Dear Mr. Nugent,
You recently wrote a column advocating the elimination of Islam in which you addressed the danger of allowing political correctness to stop the fight against Islamic terror. You finished with: “Never invite rats, mice or cockroaches into your home. Kill them all before they even get close. Exterminate them. Then let freedom ring for decades to come.”
While you are correct that PC “thinking” shouldn’t get in the way of doing the right thing, your invective gives the impression that you’re also willing to chuck out morals and common decency.
You pay brief lip service to the — correct, or we’d have already lost to 1.6 billion psychotic terrorists across the globe — idea that not all Muslims practice or support terrorism. And then you launch into a tirade that suggests wiping them all out: “As in a city dump, the world is infested with rabid rats. There is no cure for them, no turning them into civilized people. They need to be wiped out along with their devilish ideology.”
Genocide. And all the more troubling that you, an honorary member of The Zelman Partisans, the no compromise, no surrender Jewish RKBA organization, would use that “rat” imagery to promote such acts. As I recall, the Nazis demonized Jews during the Holocaust by referring to them as rats to be exterminated.
Humans are not rats. We shouldn’t be exterminating one another en masse. If not for moral reasons, then certainly for the pragmatic choice to avoid dangerous precedent. As David Codrea notes, demonizing an entire ethnic group is dangerous; something that a good TZP member must surely realize.
Self defense against radical Islamic aggresssion is another matter. Protection of life against predators is precisely why The Zelman Partisans advocates, promotes, and supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. Yamamoto’s apocryphal gun behind every blade of grass will work as well against freelance terrorists and run-of-the-mill criminals as it does against organized aggressors.
You speak of not letting “rats” into your home, and specifically state they should be killed first. Historically disturbing imagery aside, there is some limited truth in that. Islam does have a problem with violence. It’s at the root of Islam (at least partly dreamed up to justify raiding neighboring tribes). It’s something to which other faith systems have also been susceptible. Leslie Fish explains it thusly:
Just What’s Wrong With Islamophobia?
But just what is it that makes Islam such a danger to the world? Yes, its holy-book is full of really vicious commandments and examples, but the assorted gods know, and any Atheist can tell you, that the world’s other religions — especially the monotheistic ones — have plenty of traditions and holy-books full of vicious exhortations and bloodthirsty history, so why don’t they act on them the way Muslims feel obliged to do? Perhaps the answer lies in the religion’s relative youth. Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, and 2000 years younger than Judaism. It never went through 2000 years of being kicked around half the world, always a powerless minority, as Judaism did. It never went through the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the secular revolutions as Christianity and Judaism did. In short, it never learned to criticize its own holy-book, never learned to accept the eternal presence of successful unbelievers, and never got the fundamentalist arrogance largely kicked out of it.
Based on my limited personal experience, the hypothetical average Middle Eastern Muslim is stuck, intellectually speaking, in an anti-technology Middle Ages (ironically, since Arabs were once noted for the pursuit of knowledge a la Al Gebra). This makes the more credulous among them susceptible to jihadist manipulation. Allowing them to immigrate to a modern and open culture, and assimilate into that culture would do far more to speed them towards the 21st century and a mature “Islamic Reformation,” than confirming their Koran-based fears that outsiders are the enemy by trying to exterminate them all.
In our existing American legal structure, legal immigration is limited, and a known demographic group with a notable subset prone to violence should be screened for those individuals who are a danger to Americans. You clearly, as do I, consider Muslims a potential risk pool. I prefer screening to the closed immigration and extermination which you ironically give the appearance of advocating. Advocating closed borders while supporting an advocate of open immigration can give casual readers the impression that you haven’t thought this through; the NRA board member isn’t the only energetic supporter of open immigration. I admit to certain concerns of my own about those illegals, seeking handouts rather than a hand up, suddenly gaining the ability to vote for victim-disarming Democrats. (In my personal view, eliminating the handouts would go far towards discouraging leeches, while allowing in those who want a chance to improve their own lot; in such an event, truly open borders would become a good thing for America.)
