Brooks D. Simpson, Northern Liberal

… or so say the folks at Occidental Dissent, who have become quite fond of me in recent weeks and who see me as badly flawed.  Why?*

Well, let’s first see what they believe in …

Black people + Civilization + Freedom and Equality = Social Collapse (January 9, 2012)

There you go.

They also decry what they term the “Black Undertow” in a series of posts documenting crime … posts gathered from places like Stormfront, another white supremacist site [1/9/12].

And they like to draw from history, including this comment:

In hindsight, “Let Freedom Ring” was a terrible idea: as John C. Calhoun famously said, it is worse than a crime to extend “liberty” to an inferior race which lacks the capacity to maintain civilization. [1/6/12]

So, what’s wrong with me?

Thanks to Northern liberals like Brooks D. Simpson who demonized the South (we continue to stress these issues are connected), the American Dream has become MLK’s Dream. [1/9/12]

Funny, Connie Chastain also says I demonize (or, in her words, “evilize”) the South.  Interesting what else she has in common with these folks.  We’ll return to that later.

Here’s a toast to Brooks D. Simpson and his fellow morally superior Yankees in the blogosphere who keep showing us morally tainted “white supremacists” in Dixie how civilization works up there in the “Free States.” [1/8/12]

Whatever you say.

… civilization in North Carolina is under assault because Northern liberals like Brooks D. Simpson are still taken seriously. [1/7/12]

Well, I went to the University of Virginia, so maybe that’s understandable.  Then again, I have published with the University of North Carolina Press.  How subversive.

White people in the Pacific Northwest probably grow up believing the bullshit about race and segregation they are taught in public schools by Northern liberals like Brooks D. Simpson. [1/6/12]

Never underestimate my influence.

No, it is the Black Undertow in the “Free States” on New Year’s Eve, “letting freedom ring” with Brooks D. Simpson in the 149th year of “free society” in the State of Michigan. [1/6/12]

Michigan was always a free state.  It was not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation.  The job of an educator never ends.

Those “floodgates of hell” have been thrown open by Northern liberals like Brooks D. Simpson and “the blood of the raped and outraged daughters of Dixie” … are on their delicate little hands. [1/6/12]

This came in a post that celebrated Mississippi Senator Theodore Biblo’s opposition to federal anti-lynching legislation in 1938.  Apparently the rape of black women by whites under slavery and the murder of black men is okay to these folks.

In BRA, the deification of African-Americans and other “people of color” like Hispanic-Americans by Northern liberals like Brooks D. Simpson is a far more sought after public good than truth, justice, or public safety in the Chicago metropolitan area.

Whatever.  Some people need to believe what they want to believe.  Why they need to believe it is another question.

This is what civilization in Philadelphia has become thanks to White and Jewish liberals like Andy Hall, Kevin Levin, James Epperson, Rob Baker, Corey Meyer and Brooks D. Simpson: Northern Whites abandoning their city to the Black Undertow, their freedom taken away by federal and state civil rights legislation, while the black criminals move into the vacuum and run wild, and corrupt African-American politicians like Marian Tasco feast upon the economic remains of civilization. [12/31/11]

I couldn’t do it alone.

The Africanization of the Congo (or Haiti or Zimbabwe or Clayton County or Detroit) is what happens when liberals like Brooks D. Simpson and James Epperson get their way. Civilization inexorably plunges into decline. [12/30/11]

I thought the Congo was in Africa.  Silly me.  But I do like the notion that when people like me get their way, civilization “inexorably plunges into decline.”

Oh, and don’t say that the people at the gift that keeps on giving aren’t aware of the views of Hunter Wallace, who’s the author of the posts quoted above.  Why, he posted there for a time a few weeks ago; John C. Hall has openly declared he likes Mr. Wallace’s “style.”  So much for the SHPG’s “zero tolerance” of racists and racism.  Mr. Wallace also likes the League of the South nowadays … the organization headed by Dr. Michael Hill, that “very, *very* good acquaintance” of Ms. Chastain.  And our friends at the Southern Nationalist Network, the same folks who endorsed “flagging” the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, think Mr. Wallace is another voice worth listening to.  Interesting connections all.

Yup, I believe in equality before the law; I reject racism and white supremacy; I believe in the principles that make the United States what it should be; and I believe that the promise of America should be available to all, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, region, and economic status.  I don’t happen to think that any of that is exceptional.  Maybe I’m wrong.

Perhaps the best way to know me is to judge me by my enemies.

* Normally, I post links, but, except for a few cases, I see no reason to direct people to this site and expose them to the full extent of their racist rantings.  In several cases I’ve provided dates to document their comments.

86 thoughts on “Brooks D. Simpson, Northern Liberal

  1. Robert Baker January 10, 2012 / 6:40 am

    “This is what civilization in Philadelphia has become thanks to White and Jewish liberals like Andy Hall, Kevin Levin, James Epperson, Rob Baker, Corey Meyer and Brooks D. Simpson: Northern Whites abandoning their city to the Black Undertow, their freedom taken away by federal and state civil rights legislation, while the black criminals move into the vacuum and run wild, and corrupt African-American politicians like Marian Tasco feast upon the economic remains of civilization. [12/31/11]”

    Boy don’t I feel important. I’m actually a libertarian though from a small town with a total of two black people at my high school. Talk about your “Black Undertow.”

    • Andy Hall January 10, 2012 / 7:43 am

      Don’t feel bad, Rob. Having grown up on the coast, I thought until a few weeks ago that “Black Undertow” was something to watch out for when you went swimming on the beach at night.

