Skeptical Science takes 'creepy' to a whole new level

People send me stuff.

Yesterday Skeptical Science owner John Cook announced to the world that he thought Willis’s open letter to the new editor of Science was “creepy” and “sexist”.

As is typical with the Skeptical Science kidz, it’s just projection. How much? You have no idea. But it turns out that when you scratch the surface of the SkS Forum, where the principals and moderators talk amongst themselves (seemingly unaware of others watching) you discover what creepy really is. For a supposed site about “climate science” it sure does look a lot like “high school climate science”.

Get a load of the pictures from the SkS forum website sent to me today. A friend of WUWT writes:

(Note: I’m leaving the author of this email private, lest he become another Photoshop victim. Note that all the links are in the open, there’s no hack or mole action going on here. BTW, each word highlighted below is a separate link to an image. – Anthony)

I found something I thought you might be interested in while looking to see what is publicly viewable on the new SkS forum’s website (www.sksforum.org). Little is, but there happens to be a viewable images directory that has a subdirectory, [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded]. This directory has some… interesting images.

One [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/WeAreSkeptics.jpg] has several the heads of several skeptics photoshopped onto people from a movie about the 300 Spartans (300, perhaps?). I assume it was an attempt at humorously painting skeptics as few in number and dogmatic.

But the most interesting ones defy explanation at the moment. There are a number of images where the head of Dana Nuccitelli or John Cook appear to have been photoshopped onto images of [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/herrscooterboy.jpg]

[http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/herrtankboy2.jpg]

It’s possible these images were taken from somewhere else and uploaded, but that seems unlikely as a couple of them show signs of further photoshopping done to improve them. To see what I mean, compare this image to this one.

Combined with the fact there are a number of similarly photoshopped images done to flatter Nuccitelli, it seems almost certain SkS members have photoshopped images of SkS members as Nazi soldiers. I can’t think of a single sensible reason they would do that.

I don’t think they dream of being Nazis, and I can’t imagine it was particularly fun to make those images. It’s possible they made these with the idea of a false flag operation in mind, but that seems ridiculous. It’s not more absurd than Peter Gleick’s behavior was, but it’s hard to believe anyone would consider doing that (especially on a forum which has been exposed once before).

[NOTE: Brandon Shollenberger decided that he didn’t care that his name was attached to the above, hence this update. – Anthony]

You have to wonder what motivates them to take the time do things like this, especially when they claim that global warming is accelerating, and there is precious little time left before we all roast.

SkS Kidz will be kids I suppose.

I haven’t looked this good since high school:

L-R: Watts, Monckton, Delingpole.

=================================================================

UPDATE: 10:35 PDT About three hours later It seems that somebody at SkS has been embarrassed that they’ve been caught out, and they have comically simply moved the “user_uploaded” folder to one with a seemingly random (Ric Werme says: “Hey, a11g0n3 is leet-speak for allgone. Oh Lord, there be idiots over there.”) name: [http://www.sksforum.org//images/a11g0n3/]

Of course that breaks all the links in the story above.

Only problem is, it’s still open to the public there. All images are still visible: [http://www.sksforum.org//images/a11g0n3/]

Surely they know that the Internet has a permanent memory and all these images still exist elsewhere in folders that people have scraped from the original by now?

Amateur hour cover up tactics. – Anthony

UPDATE2: 11:07AM PDT It seems that they’ve taken down the “leet speak” folder as well, no matter, they still all exist in many places, and I’ll add a gallery shortly. -Anthony

UPDATE3: 11:19AM PDT here is a few of the images referenced above in the story and in comments. I also have a screen cap of the original folder listing at SkS which I’ll upload tonight when I get home.

UPDATE4: 5:31PM PDT, As promised earlier in UPDATE3 here is a PDF capture of the file listing from the original SkS forum snapped at 829AM PDT today.

