TED NUGENT DISCUSSES SEBASTIAN BACH, MICK BROWN AND TOM MORELLO
Ted Nugent recently spoke to Radio.com. Blabbermouth.net transcribed highlights from the interview, read the excerpts below.
On Sebastian Bach:
“I love the guy, he’s incredibly gifted, a gentleman for the most part, but he’s weak. He’s weak. And he doesn’t understand the concept of the [body as a] Sacred Temple. He doesn’t understand accountability. He doesn’t understand — clearly — how his indulgences and his poisons ruin his life. And his relationships, and his marriage. And his musical capabilities. I love the guy and if he’s watching this, I love you, but when you’re the drunk Sebastian Bach, you’re nowhere near the Sebastian Bach that you are when you’re clean and sober. Case closed. That isn’t a Ted Nugent opinion, that’s scientific truism.”
On his drummer Mick Brown, who got a DUI a few years ago backstage at one of Ted’s shows:
“Well, he had a couple of beers and went on a golf cart ride! Whoa! Let’s crucify him! That’s no big deal! Even I can look the other way for that! I have zero tolerance for dangerous criminal behavior that compromises the music. It was the last date of the tour. He watched me get up on stage with Tommy Shaw and the STYX guys and we played a Damn Yankees masterpiece, Coming Of Age. I can understand how anybody could lose control of themselves under that musical jihad. It was a very powerful musical moment. It was very magical and I think he did a couple of extras, saw some good-looking chicks with short skirts… I don’t bemoan his decision. A golf cart and two pretty girls? It was harmless.”
On Tom Morello:
“Tom Morello claims to be an ultra-liberal. But let’s examine Tom Morello’s life, shall we? He works really hard. He gets up early. He puts his heart and soul into being the best craftsman he can be. Provides for and protects his family. He’s true to his family. So far, he sounds an awful lot like Ted Nugent. [My new album] SHUTUP&JAM, if it’s a shout-out to anybody, is probably a shout out to my good friend Tom Morello. Because we talk politics, and we should do it on film sometime, it’s quite telling. Because the typical liberal, when they attempt to debate me, always ends up with a very predictable statement: ‘Yeah, but still…’ If you give people stuff, dependence will be the result. If you give a beggar money, you’re helping to kill him! Because he will spend that money while you lie to yourself and feel good, you’ve actually expedited the death of that individual, because he will buy dangerous deadly things with that money! You gotta be kidding me! If he wants a sandwich, give him a sandwich! That’s not what he wants! My point being: Tom Morello, I love him dearly, I respect his musical genius, and I respect him as a man. And when it gets time to have a legitimate political debate, we remain civil and gentlemanly, and eventually we can both shut up and jam because we both come from the Chuck Berry school of uppity, spirited, freedom-drenched American rhythm and blues.”
Listen to Nugent’s interview with Radio.com below.
Morello wears Che shirts, Ted a USA flag.
Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs, and Steel…this is a pretty good synopsis of how European interests have dominated the world. In other words, if the opportunity was there for the other parts of the world to do what the Europeans did, most likely, they would have.
Read it. And here’s where it fails: It neglects to recognize the incipient, evolutionary symbiosis between a people and their ecology. His “dumb luck” theory of societal development and consequent domination is ludicrous. Especially annoying is how he spends the entire book assiduously attributing rhyme and reason to everything and anything except his central, underlying thesis.
But it was dumb luck, they had access to wheat and livestock, such as the horse, the other parts of the world didn’t have that. Compound that by 13000 years. So, he was saying, no one is born smarter than anyone else. (This is his underlying thesis, he wanted to completely disprove the theory that some races are smarter). His point was you could take someone in New Guinea, and transplant them here, and they could acclimate, or, their children certainly could. And his theory about European domination is plausible, that is, the people in Africa and the Americas were going to war with each other, so, it is a reasonable inference to make that if they had had the same access to the agricultural technology that the Europeans did, they would have done the same thing: made guns, ships, got on their horses, and start a war with another continent.
SIC,
I’ll be brief…and vaguely cryptic(for reasons that should become quickly apparent):
Muscle biopsies taken from sub-saharan africans have revealed a fiber constitution that is favorable for all things physical. A comparative advantage they possess over every other “race” on this planet. This is empirical, qualitative fact that is not to be intelligently disputed or discounted. It allows them to feed themselves and otherwise survive in their natural habitat. A habitat in which they evolved to completion. But there is an evolutionary flipside to this obvious physical advantage…can you figure it out? It, too, is just as glaringly obvious. That’s where I’ll end this discussion, except to further say that Jared Diamond…*gasp*…was wrong.