      • Robert Baker January 11, 2012 / 9:25 am

        “I thought until a few weeks ago that “Black Undertow” was something to watch out for when you went swimming on the beach at night.”

        TOO FUNNY!

      • John Maddox January 12, 2012 / 3:30 am

        Having grown up on the coast (assuming that you live in Texas–your handle used to be Andy in Texas right?) have you visited Port Arthur lately? Thats where you can find the real meaning of ‘Black Undertow’. Drive down there Andy and take a walk through the beautiful downtown shopping district. Then stroll through the lovely neighborhoods just north of the sea wall. Do that Andy and get back with me then we’ll talk.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 10, 2012 / 8:02 am

      Hunter Wallace isn’t the only person concerned about Jewish people hanging out at the Slimy Hysterical Propaganda Group:

      “no thanks I will skip an article …especially when you see the author’s name….zimmerman…..” — John C. Hall, Jr. at the SHPG.

      • Dan Weinfeld January 11, 2012 / 11:19 am

        Pretty funny when the CWSS database shows that 217 men named Zimmeman fought for the Confederacy.

        • Jay January 12, 2012 / 5:48 pm

          Do you mean Zimmerman? That’s just a German name meaning ‘carpenter.’

          That said, there were Jewish confederates and some of them served the Confederacy with distinction. Beginning with Judah P. Benjamin.

      • Connie Chastain January 11, 2012 / 6:06 pm

        Re, Mr. Hall. Jews in the United States overwhelmingly self-identify as liberal Democrats. To assume an article written by an American Jew is liberally biased, and to wish to avoid it for that reason, is not anti-Semitic. It is anti-liberal. However, labeling somebody an “anti-liberalite” isn’t nearly as effective at generating the warm fuzzies of counterfeit moral superiority in yourself as labeling them an anti-Semite. Huh, perfesser?

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 11, 2012 / 8:34 pm

          Thanks for offering everyone some insight into how you think.

          • Christopher Shelley August 7, 2014 / 10:08 pm

            Oh. My. Jesus. She’s such a bigot, she doesn’t understand why Hall’s comments are bigoted. Or she does and she’s just flat-out stupid. But I don’t think it’s possible for somebody that stupid to use a computer, so I going with the former.

            ~But it’s so cute the way she misspells “professor.”~

        • Rob Baker January 11, 2012 / 8:49 pm

          A true example of character. Instead of calling out Wallace on an obvious case of racism and anti-semitism, you instead pursue your same tired argumentative platform. You have no shame.

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 11, 2012 / 8:53 pm

            In the past Ms. Chastain has claimed that such behavior as she’s engaged in here constitutes bigotry.

        • Margaret Blough January 13, 2012 / 11:47 am

          Ms. Chastain-Yet again, you’ve shown us your aversion to doing the most minimal research lest it conflict with your assumptions and stereotypical views. The Neo-Conservative movement which was enormously influential in both Bush (41) and Bush (43) administrations is heavily Jewish, especially in its founder and leadership. No group is monolithic in its views and to dismiss someone’s work unread because of such stereotypes is at best lazy and at worst blind prejudice.

      • John Maddox January 12, 2012 / 3:37 am


        Why is it that leftists always slander those with opposing points of view. I’ve never known Hunter Wallace to be insulting. By the way, isn’t name calling something that young children and adolescents engage in when they have lost an argument and have nothing else to say?

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 12, 2012 / 9:00 am

          Do you feel that way when you do it? Does Hunter Wallace? Or do you think racism and bigotry is a sign of mature adult behavior?

          • John Maddox January 12, 2012 / 10:01 am

            But then Brooks how do you define racism and bigotry? Does failing to fall into lock step behind concepts with which you don’t agree and can offer good historical evidence for your views constitute a sin against a historical construct being pressed forward by academics who tend to ignore certain facts while embellishing others that suit their arguments. By the way does the name Sanford Levinson ring a bell? I am reading a little book he published back in the 90s entitled ‘Written in Stone’ that fits in well with the recent arguments over the removal of certain monuments from public places. In the book he refers to ole’ Abe Lincoln as the ‘ central figure of the American civil religion’ which seems to me to suggest that he may not be in total agreement with Lincoln’s policies or the fact that he is the idol of the new order. He also makes a case for the Constitutional legality of Confederate secession, but alas concludes that because the aims and goals of the south was to preserve the peculiar institution of chattel slavery that secession was morally inconsistent with the goals of an egalitarian society. He fails to note that it can be shown, from a well documented historical perspective, that multiculturalism and egalitarianism was never a goal of the founders of this republic. A northern scholar and professor of history Marc Egnal of York University has presented a very good case for the economic basis of the war of 1861 to 1865 titled ‘Clash of Extremes’. Then I suppose he doesn’t get invited to many elitist socials because of his opposing views.

            Sane and scholarly debate is the best way to resolve controversial issues. My point is that name calling brings nothing new to the table of Constitutional or historical debate.

            I don’t have all those fancy credentials, but I do my homework and I know a wolf in sheep’s clothing when I see one.

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 12, 2012 / 10:21 am

            Still engaging in personal insult, I see. You mistake being snide with engaging in debate, all the while pretending to occupy the high ground. Have it your way.

  2. Andy Hall January 10, 2012 / 7:41 am

    Nice to know Hunter Wallace and his fans don’t like much me, either. The best day of my blogging life, I think, was when Mike Tuggle of the League of the South publicly denounced me (along with Corey Meyer and Ed Sebesta) as being like a serial killer from a pot-boiler novel. It confirmed to me that I was doing something right.

