuals but they are laughable to most everyone else. He then uses other author’s works as a medium between historical thought and racism. He hardly ever cites a reputable source that explains “blackness” as a factor of failure, but he will certainly manipulate a source so he can make such arguments himself.

          • Waned my ass. Racial equality is difficult; but pursuing it has overall been an enormous success. It’s the one thing above all others that makes the United States worthwhile. A commitment to multiculturalism is incredibly hard, and yet the commitment proves again and again that diversity is an immense strength. To reject equality is to totally lack imagination.

            So sorry, Brad, but your entire worldview is based on an irrational assumption. And as such, it has nothing real to sustain it–except of course Sir Spenser St. John. Oh, that’s right–Rob already exploded that!

  3. This loser is having rape and lesbian fantasies. He thinks real life is like the crummy porn he scats over all day in his basement.

  4. Obviously your pointing out what he said means you hate the south and all white southerners. [/sarcasm] Oh, and how about the comment above his? No black judge or elected official born in the North “will take the side of a Southern concern” whatever that is. These people wonder why people think they’re racists. They wonder why people say they’re all about hatred.

  5. Pingback: Marriage Equality–A Legacy of the Civil War? | Student of the American Civil War

  6. Pingback: Marriage Equality–A Legacy of the Civil War? | ▇ ▅ █ ▅ ▇ ▂ ▃ ▁ ▁ ▅ ▃ ▅ ▅ ▄ ▅ ▇

  7. As expected, Connie Chastain tried to deflect attention from Billy Bearden’s blatant bigotry by deploring the court decision. At the same time, the incident had led her to contemplate making yet a second “Confederate heritage” FB group that she manages go private. A member of the private groups speculates that she realizes that some of her members say embarrassing things (and they do) that reflect badly (if accurately) on her followers and pals, and so she thinks it’s best to go private. That would gratify me a great deal (she should consider doing the same with her blog, which has become a rant-fest), although I concede I’d miss the amusement afforded by reading her posts. But I understand that she realizes that the more publicity her brand of Confederate heritage gets, the more harm it does to Confederate heritage, even if her decision will reduce “Backsass!” to a sealed echo chamber. Make my day, I say. Keep your bigotry to yourself.

    • I thought David said she wanted critics to join her group. Or did I misapprehend what he said? If she wanted critics to join the group, then what’s the purpose of taking the group private? Confusion reigns over there, I suppose.

    • It’s funny, she makes numerous posts about you being a “Liar” and so on and so forth. More screeching into the void if you ask me, but this recent attack was something special.

      And did this sick stickler for “correct history” happen to mention that this FLIPPIN’ FEDERAL JUDGE claimed that the phrase, “all men are created equal” IS IN THE US CONSTITUTION? Why no, he didn’t call the judge on either her dangerous judicial activism OR her ludicrous and pathetic history error. Why ?

      In an effort to demean you, she misquotes the federal judge in order to engage in another pedantic, racist rant. The federal judge never said that “the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ is in the U.S. Constitution.” The judge said something along the lines that the “U.S. Constitution declares that “all men are created equal,” (my emphasis). Whether the judge used the word “declares” to mean literally, verbatim, etc. (which is wrong), or to imply that the Constitution does, in fact, declare that all men are created equal through its numerous amendments (the case referenced the 14th after all) is up for speculation. Regardless, it is like you said it is. Connie is dismissing the bigotry of her own flock, and her own mindset, in order to smear someone else.

      • Well, the judge has now inserted “Declaration of Independence,” correcting the error, just as Connie’s corrected her typo (it was originally “fippin'”). As for the remainder of the series of tirades, really, who cares? They are remarkably funny.

        I can see why she wants to take her FB group private. It really doesn’t help the reputation of the Flaggers when the inspiration for the group offers a particularly vivid example of bigotry while advocating rape. But then that’s hate, not heritage, right?

        • Regardless, Connie still misquoted the Judge. Thought what does context matter in the “heritage” crowd?

          She already has an echo chamber in which she entertains very few people that do not adhere to her mindset.

  8. I’m not adding anything of substance to the conversation, but I must say that her most recent posts are just slobbering rants. How someone can be so totally unhinged and have to dissect almost every word and offer counter points is the sign of someone with far too much time to waste. And if she thinks, as does ol’ Carl, that they are making positive progress, well, bless their little hearts. :)

      • I’m so happy!!!!!! CC has now dedicated a post to moi. :)

        My day has improved exponentially. Brooks, you should thank me for distracting her from you….at least for today.

          • Ha!! No, not yet. But her subjective approach is always such fun sport. “Prove me wrong,” she sez. :) Even if I did by telling her to read her own rants, because therein lies the proof she requests, she would disagree. “Bring it on,” sez the mighty CC. That’s her invite to argue round and round, without conclusion, which is what she revels in. This isn’t the first time she has put up the big challenge demand, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. But she isn’t looking for anything substantive, she just wants to argue, which somehow makes her feel like she is proving a point or accomplishing something. Bless her heart. :)

            • Bless her heart indeed.

