[darrellmaurina]

Nathan Bedford, my apologies for failing to ping you. You are right; I should have done so. That was a mistake and not intentional on my end.

I have been reading some of your posts when you comment on threads I read. While I read far more than I comment, I know that I can't evaluate a person in detail unless I take the time to read all or most of what they have said on a subject, or at least have said recently.

Wagglebee has a history of “outing” trolls on Free Republic, whether they are liberals, libertarians who violate core conservative views, or others. I think he's better equipped than me to do such things. I have limits on my time and Wagglebee is much more active on Free Republic than I am.

Nathan Bedford, I've read enough of what you've written over the years to know that you're not a troll. I haven't read enough to know what your views are with regard to reducing unwanted population groups.

I trust you will understand that given the attention recently given to Margaret Sanger's speeches to groups of Klan-connected women, anyone in your position will be asked questions which need to be asked.

Just because I disagree with someone on one issue doesn't mean I disagree with them on everything else. I am quite aware than many and probably most neo-Confederates are also political conservatives, and I assume many neo-Confederates today oppose abortion for anyone, including "undesirables." I don't even know if you're a full-blown neo-Confederate; I'm quite aware it's possible to be a supporter of Southern culture while totally objecting to some parts of its history. I mean it when I say I hope you don't agree with Sanger (and the Klan groups which invited her to speak) in selectively discouraging the growth of certain population groups.

However, the fact remains that there are reasons why the Klan was not only anti-black but also anti-Catholic. Roman Catholic teaching on the inherent worth of all people, including minority groups, is incompatible with certain types of political conservatism.

I'd like to say that evangelicals and Roman Catholics have always agreed on this issue, but I know that's not true. For a very long time Roman Catholics were fighting mostly on their own against the pro-abortion and eugenics agenda. They saw the risks long before most evangelicals did, and they deserve compliments for waking conservatives up outside their church.

[nathanbedford]

Thank you for your apology the acceptance of which conclusively closes the matter. There are other issues raised in your reply which deserve some thoughts having nothing to do with you personally and should not be regarded by you as a personal criticism.

I have never taken note of Wagglebee or of his posts which is not surprising considering the great number of contributors to Free Republic so I have no way of judging your description of him as having a "history of "outing" trolls on Free Republic." Nor is it surprising because I tend not to look at the names of contributors because I am simply not interested in personalities. There are of course a few who contact me privately or who have made signal contributions which draw attention whose names I recall but Wagglebee is not among them. My conscious experience with Wagglebee is limited to his drive-by criticism of me on this thread. I described his criticism as "drive by" because my response to his intrusion into the discussion has never been acknowledged by him. He has no doubt moved on to find other prey.

I do not mean to lend prominence to Wagglebee, there are others who have behaved the same way on this thread.

Hence apart from a single unpleasant exposure, I have no way of knowing whether your description of Wagglebee is deserved as one who outs "liberals, libertarians who violate core conservative views, or others." As a self-confessed conservative with a "pesky libertarian streak" I suppose I would fall into the category "of others" which you catalog. I have no objection to debating the merits of my position at any time, in fact I do it all the time but I do object to being "outed" by a drive-by vigilante who throws his bombs and moves on.

If you look at my about page and I infer from your remarks that you already have done so, you will find a decade-old description of: "those Posters who evade unpalatable reality by resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, zotting, and just plain old-fashioned hardheadedness" who are to be compared unfavorably to Nathan Bedford Forrest who was possessed of "unflinching fortitude to behold, accept, and deal with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect."

Troll vigilantes do not throw truth bombs, they throw anti-personnel weapons and move on to the next victim. Like all vigilantes they are self-appointed and responsible to no one. They further evade responsibility by de-legitimating their victims who cannot effectively respond on the merits. Invincible in their self righteousness, they think they're performing a great service for Free Republic and for conservatism when they are the mortal enemies of conservative principles. They are cancer which can metastasize and kill everything that conservatism strives for. Troll police are intellectually arrogant because they assume that their fellow conservatives are too stupid to think for themselves and must be protected from dangerous error by censorship.

Of course, in their intellectual vanity they assume that their version of conservatism is the one true faith.

Paradoxically, their inquisition mentality means that at root they do not believe in conservative values, they do not think that conservatism can morally or intellectually prevail against other ideologies so they protect the ideology just as Torquemada protected the faith. They patrol up and down the bandwidth of Free Republic shutting down debate with personal invective, believing all the while that they are strengthening the very philosophy they are wounding.

Conservatism does not need the protection of censors, it is morally and intellectually superior to any other political philosophy. I am not afraid of the debate and I resent those who would protect me from heresy when they are only depriving me of the truth. It is only by testing our political beliefs that we can distinguish what is good from what is mere claptrap or wishful thinking.

Political correctness is not a disease without a cause but a deliberate infliction of statist mentality on the body politic and conservatism is nearly as prone to enforcing it as is liberalism. Conservatism thereby becomes at once oppressor and victim.

For God's sake let us leave off this lazy tendency of debating not by considering the merits but by characterizing the messenger. When we indulge this temptation we are prone to error for we either whore after a Messiah as the country initially did with Obama and end up with a demagogue or we stick our heads in the sand and get destroyed by reality as the country did once more with Obama in the last presidential election. Choosing a president should not be a function of his charisma and judging the merits of an argument should not be dependent on the character of its messenger.

Thank you for your forthright apology which is unreservedly accepted.