    • Corey Meyer January 10, 2012 / 5:20 pm

      Sherman once said…paraphrasing here…that Military fame was being killed outright on the battlefield and having your name spelt wrong in the newspaper.

      Well you know when the neo-confederate groups list you by name you have hit a nerve and are doing something right.

      • John Maddox January 13, 2012 / 9:51 am

        Well I don’t think that too many people north or south have many fond memories of General Sherman. That would be true of many of the soldiers that served under him. In the battles around Atlanta the Confederates were killing between six and eight yanks for every man they lost. I guess there are a lot of misspelled names on the monuments in national cemeteries in those parts. Certainly Sherman didn’t want his name misspelled for posterity as I’ll bet he stayed way out of the range of those shells and bullets during most of the fighting.

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 13, 2012 / 10:14 am

          “In the battles around Atlanta the Confederates were killing between six and eight yanks for every man they lost.’

          Let’s test this assertion.

          On July 22, during what’s often called “the” battle for Atlanta, John Bell Hood’s reported casualties were 8,499. That’s killed, wounded, and missing.

          Let’s multiply it by six … 50,994. Union forces engaged, according to this same source on the battle? 34,863. So, if we are to accept John’s math, the Union forces engaged were completely wiped out. Actual Union losses? 3,641. That’s killed, wounded, and missing.

          Even at Kennesaw Mountain, where casualties were lopsided, Union losses were triple those of the Confederates.

          I view the accuracy and reliability of Mr. Maddox’s statements about everything in light of this assessment.

          • John Foskett January 13, 2012 / 11:42 am

            It sure doesn’t work for Jonesboro, where, contrary to Maddox Math, if I recall correctly the Rebel losses were about double the Yanks’. Last i looked, Jonesboro would be considered “around Atlanta”. But then Hood was a pretty cautious tactician.

  3. Andy Hall January 10, 2012 / 8:15 am

    Those who are inclined to visit Wallace’s blog should take time to look over not just his posts, but the comments that follow them. Wallace is careful to temper his own language, but happily hosts the crudest, most vile sort of racist and anti-Semitic harangues by others.

    • Roger E Watson January 13, 2012 / 2:28 pm

      Looks like Mr. Maddox has taken the rest of the weekend off ! Or he might be hitting the books to prove his numbers 🙂

      • Roger E Watson January 13, 2012 / 2:28 pm

        Well, that ended up in the wrong place !!

  4. Keith Harris January 10, 2012 / 8:51 am

    It looks like I am in good company – Wallace and his crew (or should I say…Klan) came after me for wearing purple sunglasses. Apparently that, coupled with my wild antics, makes me a white self-hating southerner and a Yankee metrosexual…whatever that is. Go figure.

  5. James F. Epperson January 10, 2012 / 10:17 am

    Like Brooks and Andy, I take pride in who dislikes me! (I got mentioned *twice*—a good day!)

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 13, 2012 / 3:56 pm

      And you’ve been mentioned again more recently. But you’ll never be me. 🙂

  6. Charles Persinger January 10, 2012 / 10:20 am

    I wish all of these people (Connie C, Hunter Wallace, and John C. Hall, Jr. etc. etc.) would just go away! They are not concerned with getting a better understanding of the Civil War or history. They pick and choose what is “southern” and they are so close-minded I feel sorry for them.

  7. Charles Lovejoy January 10, 2012 / 11:04 am

    Brooks don’t let it get to ya, I’ve been called a “Marxist- comma-nist liberal” a ” Neo- Confederate” a “Heathen-Pagan” a “dang-ol Georgia democrat” a “Southern Liberal” an “Avant-Guardist” an “ostentatious Republican” a ” Corporate-a–h—-” ect ect A man of all seasons isn’t a bad thing , think about Antonio Vivaldi 🙂

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 13, 2012 / 3:54 pm

      Actually, I like being called a guy who believes in “equality before the law” and “civil rights” and who strongly opposes “racism and white supremacy.”

  8. stephen matlock January 10, 2012 / 11:43 am

    It’s sad to see this happen – I cannot imagine or empathize with this type of thinking. Perhaps it is fear and bad education. I think men & women can choose to be better than their backgrounds, but sometimes they choose to slide down into this kind of stuff.

    The good thing is that the younger generation (the one replacing us old codgers) is much more accepting & understanding, and really doesn’t even get why this is even a big deal.

    On the downside, they also don’t get what the ACW was all about; in their minds people just are people.

  9. Robbie Burns January 10, 2012 / 1:40 pm

    As I understand some of you, it is far worse to be a racist than it is to observe behavior and actual events? Is this correct?

    I also notice you have failed to address a single point made by Wallace. Is it your assertion, then, that, for example, the incidents in Philadelphia did not happen and that it is only a lie? Ditto the hundreds of other events, crimes, etc., reported by “white supremacist” websites.

    A few Weeks ago I watched an episode of “Gangland.” It was about a violent motorcycle club. A former leader of that club, who I understood to have committed several murders, including a police officer, felt the need to deny having racists” thoughts. He did not, apparently, mind being a murderer and violent criminal, but seemed to be genuinely bothered that someone had accused him of racism. Is this essentially the mindset that you people have? It seems to me to be so. And it seems to me that a significant percentage of people feel this way.

    This is odd, to say the least.