It is not all Muslims conducting, nor even condoning, violence. It is individuals and specific groups of individuals. Even in the Crusades, it wasn’t every single Christian in the world actively and willingly supporting the wars. It is not in our best interest to dehumanize the entire Muslim population; that was Al Qaeda’s own tactic in rallying support against America, largely starting the current phase of violent jihadism.
The Nazis demonized Jews (and other groups) to coalesce support for the party.
Americans demonized Hispanics to begin the War on Drugs (marijuana).
Americans demonized Blacks for the sake of gun control (“n—-rtown
Saturday night specials;” the media then stripped out the n-part as
being too obvious).
Armed individuals should deal with violent individuals, and Islam must grow up so it learns to follow that example.
And you, Mr. Nugent, must set that example yourself in actions and in careful choice of your words.
As for those who won’t learn, and turn to violence to abuse Americans’ hospitality…
We still have the right to keep and bear arms.
This article presents the personal opinions of Carl Bussjaeger and does not necessarily represent the views of The Zelman Partisans.
An excellent, concise response!
“This article presents the personal opinions of Carl Bussjaeger and does not necessarily represent the views of The Zelman Partisans.”
What compels this statement that doesn’t exist in others by the same author? Is it 1) the challenge to Nugent; 2) the assimilation of Muslims; 3) the comparison of religious antagonisms that may strike too close to home; 4) the raising of some (seeming) contradictions for libertarians in how to handle Islamists; 5) the rough edge of conviction that refuses to be PC?
All in all, I agree with Carl Bussjaeger, though it’s hard to say how the good Muslim and the bad one can be differentiated, without some “collateral damage.” (How do we differentiate good and bad Jews, or Christians, or atheists, for that matter? I would say, by their actions.) But mainly, what red flags were raised in this article that TZP objects to? I need to know TZP’s thinking here.
I personally placed that disclaimer on the column on my own initiative. TZP is primarily focused on RKBA issues from a Jewish perspective. This article touches on peripheral issues. Those issues may be better discussed in comments at my personal blog. I provided a draft of this column to TZP before it was posted. No one raised a specific objection to opinions expressed, but some wondered if we risked getting sidetracked into a more general argument over immigration.
As for differentiating between good guys and bad guys, I’ll fall back to the response to those who oppose armed civilians because “how can you tell…”
The bad guy is the one who is trying to hurt you, or threatening to do so.
Dear Mr. Bussjaeger,
Please re-read Ted Nugent’s column. Nowhere does he “advocate the elimination of Islam”. The only mention of ‘Islam’ is when he cites the ‘devils of Islam’. He repeatedly refers to ‘Muslim extremists’, ‘radicalized Muslims’, and ‘Jihadis’.
On these points, I agree with him. Get some quotes in there and get the information straight Mr. B.! Your ‘Open Letter’ is outright obfuscation and equating this to Jews vs. Nazis is disingenuous at best.
“Of course, not all Muslims want to blow up the Western world and kill everyone. No one has ever claimed this. But the cold, hard facts are glaringly obvious that there is a huge population of radicalized Muslims who are dedicated to slaughtering innocent people and are going to continue to do so until they are completely exterminated.
“As in a city dump, the world is infested with rabid rats. There is no cure for them, no turning them into civilized people. They need to be wiped out along with their devilish ideology.”
Now go back and read what I wrote: “And then you launch into a tirade that suggests wiping them all out”. (emphasis added)
What I’m trying to express is that speaking of wiping out all the vermin and their idealogy makes it sound as if he’s advocating wiping out Islam.
I think Nugent means well, but he has poor impulse control, and doesn’t always think things through before making public statements. That works great for him as an outrageous entertainer, but it leaves something to be desired when he’s speaking on public policy.
I’m not making a Jews vs. Nazis analogy; I’m pointing out that Nugent — an honorary member of TZP — made an unfortunate choice of analogy when speaking of eliminating an idealogy. More unfortunate, he has a history of bad imagery (literal image) choices. I’d like to help him learn to do better.