              It’s sort of fun watching her go, every once in a while she will slip up and reveal her true nature.

              My favorite is when she attempted to explain “cultural superiority” of European culture over African culture. It quickly became a conversation of white vs black.

              You’re a white person who goes back in time to subSaharan Africa, you might find yourself being cooked and served as smorgasboard. You’re a white person who goes back in time to an Arab country, you might find yourself being eunuch-ized (if you’re a male) or concubine-ized, if you’re a female, even a very, very young female.

              (1) Egyptian society was not black culture. It was Egyptian. (2) Mesoamerican cultures practiced a particularly brutal form of human sacrifice. That may be superior to you. It isn’t to me.

              http://thehistoricstruggle.blogspot.com/search/label/Civil%20War%20%28Civil%20War%20Memory%29

              • She must still be watching Warner Brothers cartoons as part of her research. It does appear that a few marbles may be rolling around on the floor over there.

  9. Re: Spelunker

    1.) I’m sending you an email.

    2.) This isn’t the appropriate forum to get into an extensive debate about this issue, but I will note in passing that I was labeled an “evil agent of Satan” above. This is an example of the type of hysterical mindset that clouds analysis of the race issue.

    Re: Rob Baker

    1.) In 1889, Sir Spenser St. John wrote the following about Haiti: “I know what the black man is, and I have no hesitation in declaring that he is incapable of the art of government, and that to entrust him with framing and working the laws for our islands is to condemn them to inevitable ruin. What the negro may become after centuries of civilised education I cannot tell, but what I know is that he is not fit to govern now.”

    125 years later, Haiti is thoroughly ruined and infinitely worse off than it was when Spenser St. John wrote those words. There are now 704,000 people in Port-au-Prince compared to the 20,000 who were there in 1889. By 2050, there should be around 15.7 million Haitians. Needless to say, it will be interesting to see how all these new Haitians will feed themselves at the rate that arable land there is being “mined” and destroyed.

    • Sir Spenser St. John’s book is not a reputable source. It is considered biased an inaccurate. Placed into proper context (the age of imperialism), it provides nothing special about Haiti, but provokes old adages of barbarism in need of westernization.

      Is that really your go to source for Black inferiority?

  10. Connie’s awful upset that Brooks brought Billy’s comment to light. In engaging with her at her blog, I just submitted this comment:

    You charged “With no legal authority, a judge in Virginia thwarts the vote of the people and overturns the voters’ ban on homosexual marriage.”

    The judge had the legal authority, and the decision was grounded in the US Constitution.

    You said “Billy Bearden makes an extremely inappropriate sarcastic remark about the judge. Although people who know Billy know he didn’t mean it–that it was an expression of anger over illegal and very dangerous judicial action”

    You’re upset at the person who highlighted advocating violent rape of a woman, not the person who advocated the rape.

    You write “Brooks D. Simpson, who constantly trolls the Internet looking for anything he can use to besmirch heritage folks , whom he hates, puts a screenshot of the thread on his filthy blog. (I wonder if he even has a life outside cyberspace, or any interests beyond spreading hate for heritage folks.)”

    You’re mad he got caught. You know Brooks has a life outside cyberspace.

    You ask “Did he happen to acknowledge that this sort of judicial activism that legislates in violation of the law and the separation of powers, is a grave danger to the existence of the republic? No.”

    It’s not judicial activism. The case was brought before the judge and she decided it based on a clear reading of the Constitution. There was no violation of the law or separation of powers. Allowing people who love each other is not a threat to the future existence of the republic.

    You say “Presumably, they don’t care about the future existence of the United States.”

    We know you don’t. Allowing two people who love each other to get married is no threat to the future existence of the United States.

    You ask “And did this sick stickler for ‘correct history’ happen to mention that this FLIPPIN’ FEDERAL JUDGE claimed that the phrase, ‘all men are created equal’ IS IN THE US CONSTITUTION? Why no, he didn’t call the judge on either her dangerous judicial activism OR her ludicrous and pathetic history error.”

    When I saw the ruling the error had already been corrected. I suspect the same with Brooks. Why take someone to task over an error they corrected before you saw it? You want that, but you give a pass to someone who advocates the violent rape of a woman and, to my knowledge, has not apologized or retracted that statement.

    You say “Why? ‘Cause she be black.”

    Her race is important to you. I didn’t know she was black until after I read the ruling. I don’t know about anyone else. Her race doesn’t appear to be important to others.

    We’ve seen contrary to your claims, you do allow abusive language and insults, provided they are directed against people with whom you disagree. You accuse other people of engaging in fraudulent behavior, but you claim Brooks “admitted to being a troll” when in fact he didn’t, and you allow a known actual troll to post at your site on a regular basis.