    Do you, then, consider this anti racism to be your religion and faith? It seems to be for many people. I am curious what the payoff is, so to speak. Christians believe they will be rewarded with immortality and a reunification with deceased loved ones in an afterlife. This is quite a reward to be held out to followers and the faithful. But they do, and always have had the, I shall use the word sense, to only promise these things after one dies and not here on earth. A good strategy, I think, for obvious reasons. They probably would not have the followers and faithful if they had originally promised the rewards would be delivered during life. ( again, for obvious reasons.) So I am simply curious what the “payoff” is with being a faithful anti racist, considering the shape places and people are in after applying it.

    Also, do you think you might have been one to wear a horsehair shirt or beat yourself with an instrument like a cat-o-nine-tails had you lived in the Middle Ages? Your motivation seems to be very similar in that you believe anti racism and the things that go along with it are the supreme importance and reason for being, regardless of the actual conditions your faith has brought about. Conditions like Detroit and what has been happening in places like the Mall of America during the last several decades.

    • icr January 12, 2012 / 7:21 am

      Even the cannibal Jefferey Dahmer felt compelled to deny that he was a racist::
      ” He also wanted to set the record straight that he was not a racist. He says that the reason for the majority of his victims being a minority was simple location. Where he lived there was high concentration of Black and Hispanic people. He stresses that is was a simple location thing, and that he hopes “I hope that can get cleared up.”

    • Khepera January 20, 2012 / 12:26 pm

      Your anti-anti-racist rhetoric ignores the simple fact that racism is a mental and social sickness that has the potential to utterly destroy our society. I see a lot of supremacist rhetoric on various sites that pushes the concept of race war and/or racial subjugation (of the “mud” races of course) as a remedy. These people indulge the notion that they and their kind would win such a conflict. They won’t.

  10. Buck Buchanan January 10, 2012 / 2:28 pm

    “….I have published with the University of North Carolina Press….”

    Should read “…I have published with the University of Hippie Immorality, Not True Southrons, Den of Iniquity….” Everyone knows Chapel Hill is the Berkley of Tobacco Road!

  11. Mark January 10, 2012 / 2:35 pm

    I just poked around a bit at Occidental Dissent, and it’s just standard anti-democratic conservatism. Conservatism NOT in the way of the modern American Conservative politics, as represented by Reagan and those of like mind. I am of the latter group, and I only recently discovered by participating on another blog that there are really folks out that are educated that believe this stuff. It is incredibly disheartening to think that these folks –who really should know better– agree with Al-Queda that Western culture was corrupt from the beginning by being formed on corrupt principles. I’m not clear if they are truly aware of this really though, since they tend to be ignorant of history, whatever their other accomplishments may be. Many attack the very concept of equality itself in any form of social application, and not specifically “liberal ideas of racial equality” so it may seem benign to the uninitiated. These types don’t see themselves as racists, and aren’t explicitly. But there are consequences to rejecting classic principles so they tend to muddled thinking and ambiguity on racial matters. My tack there with them is to point out the history of the idea that goes back into antiquity. It has a deep and storied history in Western culture. Equity cannot be divorced from justice. The ideas are liberal in the classic sense, not the modern political sense. These types equivocate on the term. They don’t distinguish between the two, and this is a huge problem. If they don’t know the difference they should go live in a nation that didn’t accept classical liberalism. They tend not to be just societies, and not places Americans would want to live. It’s a shame that we have people who think like this who have no good excuse for thinking so poorly. Anti-democratic conservatism is the very plague.

    anti-democratic conservatives

    • Margaret Blough January 13, 2012 / 11:26 am

      They’re very much in the tradition of John Calhoun and his followers who explicitly rejected the Declaration of Independence’s adoption of natural rights philosophy, especially the ‘all men are created equal’ and the existence of unalienable rights. They despised and openly attacked Thomas Jefferson as a traitor to his race and class for promoting what they considered heretical. Jefferson was, however, not the only one of the Founding Fathers to believe this. George Washington in his letter to the Truro Synagogue clearly supported it.

      • Mark January 13, 2012 / 4:06 pm

        I agree with this fully Margaret. Also, I think it is misguided for them to make strident claims about natural rights philosophy. I’d argue that a strong strain of the beliefs about equality in America came through the Reformation, and Protestantism generally. Locke and the philosophers were by no means the only sources for this belief. I suspect trying to pin it on natural rights philosophers exclusively was an attempt to pin the lineage on a group that often gets maligned (sometimes deservedly) to more easily denounce it, though this commits the genetic fallacy in any case. The better question is what are reasons not to believe all men are created equal in the sense the Founders believed, not in the sense that radical egalitarians believe (there is such a thing, but it goes far beyond what the Founders believed). That is a very difficult argument to make, and few wish to make it.

  12. Mark January 10, 2012 / 6:18 pm

    @Robbie Burns: I think it is a fair point that anti-racism in a time and place of racial enlightenment (to the extent that that is the case, and where it takes no courage and provides little benefit to others) can be elevated to some high virtue where it isn’t. I agree with you this is a real phenomenon and people who do this may well be hateful people in any case, and often apply the label “racist” to others who disagree over issues having nothing to do with race. I take your point on the false virtue and all that. But I don’t see Brooks doing any of that, and I don’t see how that phenomenon would justify believing the Declaration was wrong to believe it was good to build a society on the issue of the equality of all men if that’s where you’re going.

  13. Bill Newcomer January 10, 2012 / 8:45 pm

    Anti-racism is not and never has been a religion in and of itself. What it is for many is the outworking of a fundamental religous principle based on a beleif in a Creator who made all men and women of every shade of skin color in His own image, and who, in the Chrisitan traditon, clearly states that in the working of the history of redemption, all men and women of every shade of skin color who embrace that redemption share equally together in that redemption. Equality is based in both creation and in redemption, and not many “races’ but one race; the human race…

  14. Kristilyn Baldwin January 11, 2012 / 9:43 am

    “Never underestimate my influence.” Perfect response as usual.