You are either being completely full of it on purpose or you are a complete crackpot. If you examined a person’s body with just the muscles and bones, i.e. all skin and cosmetic differences removed, you would not be able to tell what race they were. The flip-side you are referring to is that Africans have a lower IQ (why didn’t you just “man up” and admit that’s what you think?)…this has been completely dis-proven, maybe you think that Diamond’s theory of European domination is ad-hoc, I think it’s very plausible, but your theory has been debunked by other, very credible, studies too.
“If you examined a person’s body with just the muscles…”– Obviously you’re ignorant with regards to muscle fiber composition. Research the subject before bothering to (foolishly) comment any further.
“If you examined a person’s body with just the…bones”– Apparently, forensic anthropology as a field of study has also escaped you. Hint: skulls alone can identify “race”.
“If you examined a person’s body…all skin and cosmetic differences removed, you would not be able to tell what race they were.”– You mean removing the very outward differences that actually go towards distinguishing “race”?…speaking of “logical fallacies”. Further, you do understand physical characteristics, such as melanin content and nostril dimensions, serve an evolutionary/functional purpose, yes? And to remove them as a means to “prove” our collective, genetic commonality would actually be a self-defeating proposition. This is all becoming oh so maddening…
“The flip-side you are referring to is that Africans have a lower IQ (why didn’t you just “man up” and admit that’s what you think?)…”– Because “manning up” should include a bit of tact. That’s why. Any other questions?
“The flip-side you are referring to is that Africans have a lower IQ…this has been completely dis-proven”– False. Further, “IQ” is a western metric and modality for assessing intra-cultural, comparative intelligence. Meanwhile, more sophisticated means of cross-cultural(“race”) intelligence studies are required in collecting and comparing data thereof.
Keep trying. And failing.
i did not mean any disrespect to you with my reply ! i love reading your comments i really do- and i would love to see you comment on the next post related to anything kiss –
You’re wrong, I have studied anthropology and have examined skulls that you would identify as African which were European and vice versa. This muscle fiber composition has not been incorporated into any formal source, so, as it stands, it’s a crackpot theory. Melanin content and nostril dimensions, so then you are saying if you remove them then there is commonality, which proves my point. How is melanin content and nostril dimension any more relevant than nappy hair, eye color? What I said had complete logical symmetry, where is the fallacy with which you allege?
Your IQ point is interesting, you ascribe cultural bias to an intelligence test, as if someone who is African, or even African American would still do worse than a European because of genetics. And not socio economic factors? Asians do great with Western IQ tests, because of their strong family structure, they are not genetically superior, this applies to Africans too. That is a complete myth. In fact, it’s people like you who keep propagating this myth that makes it worse for African-Americans. There is no way in the world that any black person should believe that they can’t do as good as anyone else on a Western IQ test.
I for one am never screwing with sar305 ever again.
lol! sar305 is amazing – in the first 20 words of his reply he used…incipient, evolutionary, and………symbiosis- that should have been his reply , just those three words- i have to say.. i never thought i would read these words on eddie trunk .com! let alone one after the other ! i love it!!
DR and Bobbyd, you guys are hilarious. Please forgive the d-baggery of my language, but sometimes I just can’t resist concision. I figured if anyone was interested enough in the original topic that they’d at least be tolerant, if not appreciative, of one treating it with a certain intellectual honesty and effort. There’s no window dressing there, each and every word serves an integral purpose. Disagree? Don’t hesitate in saying so, I can take it!
sar, as you know I enjoy a great debate on this site. I fancy myself slightly intellectual and able to hold my own in a debate. But you sir just obliterated my confidence in all things debate. So I one day hope to engage you, but I’m going to think very carefully before I do. Until then…much respect.
The checkmate goes to sar305. Well done. Are you actually Spock? haha.
Regards,
James Perkins
Houston, Texas
I would like to hear Ted’s comments on dodging the draft or what it felt like for a man pushing nearly 30 at the time to be getting BJ’s from 12 year old girls. I think they call that pedophelia. And that just isn’t Ryan B.’s opinion, Ted. That is scientific truism.
TED NUGENT is an IDIOT! end of story
Absolutely right.
Ted just can’t say or do anything right any more and that is 100% his fault. People hate him and are sick of hearing his views and opinions, which is also 100% his fault. I believe deep down that Ted has a kind heart and means well in his own, albeit sometimes misguided, way. But unfortunately, his kind heart gets overshadowed and sabotaged by his big mouth and, once again, that’s 100% his fault. I love Ted’s music so much and he is still to this day one of my all time guitar heroes/influences. So I hate it when he makes a fool of himself, which he frequently does.
Ted is awesome with a guitar but i agree his mouth is right up there with Simmons and as puzzling as David Lee Roth and Steven Tyler. He is a real media attention whore so it is difficult to separate his true feelings from nonsense for attention. I have met some real whack jobs here in Texas so it does not surprise me when I hear him say the things he does, but does make me pause and shake my head at the human condition. Again I am a fan of his music and have seen him live.