Agreed. And thanks for the clarification re: the disclaimer.
OT, but I did not know until just now that Leslie Fish even had a blog. Thanks!
I certainly have no problem with understanding that every person who writes for TZP speaks first and foremost for themselves, and their views may not always align perfectly with the views of TZP. That being said, I can also appreciate why you felt the need to place a disclaimer on this post, not because of your thoughts, but mostly because of the fact that Ted Nugent himself can be such a divisive person.
I have always felt the hair on back of my neck stand up just a little bit when ever I hear of anyone making a statement about an entire race or religion of people. Like saying that all white people are racists, or all black people are against the whites, for Ted to imply that all Muslim people are violent really causes me to have the same reaction as you, Mr. B. And of course, the problem is that Ted has not just a platform because of his music, but he has gained a platform because of his staunch pro-gun stance, and his supposedly conservative principles. That tends to cause people to lump him in with everyone else with those beliefs, and ascribe the same racist, anti Muslim beliefs to us all.
I certainly have no desire to cause Ted Nugent to stifle his voice, or to even tone down his rhetoric. What I would like to see if for him to begin to understand the other side of the issue, the one where our country is still a country of individual freedom, which judges people for themselves, and not for the actions of a subset of vermin who have hijacked part of their belief system for their own desires. A country which has still the need for a policy of allowing immigration of people to come here seeking freedom and a better way of life, in exchange for the chance to give back a part of who they are themselves.
Our country is richer having allowed people from every nation on earth to come here. From Poland to Canada, to Mexico, Ireland, Norway, Kenya, Portugal, the Carribean to Turkey and Iraq. All of these nations and many others have contributed much to what makes this the greatest country on earth. We must continue to let this happen. Do we have to be wise about the manner in which we allow this to continue, with the nature of terrorism and the devious lengths to which these groups will stoop to attack us? Of course. But to bar an entire group of people just because a small, but vicious subset of them want to cause us harm is to actually diminish ourselves in a very tangible way. Every time we allow a radical group to dictate terms to us, whether radical Islam, or radical anti-gun zealots, we lose another bit of ourselves as Americans who stand as a beacon of freedom for the world.
I now have to ask a question of some of our more educated readers. From what I understand, ISIS stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. I have heard many politicians begin to use the term ISIL. I believe it means Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. From my limited study, this is an anti-semitic term, meant to deny the Jews the claim to a homeland. Is this true? I have mostly heard it from the Obama administration, but also from John Kasic. I apologize for my lack of knowledge, but I know that someone here will set me straight.
Now go back and read your opening line: “You recently wrote a column advocating the elimination of Islam…”
Nope…he never said that.
“…tirade that suggests wiping them all out.”
Well no…no he didn’t. As I pointed out, “He repeatedly refers to ‘Muslim extremists’, ‘radicalized Muslims’, and ‘Jihadis’.”
I believe I read Nugent’s column within the context he meant to be understood. I agree with his views in this instance; in the context I understood them. I believe you made assumptions or parallels, and wrote a column stating some of those as his view.
Interesting you use the order of “Jews vs. Nazis” and not the other way around…it does matter.
And you have the distinct advantage of better formatting tools at your disposal for comments… sorry I couldn’t bold for emphasis or italicize for quotes.
Are you a microcephalic moron, or do you just play one on TV, Kirk?
You: “Interesting you use the order of “Jews vs. Nazis” and not the other way around…it does matter.”
I think it matters, too. So I chose to emphasize your use of that sequence: “equating this to Jews vs. Nazis”.
Projecting much?
Let’s look at some of Nugent’s words:
” Hell, our president isn’t even honest enough to mutter the words “Muslim extremists” when describing the voodoo vermin who revel in savagery in order to please Allah.”
That gives the appearance of objecting to Obama not acknowledging that it’s a Muslim problem.
“It is political correctness and Muslims.”
Hmm. Muslims again; not merely “extremists who happen to be Muslim.”