  15. Arturo de Gheaube January 11, 2012 / 10:06 am

    Hunter Wallace is a fantastic writer and is spot-on when it comes to pinpointing the decline of Western Civilization.

    Brook Simpson is a spineless limp-wristed conformist espousing politically safe mainstream ideals.

    What’s funny to me though is how poor the quality of Simpson’s writing is, compared to Wallace’s.

    Hunter Wallace and we of OD persuasion are winning the debate, professor.



      • Rob Baker January 11, 2012 / 8:04 pm

        Brooks, what makes you so special to have that many adjectives assigned to you?

        (Liberal, Limp wristed, spineless, politically safe, politically correct, conformist, mainstream, poor writing, academia, elitist, yankee, northerner{in evil terms of course} southron hating jewish)

        Did I get them all?

      • Margaret Blough January 13, 2012 / 11:34 am

        I’m beginning to suspect that they’re sexist, too. When are they going to start attacking us feminazis too and not just you spineless, limp-wristed male conformists (does that mean that you totally lack a skeletal system if you have no spine and your wrists are limp?} My maternal grandparents came from Scotland which has voted Labour, an OPENLY Socialist (well, it used to be, anyhow)) political party, for generations. Doesn’t that count for anything??????????

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 13, 2012 / 3:53 pm

          I think what unites these people is a fundamental insecurity about who they are. No one who felt sure about themselves would feel the need to say these things.

  16. Robbie Burns January 11, 2012 / 1:04 pm

    @ Bill Newcomer:

    Your assertions above are problematic in that the verses in the Bible are less than conclusive concerning raves. What some verses state in one place are at odds with what is stated in other places. Both people like you and like those at OD can find certain verses that SEEM to justify and uphold a articular viewpoint. The truth is the Bible is not at all clear on many things. One has to compare what is stated in one place with what is stated in another place, and then compare that with what generally is trying to be stated throughout. One can find verses that can be used to support anything, everything and its opposite.

    Now, what I do know is that the Church, i.e., the institution, has changed many times depending on the era. It is a simple fact that what you stated above was NOT “preached” in many, if any churches fifty years ago. In fact many, if not nearly all churches, pretty much “preached” the polar opposite. What you are reciting is merely the modern “Social Gospel” and is simply a facet of modern America much more than it is an integral doctrine of Christianity. Many churches and preachers today are in fact over the top beyond even what John Brown was apparently a mind of regarding interracial dating and possibly even veneration of other races. This was NOT the case a even a few generations ago.

    In short, your version of Christianity is nothing more than the Pop Culture Christianity that is being dispensed in most churches today.

  17. Robbie Burns January 11, 2012 / 1:31 pm

    @ Mark:

    You stated that you have “poked around” some places. Beginning a few years ago, I, too, found and “poked” around some books and thought. At first, I , like most others, found some of the things startling. But I have also found many arguments persuasive and solid, and based upon actual observation of the world we live in and actual people and places, I find many of these arguments convincing and most likely far more accurate than my nostalgia for certain ideas that are generally considered the summit of human accomplishment and a high water mark.

    I am not at all so for sure, for example, that we have climbed and reached the top of Mt. Everest in our veneration and commitment to democracy. I seriously question the validity of egalitarianism. At almost forty years old now, when I look around and from what I know of people and their behavior, ethics, discipline and what they seem to be able to accomplish or what they cannot seem to control about themselves, I have no choice BUT to doubt much of “modern Ideas” and doctrines.

    Much of what we call Western Civilization was taken from the Ancient World. Now, it is a fact that democracy as practiced in the ancient world is NOT what came to be nearly worshiped and put into practice today. i.e., allowing anybody over a certain age to vote and counting their opinion as “just as good” as anyone’s, and “you ain’t no better than anyone else.” . It is a fact that we of Western Civilization liked the Literature of the Ancient World. It is probable that we let this infatuation with their stories lead us to believe some other things of theirs were just grand too.

    What has come from our total commitment to equality? And I mean the real and actual, and not just the “feel good” and smugness about some doctrines we hold in such high esteem and are so proud of bragging about. What has come of our devotion and total commitment to all of our wonderful modern ideas and doctrines? We see the mark of this commitment all over the land today, here in 2012.

    Perhaps it is time we reappraise our pearls of great price.

  18. Mark January 11, 2012 / 1:35 pm

    I agree on the religious foundation Bill, but if you’re implying that “embracing” anything by a person is required in any form to be equal in any way that would be wrong. If you are using “embrace” to mean anything in other that participation by being a member of the human race that is incorrect. It has traditionally been understood quite clearly that one doesn’t have to DO anything to be equal, just to BE something –human. It is universal. I’m perplexed by the way you seem to link redemption and equality. Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you mean by redemption, but there can be no qualification on a universal participation in humanity, which is the same universal participation in the image of God. That is the traditional understanding from the beginning and still, and I’m not aware of any credible disputes on this whatever. So maybe I’ve misunderstood you, but I just wanted to state this clearly. There has been no credible dispute whatever on this historically or now. And anything else simply doesn’t apply to what we’re discussing here. I’m not meaning to be dismissive in any way, but what you’ve said could lead the uninitiated to think something quite different that the settled and uncontroversial view taught throughout Christian history.

  19. Robbie Burns January 11, 2012 / 1:58 pm

    “The good thing is that the younger generation (the one replacing us old codgers) is much more accepting & understanding, and really doesn’t even get why this is even a big deal.

