Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Nugent's blistering critique of Jewish anti-gunners was/is not anti-Semitic
Gun control enables genocide, so how can the group whose victimization gave rise to "never again" be so heavily represented among those who would let it happen again? That is a paraphrase. Nugent was less gentle, writing "Jews for gun control are nazis in disguise," but the substance is the same. These Jews are advocating the Nazi policy of civilian disarmament that enabled the slaughter of European Jewry.
It is fine to take issue with Nugent's execution. There is a reason I didn't call the Newtown Mothers "Adam Lanza in disguise." That hyperbole would just create more sympathy for these women whose moral perversity already gets a pass because everyone has so much sympathy for them.
But flawed execution does not alter the legitimacy and importance of Nugent's critique, so how about we edit the execution a little and see if we can find some common ground? Consider this an exercise in alternate history.
If Ted Nugent knew how to use Photoshop
The photo-collage of leading anti-gun Jews that Nugent used to illustrate his initial post (the center portion of the graphic above) contained elements that people familiar with anti-Semitic propaganda recognize as impugning the loyalty of American Jews. In particular, the little American flags were originally little Israeli flags with the Star of David in the middle.
Most people would only see those flags as an indicator of Jewishness and it is quite clear that Nugent did not intend any imputation of loyalty to a foreign power. His issue was strictly these people's anti-gun idiocy. So change the flags, do a little editing to the commentary on the individual anti-gun honchos (in red), and make the graphic self-contained by including a toned down version of Nugent's explanation for why and how anti-gun Jews warrant their own special critique (but not too toned down).
So how did I do? Is this about right?
What do y'all think?
Nugent has angrily denied that he intended anything anti-Semitic and there is no reason to doubt him. A normal person does not see an Israeli flag as anti-Semitic and if you don't have Photoshop skills you have to go with what is available. Bloomberg, Feinstein, Shumer + 9 more? That's a pretty good start. Just really does need that little bit of editing.
Some critics think it is anti-Semitic to single out anti-gun Jews at all. No it isn't, any more than it is anti-mom to criticize anti-gun moms for wanting all children to be undefended, and it is important to single them out. It is important to go after each of these groups where they stand.
Moral error has no authority and no amount of victimization can change that. Point out the most personal and blatant moral perversity of our various anti-gun groups and their moral authority can be shattered. They want to impose on everyone exactly what got their own loved ones killed. How perverse is that?
Ted Nugent deserves credit for recognizing the validity of this response. There is a special critique that can be leveled anti-gun Jews and kudos to Nugent for stating it.
Turning the moral authority of the Newtown Mothers back against themselves
The reason I immediately recognized the validity of Nugent's attack on anti-gun Jews (while many others accused him of doubling down on anti-Semitism), is that I have already been down this road. When the Demanding Newtown Mothers put out a one-year anniversary video their ticking-clock motif powerfully evoked the pro-gun understanding that when seconds count it is doesn't help that the police are only minutes away (fifteen in the Newtown case), so I reversed it back onto them by adding a pro-gun voice over:
Finally the urgent dread on the Mothers' faces directs an obviously necessary course of action: get those children some armed defenders! Turning their story back onto them works.
So I'm right with you Ted (and glad to have the company). Now we just need a few thousand more. In the meantime I hope people can realize that jettisoning Nugent over THIS of all things, something he is insightfully right about, would be a disastrous and unpardonable mistake.
I recently read a pro-gun article on townhall.com. I don't remember a single thing from the article, except for an absolutely amazing reader comment, below the article, that really helped open my eyes on gun control (and on the larger goal of progressivism). That comment explains how progressives simply do not care about disarming criminals (because that would interfere with a higher-ranking priority) and, by extension, I think it explains why, when progressives attack a person as "anti-semitic", it may have nothing whatsoever to do with anti-semitism:
"NielsZoo • 13 days ago
Mr. Bialosky, you misunderstand the Progressives' goal for gun "control." They are not lazy or sloppy with their demands. Their goal is not to limit criminal possession of firearms or for that matter any weapons. That's as impossible to achieve as eliminating crime. The goal is the disarmament of the law abiding citizen. They know from history that no population would voluntarily submit to government apparatchiks running every aspect of their lives while said apparatchiks, bureaucrats and politicians enjoy freedom and choice. That's the goal of Progressivism... a tyrannical oligarchy who makes all those "hard" decisions because people can't be trusted to make the "right" choices. That's why every totalitarian government has first disarmed the people. Do not fall into the carefully crafted trap of believing that these lefties are pushing policies to reduce crime. They've got to have crime to justify more intrusive government and can't have an armed population getting in the way while they decide which rights they think the proles should have."
One of the clearest examples is the running battle that the NRA had to fight against the Clinton administration over "Operation Exile." This was a program promoted by the NRA and pro-NRA legislators to institute systematic enforcement of the federal mandatory five year penalty for felons in possession of a firearm and for crimes against people and property that are committed with guns.
Wherever Operation Exile was implemented gun crime dropped to practically zero and Clinton was desperate to keep it from being enforced for exactly this reason. It deprived him of the high rates of gun crime he needed to make his case for yet more gun control laws (focused, of course, on disarming the law abiding citizens).
Next he claims that the NRA is failing to support so-called "constitutional carry" (concealed with no permit requirement for anyone not disqualified by felony conviction or mental incompetence) because it does not immediately call for the abolition of laws that, in the absence of constitutional carry, at least mandate that people who are not disqualified by felony conviction or mental incompetence must be issued a carry permit if they want one.
So no partial steps? We can't defeat Germany by first driving them out of France? The D-Day landing was pro-Hitler? This guy is a flaming imbecile.
And that is as far as I am reading. I suspect that JPFO is actually a one man operation pretending to be a RKBA group. Maybe Zelman has been disqualified from getting a carry permit by virtue of having been declared mentally incompetent and thinks that constitutional carry will allow him to get around his disqualification.