Index of _images_user_uploaded (PDF)

=============================================================

SkepticalScience goes Godwin-Nazi or something (joannenova.com.au)
LOL! ‘Mad Haxor Skillz’ Godwinize ‘Skeptical Science’ (wattsupwiththat.com)

0 0 votes

Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

310 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

mark fraser

August 12, 2013 10:59 am

Richard and others – I care little about the finer points of any particular definition of right, left, Nazi or Communist, and would rather see this discussion taken off line. I abhor totalitarian regimes such as those named here. There are bad people out there, some of whom will try to kill me, while others will simply try to take away the small amount of wealth that I have accumulated using illegal or legal means. Said regimes simply added the overtly violent taking of lives, to the appropriation of citizens’ assets. The current problems are, in my opinion, the bribing of voters with their own money, and the terrorizing of all citizens by NGOs with money from megalomaniac tycoons, populist wimp governments and useful idiots at large. Be afraid of them!

richardscourtney

August 12, 2013 11:18 am

mark fraser:
re your post at August 12, 2013 at 10:59 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387750
addressed to me and others.
For the record, I strongly agree with you.
However, I am answering questions put to me by people who clearly do not understand totalitarianism can be imposed by adherents to any political philosophy. Totalitarianism is a great evil. Furthermore, some of the questioners think totalitarianism is only imposed by adherents to certain political philosophies: that thought leads to the Serbian experience.
In my opinion, AGW is a tool being used by persons who seek to obtain totalitarianism.
Richard

philjourdan

Reply to richardscourtney

August 12, 2013 1:17 pm

@richard:

Furthermore, some of the questioners think totalitarianism is only imposed by adherents to certain political philosophies

I do not see anyone trying to link totalitarianism with any particular political philosophy. I see many assigning some blame to one or the other, but not all.

Gail Combs

August 12, 2013 11:46 am

richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly August 12, 2013 at 10:03 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From what I have read, the scoundrels, thieves and empire builders thrive on chaos and intentionally steal a word with positive connotations and apply it to themselves in order to give themselves access to the ‘moral high ground’ From what you are saying this seems to be the case with the ‘Classic Socialist’ and why I use the term a ‘Civilized Human’ instead. (If you are not civilized then you are not concerned about your neighbors and the rest of your society that is you apply the law of the jungle.)
E. M. Smith touches on this propensity of the scoundrels and thieves to rebrand themselves.

I Am A Liberal
I’m about 2/3 of the way through “The Road To Serfdom” by F.A. von Hayak edited by Bruce Caldwell….
Amazon Listing
To say it is “A Good Book” would be to call The Mona Lisa a “Good Painting”……
A Question Of Words
One of the topics covered in the forward is the distinction between a Classical Liberal and the Progressive recast in sheep’s clothing as a Social Liberal and how, especially in the USA, these two are substantially exact opposites. In the USA, “Liberal” has been “found out” as being essentially “code words” for ‘Closet Socialist’, so much so that some “Liberals” have begun calling themselves “Progressives” again. They had originally run from Progressive after it got a bit of a bad name. But like most rebrandings of a poor product, it only works so long, and they are back to the need to ‘rebrand’. But I digress…
So, a Classical Liberal was all for Liberty. Free markets, individual rights. All that good stuff. As I understand it, that definition still holds in places like the UK and Australia. (Probably everywhere outside the USA?). Inside the USA, Social Liberal has become shortened to “Liberal” with all that this implies for the confounding of understanding when reading any economic history from prior to about 1950….