    On the downside, they also don’t get what the ACW was all about; in their minds people just are people.”

    You might be surprised. I know I was. I spent the last two years on a major university campus and made it a point to listen in on and hear what what going on with the younger people. Despite their funky clothes, the tattoos, the pins in their faces, the rolled cigarettes and general similarity to what one might have saw at Berkley back in the day, many of them are NOT at all the ultra “Progressive” adherents some believe them to be.

    Unlike “old codgers,” they have been literally up past their eyebrows in The Diversity and all else their entire lives. They know it first hand and up close and not just from their television sets, lectures or from a distance while vacationing in certain spots.

    No, I do not believe they are of a mind that “people are just people.” They know better. They are around ALL the different people. And many of them appear to have drawn some conclusions. I saw a lot of eye rolling and ridiculing of some of the “protected classes” of people, e.g., the homosexual cliques and the gender confused.

  20. Robbie Burns January 11, 2012 / 11:09 pm

    “This came in a post that celebrated Mississippi Senator Theodore Biblo’s opposition to federal anti-lynching legislation in 1938. Apparently the rape of black women by whites under slavery and the murder of black men is okay to these folks.”

    According to the department of Justice and the FBI, black males rape approximately 30,000 white women per year in the United States. The number was a record high 37,000 black on white rapes in 2005. The number of black women raped by white men is apparently so low that the same Department of Justice statistics records the number as zero in their reports. Moreover, the human genome projects include reports on the racial admixture of the population of the United States. The percentage of admixture does not support your assertion about large numbers of black women raped by white men in the past, either. Nor can I find any literature supported by statistics or eyewitness accounts that support your assertion. Can you supply this? It appears that your dated charge is no more than an unsupported, inaccurate talking point.

    As for your assertion of murder of black men, they were lynched for crimes. It is hard to accept the argument usually set forth that many or all of these black men were just innocent victims of racial hatred considering the crime and incarceration rate amongst black males today. Can you set forth a cogent argument why I or anyone should seriously doubt the guilt of these men who were lynched?

    Moreover, it is simply a fact that early Americans up to about the 1950s simply did not put up with violent crime, and they usually dealt with the criminals themselves. Lynching was NOT restricted to only blacks, nor were the lynchers restricted to only whites. The early black communities did not put up with violent crime either. As a historian of American history, you well know this. You know, for example, that the crime rate was very low and that there was relatively little law enforcement personnel in early America up until the 20th century. If you wish to contest this, produce references proving the contrary. A response of “whatever” or something along the line of “I’m sure you believe what you say” does not instill confidence in your ability to respond to critical scrutiny of your dire assertions. Such responses are expected of 14 year old high school girls on Facebook, but not of university professors.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 11, 2012 / 11:24 pm

      I’m sure everyone will find your perspective interesting. Of course, simply asserting something (as you do) and then asking someone to prove you wrong with references overlooks the fact that you’ve provided no references to back up your argument.

      Farewell. It’s been educational to see the dark side of American life.

  21. Robbie Burns January 11, 2012 / 11:23 pm

    My apologies, I forgot to ask Dr. Simpson, are you OK with the large number of black on white rapes that happen every year since Civil Rights by black males that I commented on and brought up above? If so, why? And is there some moral imperative why we should be more disturbed by your assertion which I brought under scrutiny and contested than the present day reality of interracial rape by black males? In other words, due to your ideology, do you feel the rape of tens of thousands of white women each year by black males is justified and not to be discussed?

    I am much interested in your answer and line of reasoning on this point.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 17, 2012 / 9:02 pm

      Rape’s wrong, period. You only seem interested in interracial rape. I don’t see you denouncing rape, period.

  22. Jay January 12, 2012 / 5:53 pm

    Dear Prof. Simpson,

    I read Hunter Wallace out of curiosity, and for reading suggestions. I took his suggestion to read AMERICAN NATIONS and benefited.

    I don’t like his anti-Semitism, but people like you just don’t understand what it’s like to live among real live African-Americans. No matter what kind of factual evidence people cite (such as FBI or DoJ statistics) on black crime, you’ll ignore it.

    It’s people like you who give the Hunter Wallaces their appeal. White working class people don’t have the freedom to choose their neighbors, as you do. You live in a state that has an African-American population of 2%.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 12, 2012 / 8:57 pm

      I’m sure you believe you have a point to make. I just don’t know what it is.

      • Jay January 13, 2012 / 6:51 pm

        OK, I’ll be more explicit. My point is that you are a liar about the nature of African-Americans. They are on the whole less intelligent than whites, incapable of holding cognitively demanding jobs, crime prone, and turn their neighborhoods into slums.

        Can I be any clearer?

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 13, 2012 / 7:07 pm

          That’s quite clear. It speaks for itself.

          Would you extend your observations about African Americans to other non-white groups as well? I ask because, as you know, Arizona’s a racially diverse state, which was not the impression you left in your post (just as someone failed to examine the racial composition of my prep school, which was far more diverse than the surrounding population in New Hampshire). Indeed, whatever your impression about Arizona as a whole, the block I live on is really quite diverse in terms of race and national origin, and folks get along just fine.

          My experience with African Americans, some of whom I count as good friends, does not confirm your impressions. Moreover, it is clear to me that issues of class, economic and educational opportunity, and racism work against African American advancement. People who are white often are not aware of what that means in this regard because they think they represent the norm.

