Well, folks, I had no real interest in giving Connie Chastain any more attention on this blog, as some of you know. Had it not been for southern nationalist Pat Hines’s threat of violence against children, I would have continued to honor that request. But even in this case, Chastain does her best to try to change the issue.
Let’s see what she says on her FB group, shall we?
Yes, there was dead silence from other southern nationalists. You can interpret that as you wish. I saw no signs of support, and no signs of outrage … simply a comment from Hunter Wallace that this was “not wise.”
As some readers here know, not everyone subscribes to Facebook. As some other readers know, it isn’t as if some Facebook postings have not magically disappeared once highlighted. So set aside Chastain’s efforts to change the subject by attacking me, which seems to absorb a great deal of her time and energy. Just understand that she’s not talking about removing Hines from her group. Not at all. Apparently threats of violence against children don’t move her quite as much as she’s asserted.
Another Chastain diversion. Note she doesn’t say whether she’s reported Hines or not. Note that she won’t say it, either. But he’s still a member of her group.
Leave it to Connie Chastain to turn this matter into an attack upon the FBI as well as the readers of this blog.
Then came the additional response … from Pat Hines.
We know what Connie Chastain cares about … attention.
Be careful what you wish for.
UPDATE:
Connie mocks my readers, but then suggests that one of them isn’t so dumb after all …
Now, if Connie really believed that (instead of inventing it), wouldn’t she be wise to say nothing as to keep Hines in the dark about her motives? Next she’ll tell you that she really has contacted authorities and is simply trying to fool Hines about that.
All I note is that she doesn’t call Pat Hines an enemy … so she really isn’t quite so moved about this issue, because otherwise she’d be an enemy of violence against children. This should play well when people inquire about Connie Chastain, author.
That said, let’s keep our eyes on the ball. This isn’t about Connie Chastain … it’s about the threat posed by Pat Hines. Yes, I note the failure of prominent southern nationalists to denounce such threats, and Connie’s still trying to turn this into some sort of flame war with her as the center of attention, but the main concern remains threats of violence against schoolchildren followed by Facebook’s failure to act against such threats.
Crossroads 
Someone should force these folks to read books like this before spouting off: http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Rights-Political-Confederate-Constitutionalism/dp/0813918944
I think this matter is a bit more serious than that. What we have here is someone making threats against children. Chastain would like to divert our attention from the fact that she wants Pat Hines as a member of her FB group, and she says nothing about taking action against him while attacking people who do (suggesting that perhaps she might not be all that worried about threats of violence against children after all). Facebook’s handling of this is a bit more interesting, and that opens the door to a much broader discussion of what’s happened … and not just here.
Our history? I am from the south and they don’t represent my history. What they all need is psychiatric that probably requires antidepressants and/or antipsychotic medications. How many are there out there like this?
Brooks, I only have a masters degree from a Big Ten university, so if you would not mind adding crayon-colored pictures to your posts next time so I could comprehend, that would be great. From her posts, I guess I am not smart enough to understand….
I am truly frightened by this segement of our society. There is so much I could say but hesitate.
Well, I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I guess she doesn’t want it. Oh, well. However, she’s at least still denouncing Hines, even if she still has him in her group. Yes, her outrage has limits, but I still give her a pat (no pun intended) on the back for at least denouncing his statement.
In other words, she’s still very, very, very confused.
Very much so. She can’t make up her mind as to whether to take Hines seriously. She tells him he’s full of hot air, then claims that what she’s trying to do is to defuse him and monitor him instead of reporting him (she can’t make her mind up on that issue) … and she retains him on the group. She’s playing games instead of making sure children are safe. She had better hope that Hines is filled with hot air: I would not take that risk with lives possibly at stake.
I believe Connie Chastain has every right to come to her own defense in this matter. She has made it clear that she rejects Hines’ extremist posturing, which is something. Remember, she wasn’t put into this world to make us all feel good about ourselves. What I am interested in is what the Southern National Congress (http://southernnationalcongress.org/) of which Hines is a member, intends to do about it.
On another note, I went back to the Backsass FB page and found nothing of the offending post. Maybe our efforts paid off.
Who is contesting Connie Chastain’s “right” in this matter? It is how she defends herself that is open to comment and criticism. And you are incorrect … the thread (and the threat) is still there.
Pat’s still a treasured member of the League of the South FB page. He’s actively posting there. Guess League of the South has no problem with him or his threats.
Those of you with Twitter accounts can see whether @MichaelHill51 endorses Hines’s sentiments. Note that “Palmetto Patriot” hasn’t commented on this here, although he’s not shy on other topics. Ask him about his relationship with Hines.
And I agree with you about the manner in which she defends herself. I was emphasizing her rejection of Hines’ posturing. But it is true that I did not see the thread when I went to CC’s page on several occasions. Somehow or other I’ve been blocked from this.
I have sent Palmetto Patriot an email about his relationship with Hines and asked him for his opinion on Hines threat. This should be interesting.
I have submitted the following to the League of the South FB page:
Recently Pat Hines commented on Connie Chastain’s FB page that he was ready and willing to slaughter hundreds of American schoolchildren in an act of terror similar to that which occurred in Beslan in 2004 in order to secure Southern independence. Is this something which the League of the South advocates as a remedy to North/South tensions?
From afar I question whether disassociation from Pat Hines is the best course of action. I think it’s probably healthy that Ms. Chastain is able to chastise Pat Hines “swagger” on Facebook.
Whatever prevents the pathology from coming to fruition.
Connie thinks you are wise, Lyle … she’s now claiming that this has been her strategy all along. Of course, if it was, she wouldn’t be proclaiming it on Facebook, lest Pat Hines wise up.
Her new position also contradicts her initial claim that Hines was full of hot air. Chastain can justify this strategy only if she takes Hines’s threat seriously, which would raise the question of why she would mock people who report his statements. She’d be irresponsible not to report him. She is irresponsible to reveal her approach, because now she has nullified its impact.
So much for her being clever. If you want to place the safety of children in such fumbling fingers, be my guest.
I’m glad you and others have reported him. You’re point about recent shooting events is apt and I think you’re response to his posting is commendable.
I just think Ms. Chastain may can help in her on way, whether intended or not. And it’s just one more place to find him online.
My sense is that whether various entities were or were not keeping an eye on Mr. Hines before, they are now. Connie Chastain just gets in the way in her quest to get attention.
It may not be that “disassociation” is the right term. I think “censure” is the goal here. Every institution presents a radical form which is not consistent with the nature or the intent of the institution’s fundamental principles. For example, the goal of the SNC is to fundamentally alter the manner in which the power of a centralized government exerts itself over the individual states (an oversimplification, but will do for these purposes) but it does not advocate the murder of hundreds of children as one of it’s fundamental principles. This is the view of a radical element of the SNC embodied by one of it’s members. I do not hold that the SNC should be held liable for the views of a member or group, but rather ask that the governing body of the SNC censure the radical element, vis Mr. Hines.
What may prevent the crime from being perpetrated is demonstrated here. Public action which began with Dr. Simpson’s initial publication of Hines’ views followed by a collaborative effort on the part of the good citizen’s who have taken measures both to confront Hines’ and to inform the legal agencies best equipped to deal with him.
I believe the act of censure sends the right message. One may not agree with the basic tenet’s of an organization but one is willing to maintain a civil discourse on a subject. When the line is crossed, however, it is comforting to know that people are willing to step up to the plate. In the words of P.G. Wodehouse, while others smite the brow and clutch the hair (Simpson) acts!