Hopefully this discussion will get everyone to pause and think about what these labels actually mean and whether they actually apply since in may cases they mean the opposite of what you thought they meant at least to the person you are discussing or to whom you are talking.
Ain’t propaganda great?
Me? I am sticking with Civilized Human since I don’t like any of the labels.

richardscourtney

August 12, 2013 11:55 am

Gail Combs:
Your post at August 12, 2013 at 11:46 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387800
begins by saying to me

From what I have read, the scoundrels, thieves and empire builders thrive on chaos and intentionally steal a word with positive connotations and apply it to themselves in order to give themselves access to the ‘moral high ground’

Yes.
People who want to hide their true nature claim to be other than they are. And that is why a ‘Rule of Thumb’ is that any country with “Democratic” or “Socialist” in its title is not democratic or socialist.
Richard

milodonharlani

August 12, 2013 12:11 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:03 am
Additionally,I dispute the assertion of milodonharlani which says
Socialism is based upon theft, as those with ability rarely contribute everything they produce voluntarily.
If they gained what they have (e.g. their opportunities and/or education) from society then they are the thieves if they refuse to repay some of what they owe to society. Thieves rarely voluntarily repay what they owe.
—————————
What is “society”, to your mind? Is it civil society, or government, the Leviathan?
If people who work & create benefited from programs funded by the charity or enforced taxes, then surely their own taxes repay that “debt”. Those who owe a debt to “society” are they who take more than they give, although capable of doing more. A society rewarding sloth & criminality is doomed.
User taxes, sales taxes, ie taxing consumption rather than work, & tariffs instead income or wealth taxes provide for public needs while promoting beneficial behavior. No government regime is smart enough or altruistic enough to make decisions for large, complex economies with tens to hundreds of millions of people. Only the market can do that, through the economic decisions of everyone. Economic freedom is the flip side of political freedom. Governments are composed of people, hence inherently self-serving & blundering at best but more often actively evil.
Socialism requires other people’s money to fund the programs which statists wish to impose. Giving other people “free” stuff is not only immoral but sure eventually to fail. The welfare states of the world are running out of OPM. Those which haven’t failed yet are sure to sooner rather than later.
Socialism is fundamentally no different from communism or fascism, however methods of control may vary. Both rest upon coercion & ultimately require turning whole nation-states into the functional equivalent of prisons.
What works is encouraging productive behavior, which generates wealth to be taxed or given as charity for the benefit of the few people who really can’t help themselves. Nations should not presume to do what their provinces can do better; provinces should not do what local governments ought; local governments should not do what communities can do better; communities should not do what private charitable organization ought, & private groups shouldn’t do what families & individuals ought.
In this way both public virtue & economic growth are related, although of course the only way to create wealth is through harnessing private “greed”.
What would you call the socialism that IYO began at Tolpuddle? Cooperative? Owen was already doing that on a much larger scale.

Gail Combs

August 12, 2013 12:51 pm

richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly August 12, 2013 at 10:44 am
….Also, the non sequitor is in the question. I pointed out that it is silly and offensive to claim socialists are Naz1s when the Naz1s tried to exterminate socialists. Naz1s are right wing because they claim some people are entitled to more rights than others. Their attempted genocides are one example of this.…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not sure I would classify Naz1s as right wing especially since they had the support of the Fabian Socialists in the UK. On the other hand I wouldn’t call the Fabian Socialists, socialist by your definition either.
Again I rather step out of the box all together and define governments by one criteria. Those where the individual has natural or God given rights and agrees to form a government and ALLOWS the government to make laws on their behalf. The other types of governments are based on the principle that the Government grants individuals ‘privileges’ that it can remove at any time and the needs of the community as a whole (read the government leaders) trump the rights of an individual.
The second type of government is often thought of as Communist, Fascist, Corporatism, religious Theocracy and ‘Socialist’ at least in the USA. This is from the twisting of the meaning of words.
For example Mother Jones did an interview with Dwayne Andreas, then CEO of Archer Daniels Midland Co.

…. Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”
It might seem odd that a man with personal assets well into nine figures would be so quick to hoist the red flag of socialism over the American heartland. But Andreas is essentially right. Agriculture is the last industry where the U.S. government so routinely sets prices and determines production levels, a complex arena in which doing business often has more to do with influencing legislation than with responding to supply and demand. Prospering in this environment is ADM’s forte…..
For all ADM’s size, the question now is not whether the government can survive without ADM but whether ADM can survive without the government. Three subsidies that the company relies…
The first subsidy is the Agriculture Department’s corn-price support program….
Of more benefit to ADM is the Agriculture Department’s sugar program. The program runs like a mini-OPEC: setting prices, limiting production, and forcing Americans to spend $1.4 billion per year more for sugar, according to the General Accounting Office….
The third subsidy that ADM depends on is the 54-cent-per-gallon tax credit the federal government allows to refiners of the corn-derived ethanol used in auto fuel. For this subsidy, the federal government pays $3.5 billion over five years. Since ADM makes 60 percent of all the ethanol in the country, the government is essentially contributing $2.1 billion to ADM’s bottom line. No other subsidy in the federal government’s box of goodies is so concentrated in the hands of a single company…..
The grease–or perhaps oleo–that helps keep these kinds of programs going is the money Andreas, his family, his company, and his company’s subsidiaries provide politicians who have influence over agricultural policy.…

Perhaps America’s champion all-time campaign contributor is Dwayne Orville Andreas.
Both Mother Jones and Andreas call the government/ADM back-scratching ‘Socialism.’ I would call it Corporate-Government Collusion or perhaps Corporatism and even that word morphs in meaning. This is especially true since the large corporations via the Government-industry revolving door run the bureaucracies that are supposed to police them so it is tough to tell where the corporations ends and the government begins. Therefore it is a heck of a lot easier to point out the actions than to label them correctly.
For example: Corporatism

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not necessarily the business model known as a ‘corporation’, though such businesses are not excluded from the definition either). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place….
Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over “restrictive” policies, such as a nation’s environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities.
In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying including many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.
Many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism.
Critics of capitalism often argue that any form of capitalism would eventually devolve into corporatism, due to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. A permutation of this term is corporate globalism. John Ralston Saul argues that most Western societies are best described as corporatist states, run by a small elite of professional and interest groups, that exclude political participation from the citizenry.
Other critics say that they are pro-capitalist, but anti-corporatist. They support capitalism but only when corporate power is separated from state power. These critics can be from both the right and the left….
http://corporatism.askdefine.com/

ARRRRrrggh! ~ No wonder that purists like my husband want to tear their hair out when words are used incorrectly.

Gail Combs

August 12, 2013 1:03 pm

mark fraser says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:59 am
Richard and others – I care little about the finer points of any particular definition of right, left, Nazi or Communist, and would rather see this discussion taken off line…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Words have meaning and can hurt. They are also used to manipulate people. Since WUWT gets labeled ‘Right-wing nuts’ or ‘Anti-environmentalists’ or ‘Anti-science’ more often than not clarification is needed. Often those who think of themselves as ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ or ‘Capitalist’ or “Socialist’ have a heck of a lot more in common than they think and it is about time we figured that out.
Those labels are intentionally used by the thieving manipulators and their puppets to divide men of good will so a bit of clarification is in order.
In a post a month or so ago when someone was calling WUWT a nest of ‘Right-wing nuts’ or something to that effect, I mentioned Richard was a socialist and the detractor of WUWT jumped down my throat saying I was lying…. Oh to have had this discussion to link to then.

richardscourtney

August 12, 2013 1:19 pm

milodonharlani:
I am replying to your post at August 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387831
You ask me

What is “society”, to your mind? Is it civil society, or government, the Leviathan?

I do not know what you mean by “the Leviathan” so I cannot answer that. However, a “society” can be a family, a golf club, a trade union, or many other groups of people.
In the context of this discussion, society is a nation state or a locality subject to a local government.
You say to me

If people who work & create benefited from programs funded by the charity or enforced taxes, then surely their own taxes repay that “debt”. Those who owe a debt to “society” are they who take more than they give, although capable of doing more. A society rewarding sloth & criminality is doomed.

