Guess Who’s Been Invited to the Flaggers’ Picnic? Matthew Heimbach!

While Susan Hathaway broke her silence this week in a fumbling and dishonest effort to portray herself as the innocent victim of a cruel act, she remained silent when it came to explaining why she has disappeared from the front lines of flagging at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and when it came to disavowing white supremacist Matthew Heimbach as a Flagger. She’s attempted to leave that effort to Flagger spokesperson Connie Chastain, who’s been ranting for weeks now that the Flaggers have nothing to do with Heimbach … oh, they had a little to do with Heimbach … oh, he was at “two or three” of their functions … but the person who occasionally claims that she’s not a Flagger herself is sure that’s all it’s been, and that it’s all in the past.

Blogger Al Mackey has noticed Hathaway’s silence when it comes to Heimbach.

My own interpretation is that anyone who admires white supremacist terrorist Nathan Bedford Forrest as much as Susan does would not find Matthew Heimbach all that objectionable. She might not only march with him and commemorate his accomplishments, but she might also go so far as to invite him to a picnic.

Heimbach picnic

And there you have it … evidence that the relationship continues. The Flaggers would like Matthew Heimbach to come join them in celebrating the erection of that flag on i-95 as part of the Flaggers’ second annual picnic later this month.

And why not? After all, Matthew Heimbach’s a Virginia Flagger in good standing.


19 thoughts on “Guess Who’s Been Invited to the Flaggers’ Picnic? Matthew Heimbach!

  1. Rob Baker September 13, 2013 / 6:29 am

    Brooks, here is the criticism this post will receive.

    Facebook invites can be sent in mass. With close to 600 invites, it is likely the creator of said event hit the “select all” button without combing through and inviting individuals. I should know from the number of Richmond, VA music festival invites I get. The argument will be that Matthew invited himself to one of the open groups used to get invites, and no one actually invited him individually.

    • Brooks D. Simpson September 13, 2013 / 8:37 am

      Here’s the question: why’s he still in the group? You would think that if they didn’t want to associate with him, they’d block him. But they haven’t. Actions speak louder than words.

      I know the Flaggers are full of excuses, as Connie Chastain’s recent dancing around reminds us. They’ll say and do anything to distract people from what’s really going on and who they really are. But when the group’s leader hails Nathan Bedford Forrest as her model of behavior, we know who they really are.

      • Rob Baker September 13, 2013 / 9:10 am

        Valid point.

        The tap dance of Connie Chastain indeed. She is resorting to picking out different commentators and attempting to shame them from moral perspectives. Though it would appear the only morality to her, is a morality based on her biblical interpretation. Her comments in the past prove that to be a rather scary concept.

        • Brooks D. Simpson September 13, 2013 / 9:24 am

          Connie Chastain’s hypocrisy is a matter of record. No sensible person is fooled by Hathaway, either. Her little pronouncement came after efforts to shut down the blog and get me in trouble by her supporters were thwarted (free speech, remember?). It contained lies, as usual. Connie Chastain? Two previous efforts to contact my employer came at her behest.

          The Flaggers don’t disavow Matthew Heimbach because they agree with what he believes and think he’s a nice guy. They invite him to their functions, including social ones. They can no longer claim they didn’t know, and it’s now clear that they have known for years. Then again, if the group’s leader admires Nathan Bedford Forrest, why should they mind Matthew Heimbach?

          It’s time for the rest of us to recognize who the Flaggers really are. Just as Forrest lied before Congress, they lie about themselves to the American people. Why should anyone be fooled?

          • Rob Baker September 13, 2013 / 9:38 am

            Then again, if the group’s leader admires Nathan Bedford Forrest,

            I asked the same thing the other night. I didn’t get a response from anyone, not surprisingly.

          • Brooks D. Simpson September 13, 2013 / 9:44 am

            I’m surprised that Connie Chastain didn’t give her usual apology for Forrest, although that’s not as frequent as her attacks on Julia Ward Howe. Note we’ve never seen Connie comment on the racial composition of her neighborhood or count the number of non-white friends she has (she’s made bizarre claims about other people, sometimes without much in the way of evidence: she went after Tim Wise’s place of residence, so identifying homes is not problem for her). I believe she calls that lying by omission.