  23. Jack January 12, 2012 / 10:14 pm

    This Jew knows he is wrong but like other liberals his ego is completely invested due to his ethnic and emotional interests. He can’t admit that Jewish interests are diametrically opposed to the US which derived from european gentile society because his interests are opposed to ours. It’s pointless to argue with an enemy who can only use subterfuge. A tiny minority of Yankees and their pet Hebrews has dominated north America since the civil war with with own brand of nationalism. Yankees don’t really care about “equality” they only care about greed and power. Fortunately for the rest of us Americans the United States won’t be in existence for much longer and we won’t be forced to carry the burden of Yankee citizenship.

  24. Jack January 12, 2012 / 10:16 pm

    Don’t forget that the powerful Yankees intermarried with Jews. You can’t blame him for protecting his ethnic interests.

    • martin January 13, 2012 / 7:34 am

      As far as I know, neither Robbie Cano nor Alex Rodriguez has ever been married to a Jew.

  25. Brooks D. Simpson January 13, 2012 / 3:49 pm

    OD now identifies me as “the integrationist Brooks D. Simpson who believes in ‘equality before the law’ and ‘civil rights’ and who strongly opposes ‘racism and white supremacy.'”

    As if these were bad things.

    • Wisconsin Conservative January 14, 2012 / 1:48 pm

      Well it’s just funny that there are still people wrapping themselves up in the mantle of civil rights and opposition to white supremacy (as if that’s some epidemic these days). As a white person person born in the 80s, and taught in public school, let me tell you, we were well educated on all those things from day one. You’re beating a dead horse. Racism is bad, civil rights are good. We get it. We don’t need to hear any more about “racism” We’ve had it.

      • Brooks D. Simpson January 14, 2012 / 2:01 pm

        I don’t know who “we” are. So I assume you speak for yourself. Perhaps you should reread the post. Not everyone things racism is bad or civil rights is good. And as for “we’ve had it,” what do you mean?

        But it’s good that you get that racism is bad and civil rights are good. You do seem a little touchy when someone else points that out.

        • Wisconsin Conservative January 18, 2012 / 9:04 am

          Beating a dead horse.

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 18, 2012 / 12:12 pm

            As I said, you sound a bit touchy on this subject … which might explain why you use a screen name. Thank you for sharing your insight that combating racism is beating a dead horse.

          • Khepera January 20, 2012 / 12:34 pm

            If there’s one thing that racists hate more than [insert pet-whipping-race-here]s it’s being called on their racism or reminded that the rest of us are still watching.

      • Rob Baker January 14, 2012 / 2:03 pm

        If you’ve “had it”, then perhaps you might want to help do something about it. There is an extreme amount of racism at the OD from both its writers and commentators.

        • stephen matlock January 14, 2012 / 3:04 pm

          Probably not much you can do at the original site OD. It’s a closed circle of ignorance. Some people like the attention they get paid for their views, even if they are unworkable in real life and fly in the face of reason, compassion, and justice.

          You could perhaps just speak out in your own life and within your own circles. Sometimes the comfortable need to be reminded that not everyone is comfortable.

        • Wisconsin Conservative January 18, 2012 / 9:05 am

          No, I’ve had it with the racism police.

          • Khepera January 20, 2012 / 12:53 pm

            You denigrate people who call out racism and racists as “racism police.” Cute. Frankly I’ve had it with racists and ostriches who deny that racism is rampant in our culture or who disingenuously claim that racism is dead since “we have a black president,” or who trot out tired anecdotes and non-contextual statistics to bolster their racist viewpoints.

            How fortunate for you that you can move past being concerned with racism. How unfortunate for so many people of color in this country that are not allowed to.

            *****As a white person person born in the 80s, and taught in public school, let me tell you, we were well educated on all those things from day one. You’re beating a dead horse. *****

            Well, lemme tell ya. . .as a black person born in the early 50s, and taught in public schools, I’ve been quite well educated myself on “all those things.” Not just in school but in life experiences of which you, by virtue of your perceived race, have no concept. Re that horse. . .that sucker ain’t dead yet, but I’m gonna keep beatin’ on him till he is.

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 20, 2012 / 1:39 pm

            My take on this is that white folks don’t understand “whiteness,” so to speak. They see white as “normal.” Of course, I do have white friends who think they understand what it means to be black, but that’s a joke, and I see that claim as one of posturing. My first coming to terms with all this as a kid was when I found myself in a situation where I was the minority and the majority was in a far better position to exercise its will. Sometimes white people get bitter at that point; sometimes they learn a little empathy.

            When I went to prep school I encountered a good number of African American kids (the student population at Exeter is far more diverse than that of New Hampshire as a whole). Some of the black kids were well off and educated; others had come to Exeter through a program called “A Better Chance,” which was well-intentioned but not always successful. ABC still exists, and I’d be curious how it has evolved over time and what its participants made of it. Anyone who attends such a place knows that class is much more important than one might have thought in shaping opportunities and outcomes, and and one begins to come to terms with race in a different way in such an environment. For example, what does it say that I spent many a Saturday night playing hockey and eating pizza with the sons of the first black man named to the Supreme Court?

            All I can say is that my experiences have shaped my attitudes and made me reflect on what they are and why I hold them.