    As to my blog’s diversity, I don’t limit who can follow it, nor is there a racial test for who can comment. I’ve posted about the USCT on the blog, especially the 22nd USCT, highlighting three veterans of the 22nd whose graves I had found. I’ve also linked to Alan Skerritt’s blog. Alan is an African-American online friend who blogs about African-Americans in the Civil War, among other things. Last year at a Civil War Institute conference I said publicly that the historical community had dropped the ball when it came to getting African-Americans more involved. I blogged about that here: http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/civil-war-institute-2013/

    What this revealed is your tendency to hurl hysterical charges with no basis in fact, accusing others of doing what you, yourself, do, attacking those who point out the outrageous behavior of people you agree with while you give those people a pass, and your willingness to allow insults to be hurled by other commenters in violation of your own rules.

    I wonder if she’ll allow it to be posted?

    • I’d like to add something here. This social shaming works, and works well. Has anyone been paying attention to what Matt Heimbach’s Traditionalist Youth Network has turned into? It has become the most boring, difficult to read thing I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Of course they are mad. They can’t compete in an argument with themselves. Pointing out their own words is the number one best weapon there is. To admit they were wrong is the worst thing that could ever be done to them. To these people, having to admit they were wrong is a fate worse than death. They are being forced, rather easily I might add, into toning down their rhetoric. They lose. The more pointing out that is done, the worse they lose. If you don’t believe me, read my blog post from last week when Heimbach used The Turner Diaries as an example for why they can’t win using the typical White Nationalist strategies, once you’ve read that, listen to the second hour of their new podcast and hear Heimbach backpedalling. It just works. Now the Southern Heritage folks and the White Nationalist folks are at times, one in the same. It is no wonder he made that comment, it’s what is in his heart. Connie Chastain is an apologist. There is no defending a comment like that. Brooks has done a wonderful thing in publicizing the comment because that is their number one fear, having to answer for their own actions and words. Words do have consequences. If they pretend that they don’t, they’re lying. If anything, the blogosphere could use more people pointing out their vile ideas. I encourage anyone with free time and a genuine interest to do the same thing. The mental gymnastics they must have to perform in trying to explain away their words has to be tiring.

    • Connie continues to do the heavy hitting for the Virginia Flaggers, and she represents them as they should be represented. They embrace her just as they embrace Matthew Heimbach, and for much the same reasons.

      That she seeks to provide cover for people who want people raped while at the same time asserting that men are falsely accused of rape tells us what she really thinks of southern womanhood … and women in general.

      • Now Brooks,

        You and I both know that the only rape that Connie deems worthy is the overly exaggerated rape of Southern women by “Yankee scum!”

  11. Not the first time that Bearden has penned a fantasy of violence. For instance, the Georgia-based co-founder of the Virginia Flaggers (regularly celebrated and thanked by Susan Frise Hathaway) recently commented about ongoing plans to flag the residence of the director of Museum of the Confederacy. Bearden announced that he’d “love to see photos of him on a meat slab.” (FB, Jan. 14)

    The more Hathaway/Bearden & Crew “advance the colors” the more they reveal their own true colors. They cry intolerance but rant and rail against–or threaten–anyone different. The intense identity politics has manifested in a creepy fetishizing of the battle flag.

    Isn’t it clear by now that they haven’t had any success at the Va. museum–and won’t? If nothing else, their nasty tactics have completely backfired. Meanwhile, their self-congratulatory postings about imaginary victories in Richmond increase exponentially in relation to the ever-rising tide of pure disgust toward them by everyone outside their miniscule bubble of delusion.

    If no progress on the Boulevard, why continue the strutting? I suppose the main rewards are: to gather and reinforce their special brand of hate and bigotry; to get a perverse charge out of harassing museum visitors and passing pedestrians; and–perhaps most compelling?–to look for their own preening faces among J. Smith’s weekly postings. In truth, when many of us see those faces, we shudder. And Bearden’s post about Judge Wright Allen reinforces the reasons why.

    • Thanks for the tip, word is, and video confirms Ron Doggett was in black and would be the man holding the flag. Does the name Al Mills ring a bell to anyone? Brad’s video features someone named Al Mills alongside Brad, Terry and Doggett.

    • The older gentleman with the white beard in the red shirt and the younger gentleman with a brown beard and green army looking cap also in a red shirt both made an appearance at the League/CoCC event, if anyone knows their names message me privately and anonymously.

    • The “rap battle” boys were at the Active RVA demonstration.

      Later that afternoon, we were eating lunch down the street when we heard that a biker had busted their little radio at the VA Flaggers event. Some of our people went over there to take a look.

      It was a great day in Richmond. Liberty Lamp had predicted that we would have about 5 to 10 people max. I had predicted that there would be 20 to 30, but it turned out there were 30 to 35 of us vs. about 12 anti-fa. The funniest part of the day though was Rap Battle = Fail.

      I now regret that I didn’t go over there. That would have been a hilarious YouTube video.

  12. Pingback: It’s Not a Bug, It’s a Feature | Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s