          • Rob Baker September 13, 2013 / 10:23 am

            She has one of her sheeple doing that now. Austin/Caldwell/Reed/Jennifer Cotton/ Ryan/Clarissa (depending on what day it is), is telling everyone all about where people work and how diverse it is. Of course, he hasn’t opened his mouth about the incredible diverse school that I currently teach at.

          • Brooks D. Simpson September 13, 2013 / 1:04 pm

            Let’s face it: Backsass has a very limited readership, much of which is due to people wanting to be amused.

          • Rob Baker September 14, 2013 / 1:14 pm


    • Andy Hall September 13, 2013 / 9:42 am

      “The argument will be. . . ”

      Of course it will.

      But I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach just happened to get his picture taken with the Flaggers at Richmond in 2012 — until he showed up on video, marching in the parade with them, front-and-center.

      I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach wasn’t a Flagger at all — until it turned out that the Flaggers sent out an announcement congratulating him as one of “our own Va. Flaggers,” along with Hathaway, Jennings and others, winning a national award from the SCV.

      I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach’s presence at that parade was probably a chance encounter at that one event — until it was acknowledged there were other flagging events he participated in, too.

      I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach’s involvement with the Flaggers was a long time ago — except that one of the more prominent and high-profile Virginia Flaggers goes on the record that Heimbach is “a good guy” whose “white pride” graffiti then and current Nazi fetish is, even now, an “other issue” that’s irrelevant to the Flaggers, because he embraces Confederate heritage.

      No single one of these drip-drip-drip revelations about Heimbach is especially significant by itself. Taken together, though, they reveal a loose but real and ongoing affiliation between Matt Heimbach and the Virginia Flaggers, that seems plenty substantive given his previous situation as a full-time student in another state. It also shows that while they really dislike being associated with the guy who goes around in swastika t-shirts, they also can’t quite publicly come to terms with who he was in 2012 when they were publicly praising him, who he’s become since, even as a leading Virginia Flagger continues to publicly embrace him.

      I understand Heimbach is (or certainly should be) an embarrassment to the Virginia Flaggers, but this could have been cauterized two weeks ago, when it was first widely known, with a little bit of candor and direct, unambiguous language on their part, acknowledging who Matt Heimbach is and what he believes. They could have drawn a bright, shining line between themselves and Heimbach, but haven’t. (The formal response from the Flaggers doesn’t mention Heimbach by name, and only indicates he’s been called a white supremacist, as if there’s really legitimate doubt on that point.) Instead, they’ve spent the last two weeks denying and making arguments — several of which have been subsequently contradicted by the evidence — that Heimbach’s involvement with the Flaggers wasn’t what the Flaggers themselves actually claimed it was before, and the really horrible people in this business are the wicked, wicked bloggers who used the Flaggers’ own photographs, videos and blog posts to document it. The real bad guy is not the “white pride” activist the Flaggers claim as one of “our own,” but the bloggers who talk about it.

      Same as it ever was.

      • Rob Baker September 14, 2013 / 1:15 pm

        True. It’s becoming more and more evident that his views are welcomed.

  2. lenastorheim September 13, 2013 / 7:20 am

    Fear inhibits them from speaking their truthful agenda – but their actions tell us. Shameful conduct. The Flaggerettes are an inflammatory and intentionally divisive group.

  3. seanmunger September 13, 2013 / 9:33 am

    The Flaggers have become like a soap opera! I look forward to the latest installment of hilarity every day.

  4. Thelibertylamp September 13, 2013 / 11:06 am

    Has anyone approached the idea that this whole flag on 95 thing might be a hoax?

    Or maybe it looked like it was going to happen but is now not going to?

    And now maybe they are staying with it because of the fun rai$ing and for the galvanizing of names for direct mailing lists?

    They can always throw in the:

    “we had to cancel because of the threats of Stalinist mass genocide on white people from the scary multi-culturist academia and NAACP terrorists”

    I am not 100% that it is all just a hoax, but, I would stake 50% that it is.

  5. lenastorheim September 13, 2013 / 12:46 pm

    “The Day and Lives of the Flafferites” …

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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