“As in a city dump, the world is infested with rabid rats. There is no cure for them, no turning them into civilized people.”
So I’m guessing you thought Nugent was only talking about Terminix going after the rabid rats, and leaving the rest alone. Probably he was, but the phrasing suggestsotherwise. Remember, his column is going to be read by people who aren’t giving him benefit of the doubt.
“honor-killing, head-lopping devils of Islam”
Of Islam, he says; not merely the extremists of the faith.
“Never invite rats, mice or cockroaches into your home. Kill them all before they even get close.”
“Kill them all;” speaking of the rats to whom he has likened Islam. All; not merely the extremists.
Now let’s look at what I said:
” your invective gives the impression that you’re also willing to chuck out morals and common decency.”
The impression. Not necessarily that he holds that opinion.
“And then you launch into a tirade that suggests wiping them all out”
“Suggests”. Not “states” nor “demand”. Get a dictionary.
“And you, Mr. Nugent, must set that example yourself in actions and in careful choice of your words.”
And here is where I’m pointing out that words and phrasing matter, so that he won’t be misunderstood (especially by those who would do so willfully after his F******k graphic fiasco).
So what part of “Nugent said stuff awkwardly that could be [willfully] miscontrued, and should be more careful” did you not understand?
You: “And you have the distinct advantage of better formatting tools at your disposal for comments… sorry I couldn’t bold for emphasis or italicize for quotes.”
I’m not using any fancy tools that aren’t available to every commenter — including you. If you won’t educate yourself, don’t blame me because I did.
I know, it takes all kinds of opinions to make for interesting discussion. Opinion is best when based on at least some sort of fact, however, and I am afraid that Kirk ignored that due to hero worship of ‘ole Ted.
I did a kind of mental exercise with some of Ted’s post. I went and read it and inserted the word Christian for Muslim, and tried to look at it from that perspective. It gives a view that is quickly apparent to at least me that he would be condemned by his own supporters for writing something so extreme.
I have heard Ted say on more than one occasion that he is not racist. He uses the fact that black musicians used to say he played guitar like a ” n—-” as a testimony to that fact. Yet he has no problem with painting an entire religious group with the broad brush of being murders, who are without hope of being turned into civilized people. Kind of like saying ” I’m not a drug addict, I only do heroin. I have never in my life done cocaine. ”
Ted Nugent is in a position to do much good. He has a responsibility to those of us on the side of freedom to be better than this.
Well… based on some correspondence, along with statements from folks who know him, I don’t think Nugent is racist. And I don’t even think he intended to paint all Muslims with a black brush in this column. Which was pretty much my point: he chose his words unwisely and phrased things poorly, such that they could all too easily be miscontrued.
He really seems to be a nice guy, but he sorely needs a personal assistant to preview his stuff and ask, “Ted, is this really what you want to post?”
I will take your word for it, as I have not had any personal dealings with him. Like you said, he may simply need a personal assistant to slow him down a little. He does do a lot of good things, especially for those retired military and the less fortunate.
Whoa!
Your first example, after “Projecting much?” does indeed show Ted talking about Muslim extremists. Complaining that 0bola won’t utter the phrase “Muslim extremists” (emphasis mine)
Though the others are more than sufficient to make your point.
David Codrea weighs in;
“…Promoting Norquist as a champion of the right to keep and bear arms, when what he does while wearing his “immigration” hat threatens to enable its “legal” evisceration, allows NRA Beltway insider lobbyists to ignore Bylaws requirements by falling back on a phony “single issue” excuse. That in turn lets them give “A” grades to politicians who value cheap labor interests more than “secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” And that keeps the cycle of sell-outs going.
Ted Nugent’s dire warning about illegal immigration and the dangers of Islamic “refugees” ring worse than hollow in light of his support for Grover Norquist. Looking at what he says out of the other side of his mouth, they ring a lot worse.”
https://www.oathkeepers.org/nugent-undermines-his-immigration-protests-by-endorsing-norquist/
His endorsement of Grover Norquist makes no sense if he is truly against illegal immigration.