Yes, I said that in my post addressed to Mark Bofill at August 9, 2013 at 1:48 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385725
And I there explained that socialism works because it recognises these factors and attempts to address them. I was not discussing communism so I did not mention that these factors form the basic reason why communism fails.
You say

User taxes, sales taxes, ie taxing consumption rather than work, & tariffs instead income or wealth taxes provide for public needs while promoting beneficial behavior. No government regime is smart enough or altruistic enough to make decisions for large, complex economies with tens to hundreds of millions of people. Only the market can do that, through the economic decisions of everyone. Economic freedom is the flip side of political freedom.

Mostly, yes, and I said that, too. But you add

Governments are composed of people, hence inherently self-serving & blundering at best but more often actively evil.

I disagree that “Governments are composed of people, hence inherently self-serving & blundering at best but more often actively evil.” Some people so some governments are “inherently self-serving & blundering at best but more often actively evil”, but most are not.
You have my sympathy if most people you know are “actively evil”: do you work in a high security prison?
You falsely assert

Socialism requires other people’s money to fund the programs which statists wish to impose.

NO! Read what I wrote.
And you add

Giving other people “free” stuff is not only immoral but sure eventually to fail. The welfare states of the world are running out of OPM. Those which haven’t failed yet are sure to sooner rather than later.

That displays a complete misunderstanding.
Investing in the development of each individual in society is NOT “Giving other people “free” stuff”. It is maximising the benefit of living in the society for each and every member of the society.
No socialist society has “failed” and – excluding external intervention such as military invasion – there is no reason to think any will fail.
Failure to develop the individuals who comprise society leads to societal collapse; e.g. Detroit.
You then make a set of ridiculous assertions saying

Socialism is fundamentally no different from communism or fascism, however methods of control may vary. Both rest upon coercion & ultimately require turning whole nation-states into the functional equivalent of prisons.

Each and every statement in that quotation is plain wrong. And the equation of socialism with communism and fascism is not only untrue but it is also gratuitously offensive
Perhaps it is not surprising that the assertion about “the functional equivalent of prisons” comes from someone in the USA (a land where people like to think they are free) and is addressed to someone in the UK (a land where people are free).
You then say

What works is encouraging productive behavior, which generates wealth to be taxed or given as charity for the benefit of the few people who really can’t help themselves. Nations should not presume to do what their provinces can do better; provinces should not do what local governments ought; local governments should not do what communities can do better; communities should not do what private charitable organization ought, & private groups shouldn’t do what families & individuals ought. In this way both public virtue & economic growth are related

Of course “encouraging productive behaviour” is important and so is enabling productive behaviour. This is why socialism is both successful for a nation as a whole and beneficial to all its members. You seem to think it is beneficial to fail to develop the most able to be productive; e.g. by depriving them of education unless they have rich families. It is not.
And charity is good. Socialism does not prevent and does not inhibit it. But socialism attempts to meet the needs of everyone whether or not they obtain charity.
Many families and individuals do not do what you think they “ought”. Indeed, your wishful thinking is the same utopian mistake which makes communism impractical.
You continue saying

, although of course the only way to create wealth is through harnessing private “greed”.

Yes, and that is why socialists encourage capitalism while avoiding the wishful thinking of relying on people doing what you think they “ought”.

What would you call the socialism that IYO began at Tolpuddle? Cooperative? Owen was already doing that on a much larger scale.

I call it what it is; i.e. socialism.
And your assertion about Owen is mistaken.
Richard

richardscourtney

August 12, 2013 1:28 pm

Gail Combs:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 12, 2013 at 12:51 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387860
It states your views of “corporatism” most of which I agree.
I hope you will understand and forgive my failure to discuss your post which clearly presents your view. There are so many points and questions being addressed to me that I am forced to be selective and to only answer posts I think contain fundamental misunderstandings.
Richard

richardscourtney

August 12, 2013 2:13 pm

philjourdan:
I am replying to your posts addressed to me at August 12, 2013 at 1:00 pm and August 12, 2013 at 1:17 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387863
And
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387876
You begin by saying to me

With all due respect Richard, calling socialists “nut cases” is not always offensive. Unless you think that by calling yourself a socialist you are immune from stupid actions and words. I hold the opposing view. What you call yourself does not exempt you from being a “nut case”.