  26. Mark January 13, 2012 / 4:32 pm

    @Robbie Burns: You say our culture has a “total commitment to equality?” That is highly ambiguous. There is a total equality to a limited idea of equality, not a total commitment to any equality. And you are entirely mistaken in linking equality to democracy. It is most closely linked conceptually with, indeed cannot be separated from, justice. The extent to which a given society is just or not is always open to debate, but pinning the problem in the principle of equity is exceedingly misguided. The principle of equality can easily be misapplied so that you have an unjust result. But nothing can be judged by its abuse. The solution to wrong ideas about what equality should mean –or what anything should mean– should be countered by arguments about its proper understanding and use. Otherwise, we’d have no principles at all! Denying that something that has been misunderstood and misapplied as of late should be properly understood and applied properly but instead be rejected –as the anti-democrats do– simply results in nihilism. The concept of justice itself is undermined for one. Good luck constructing a just society after you’ve undermined the concepts it rests on. If you want to learn what equity has to do with justice, I’d direct you to the book “The Concept of Equity in Calvin’s Ethics,” by Guenther Haas. It runs very deep in Western culture, and is has nothing to do per se with democracy. You’ve accepted the stock arguments of the anti-democrats, who tend strongly towards nihilism. You simply can’t argue that democracy in any form invalidates the principle of equity. Equity undergirds justice, and without it justice is meaningless. You don’t seem to understand that equality historically never meant anything like numerical equality. Not to the Founders, and not to anyone else. That is a misunderstanding that you can and should argue against, as I do. But you have instead thrown the baby out with the bath.

  27. Mark January 13, 2012 / 6:20 pm

    @Robbie Burns: Since you’re in agreement with Al-Queda that Western culture is built on false principles, how far does your agreement with them go? What else do you agree with them on, and do you see this agreement as a problem?

    But look, you mentioned young people “eye rolling and ridiculing . . . protected classes” that want abnormal behavior approved as of equal value. Well they should. This would be because they are skeptical that getting societies approval rather than its toleration is necessary or good. But this does not imply rejection of equality before the law properly understood, and don’t be surprised if they defend it. Why would you take their skepticism on this to mean they’d approve of a nihilistic rejection of the principle of equality as you have? What reason have you to suppose their agreement with you?

  28. Roger E Watson January 14, 2012 / 5:38 am

    @ Robbie Burns
    “As for your assertion of murder of black men, they were lynched for crimes. It is hard to accept the argument usually set forth that many or all of these black men were just innocent victims of racial hatred considering the crime and incarceration rate amongst black males today. Can you set forth a cogent argument why I or anyone should seriously doubt the guilt of these men who were lynched?”

    You seem to be able to quote Department of Justice figures but have no idea what justice is ! Lynching is murder. Not too hard to understand that for a normal person. And for setting “forth a cogent argument why I or anyone should serviously doubt the quilt of these men who were lynched?” How about the fact that they were never found guilty according to law. However, with your attitude, I can see where that wouldn’t make a difference. The color of their skin is enough to convince you of guilt.

    • stephen matlock January 14, 2012 / 9:24 am

      “How about the fact that they were never found guilty according to law?”

      We don’t live in anarchy. We live in a law-based society. Those who were lynched (“lynch” defined as “killing someone outside the bounds of the law”) were killed by people who were acting on their own, and not legally. The criminals in the lynching are those who strung up or killed those men and women.

      One of the things I learned living in the U.S. of A. is that under the law we are innocent until proven guilty. Not neutral, not a criminal, but innocent. So a lot of people are just fine with killing the innocent.

      Taking a man out and stringing him up is an illegal act (not to mention immoral, but we’ll leave that nicety for another day). Those who commit the act are guilty of murder, plain and simple. And those who cheer those people on are no better.

      Why it works to excuse a murder because the victim’s skin was black is beyond me.

  29. ozark rebel January 15, 2012 / 6:43 am

    I love the comments here. It shows me the true White man is waking up. Many, hopefully soon, a majority will wake up and stop listening to the illiberals and progress back to our traditional place in the world. People like Simpson here will have to pay for their crimes first.

  30. Futura January 16, 2012 / 2:46 pm

    I think Mr. Simpson’s belief in civil rights is admirable, as is his belief in equality before the law.
    Maybe, thinking about the world as he does, he needs a philosophical “out” to be honest with himself?

    So I posit to him that just as the law maintains that there are individuals unfit to stand trial because of mental or psychological deficiency (and this is based of patterns of past and present behavior), so should it be apparent that there are whole groups also unfit for the rigors of equality.

    So perhaps the black race could be said to be “guilty by reason of general imbecility/moral insanity”?

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 16, 2012 / 6:27 pm

      I would flatly reject that proposition, which I deem repugnant.

      Maybe the truth about white supremacy is that its supporters fear that only by maintaining inequality by force can they avoid a fair competition where they are afraid they might lose. I strongly suspect white supremacy is grounded in insecurity.

  31. What a bunch of evil nasty men, Simpson, Hall, Baker, Meyer, Young, Levin, Dick, and a large following of faggots, perverts and men who lie and say whatever vile garbage that Satan inspires them to say. Simpson has no guts, he tries to find as many off the path words, and while he has been educated in those things of primary use by Liberals, he has never done a days work in his life. This Yankee trouble maker does achieve one thing, and that is he proves that most American citizens are as dumb and uninformed as rocks. They absorb his bullshit as the truth when it is distortion and an attempt to make the Northern Yankee leadership look like something other than the war criminals and murderers and rapist and thugs that they were.

    So too all the dummies out there, wake up, Lincoln is guilty of 500,000 American deaths, and many hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to our nation. Lincoln has caused the most American deaths than any U.S. PRESIDENT, TODAY, Obama is credited with spending the most taxpayer money and spending this nation into debt while advancing his own wealth and helping destroy America. Simpson, and his evil friends, supporters of Lincoln and Obama.

    • Brooks D. Simpson June 27, 2014 / 6:03 pm

      And Peter Carmichael thinks I don’t know how to take a compliment …

      Big shout out to Miroslav Satan.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s