"This just in: Someone has complained at Free Republic.
Further details: felt treated disrespectfully.
In other news Mohammed Atif is still seriously dead."
By all means, persuade JR to purge libertarians. Until then, remember you are in his house and he sets the rules. Obviously, he has not seen fit to remove non-inflammatory libertarian-leaning posts. If you don't like it, take it up with him. Why post a vanity under a week old account and then claim you're an old member? Are libertairans more destructive to FR than still vanity posts?
I don't want to be thought of as a enemy like a treasonous marxist or something. I'm just a middle of the road republican.
In other news Mohammed Atif is still seriously dead."
The other side of the issue though is that I have found far more conservative thinkers and independent thinkers here than liberal ones. Its not that they're not allowed; its just that they don't take the heat real well.
Ted Nugent's worst transgressions are systematically whitewashed by the press. To counteract that whitewash, I will use the remainder of my space here to expose Nugent for who he really is. To begin with, Nugent and his helpers are, by nature, blockish bourgeoisie. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but either Nugent has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. This is partly connected with what I wrote earlier concerning featherbrained malicious-types. This is all well and good, but his warnings are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, I can unmistakably suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Nugent himself. Having said that, let me add that if I seem a bit pouty, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level.
I myself like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: The picture I am presenting need not be confined to Nugent's views. It applies to everything he says and does. If you ask Nugent if it's true that things that you or I might regard as shiftless or intemperate might be considered by his cat's-paws as an article of faith, a philosophical conviction, a political opinion, or even an innocuous form of entertainment, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. His impolitic catch-phrases leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Nugent's enemies? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture.
When you reflect upon this, you'll realize that it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Nugent-hater out of you. First off, he wants to use both overt and covert deceptions to scorn and abjure reason. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Almost every day, he outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's really breathtaking to watch him. The only way I can possibly forgive Nugent is if he tells the truth and makes restitution. His accomplices probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, I have to laugh when Nugent says that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but if I hear his spin doctors say, "Nugent can change his raucous ways" one more time, I'm doubtlessly going to throw up.
Nugent's memoirs have merged with anti-intellectualism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. And both support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery. Everybody knows that Nugent should feel ashamed of himself, but you should consider that it is legitimate to have misgivings about selfish, obstreperous dingbats who leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that once you understand his stratagems, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Nugent demand that loyalty to grungy, superstitious nincompoops supersedes personal loyalty.
I won't lie to you; the ripples of reaction to his disquisitions have spread, giving rise to universal calls to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. But there's the rub; a central fault line runs through each of his undertakings. Specifically, his jokes have an unsavory historical track record. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. So what if Nugent hates me for pointing out that raving, pushy boors are intrigued and puzzled by his amalgam of illaudable incendiarism and annoying irreligionism -- a tangled web of KKK, Freudian, encounter therapy, populist, Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notions? Let him hate me. I consider such hatred a mark of honor, a mark of distinction. It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that he likes to have difficult social issues presented to him in simple, black-and-white terms. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, the next time he decides to provide financial support to backwards banana republics and their grotesque dictators, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Finally, this has been a good deal of reading, and indeed difficult reading at that. Still, I hope you walk away from it with the new knowledge that Ted Nugent's reports are contrary to international human rights and humanitarian standards.
Noticed all that in a few days, did you?
Cest la vie.
"Private Reply" is considered private, you generally shouldn't talk about the letters people send you in your public posts.