So, you give me “all due respect” by implying I am a “nut case”!
I suggest you would benefit from learning the basics of ‘how to make friends and influence people’.
You continue saying

Second, he was clearly demonstrating that the mere “attacking” of one political class does not exempt you from being in that class.

No!
At August 12, 2013 at 9:34 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387679
DirkH wrote concerning the genocide of socialists by Naz1s

When one tribe of nutcases tries to exterminate another tribe of nutcases, does this make one of them right (wing)?

Clearly, he was saying all socialists are “nut cases” and NOT saying – as you assert – that some socialists may be “nut cases”.
That is mud-slinging which has no place in rational discourse. And you fail in your feeble attempt to excuse it.
You continue in similar vein by writing

He pointed out Lenin/Trotsky, but could just have easily pointed out Trotsky/Stalin (and don’t forget China’s gang of 4). In both cases, socialists attacked and killed socialists. The example is very appropriate. And if your total summation that the Nazis were right wing because “some were more equal”, I direct you again to George Orwell (1984), the old Soviet Union, and the current North Korea. We can debate it if you like, but to dismiss it out of hand is disingenuous.

Diingenuous!?
You have the gall to call me disingenuous when you began your post by pretending DirkH wrote other than he did!?
Your assertion that communists (Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and theGang of 4) were socialists is completely disingenuous. THEY WERE COMMUNISTS.
And those communists killed each other, but so what? It has no relation to what I wrote; viz.

Naz1s are right wing because they claim some people are entitled to more rights than others. Their attempted genocides are one example of this.

And your disingenuous behaviour continues with your following statement; i.e.

I have yet to see any right wing manifesto that dictates some people are more equal than others. So while that plank of the Nazi platform is not in and of itself left wing, I would need some evidence that it is right wing. Monarchical yes. But I do not see Prince Charles as a right winger.

Of course no manifesto states the core belief of its presenter. What is that supposed to prove?
An assertion that, for example,
‘rich people are entitled to better education than poor people’
is inherently right-wing because it “dictates some people are more equal than others” in terms of their right to education.
However, a claim that
‘everybody should be entitled to the education they need’
is left-wing because it asserts equal educational rights.
And a decision that
‘people who want to pay for additional education should be allowed to’
is middle-ground because it says nothing about equality of educational rights.
Your claim that Nat1s are “left wing” is daft. They are at the ultra-right: they do not even agree that everyone has a right to live!
And, yes, HRH Charles is right wing; he is heir to the throne and has not rescinded his right to wear the Crown. If – as you say – you cannot see that then you need to go to Specsavers.
Finally, you say

I do not see anyone trying to link totalitarianism with any particular political philosophy. I see many assigning some blame to one or the other, but not all.

I answer that by asking you to parse it for yourself. It contradicts itself.
Richard

philjourdan

Reply to richardscourtney

August 13, 2013 5:53 am

Richard, you are losing a lot of respect. I am not here to win friends or even influence people. However I went out of my way NOT to call you a nut case (nor even to imply that all socialists are nut cases). Apparently your lack of understanding is causing you to get insulted, when there is no insult there. YOu are personalizing every statement. That is your perogative.
And yes, I called you disingenious. If that is the worst you have ever been called, you should feel fortunate. Somehow I doubt you will.
No one is calling you a nut case. A “tribe of” anything attacking another tribe of the same are nut cases. Dirk was very correct on that. Did anyone accuse you of attacking your own kind? Again, your personalization of what is written is not the fault of the writer (since you do it with so many), but perhaps the fault lies with you.
I see no reason to continue a discussion with someone who is going to internalize every statement, as an afront to themselves. You are more than free to be offended by whatever imagined slight you see. But you are not free to accuse others of perpetuating your delusions.
At least you the honesty to deny your earlier allegations of right wing. Your ignorance of that subject is understandable given your extensive knowledge of the Climate. But there is no sin in saying you do not know it all. Indeed, those who pretend to know it all, know the least.
As for Prince Charles (I am American so I can say shove the HRH – no one is royal here), he is about as left wing nut as you can get. The difference between a Monarchy and socialism is only who is in charge. Both clearly are about SOMEONE running the whole shooting match. Right wing is about letting you run your own life without having some prince or fool dictate what you can and cannot do. Which is what socialism is all about.
Good day sir. You are just too paranoid to discuss any matter rationally.

John R T

Reply to philjourdan

August 13, 2013 8:19 am

As a skeptical American, I value Richard’s comments about the pscience of climate: clear, evidence-backed, arguments offer sound guidance. His history and philosophy assertions demonstrate that each of us suffers from blind spots.
I reside in a tropical Socialist-paradise, long-accustomed to grants from first-world States. This dependency produced the unsurprising, rather, inevitable, lack of responsibility, personal and communal. New ‘developing’ status has reduced the guilt-ridden basket of goodies: this Central American group of tribes faces immense challenges. Decades of ‘proving’ their status as worthy of assistance produced a cant, a jargon of victim-hood. Language, education, development, politics: all are debased. 2014 elections offer over a dozen choices among parties; alliances appear to shift, daily.
I adore this place. I abhor the damage inflicted over half-a-century of Socialism. Almost no home gardens; less than a quarter of staple foods produced in-country; first-world demand for bananas, coffee, and pineapples imposes mono-culture’s hazards; English-competent youth find steady call-center employment.
Richard, please continue your contributions to climate considerations.
Please examine your positions and definitions in politics and history; much of what you claim is plainly wrong, without evidence, often mere recitations of self-serving political smoke and mirrors.

richardscourtney

August 12, 2013 2:16 pm

Gail Combs:
My last note to you was genuine. A long post I have subsequently sent is in moderation.
Richard

milodonharlani

August 12, 2013 2:35 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 12, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Many families and individuals do not do what you think they “ought”. Indeed, your wishful thinking is the same utopian mistake which makes communism impractical.
—————————–
A free market system encourages people to do what they ought by rewarding productive behavior. Ought in this case means done with the most productive result while also preserving liberty. Statism can only punish good behavior & reward bad.
It’s as far from wishful thinking as possible. Socialism is based upon the wishful thinking that humans are different from our nature.
Communism is not just impractical, but evil. So is the sort of socialism you advocate, ultimately.
The Tolpuddle Martyrs were an agricultural trade union. I don’t know what aspect of their Friendly Society you find socialistic, except as perhaps any organization in restraint of trade could be so considered. I also don’t know why you don’t find Owen’s societies to fit your concept of socialism. Maybe because they’re not statist?
Thanks for clarifying your view of “society”. As I thought, you conceive of it as state-run. The majority of people in government may not be evil themselves, humans too can end up doing bad while imagining they’re doing good. Telling other people what to do & wanting to keep your growing your budget every year are enough gateway to evil. Dogs revert to wolves when they pack up.
The American Founding Fathers’ study of history led them to the right conclusion that government needed to be limited & restrained by a system of checks & balances because the state, while sometimes necessary, is always inclined to evil.
When the welfare states of Europe can no longer beg, borrow, steal other peoples’ money or print funny money, the end will be ugly. Maybe more like Argentina than Zimbabwe, but not pretty in any case. The US is hurrying down the same path to doom.
I wonder just in what ways you imagine Britain freer than the US, although we’re rapidly joining you in abject serfdom. The slaves must rejoice in their chains.

milodonharlani

August 12, 2013 2:36 pm

PS: Leviathan is from Hobbes.

richardscourtney

August 12, 2013 3:54 pm

milodonharlani:
I am replying to your post at August 12, 2013 at 2:35 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387927
It is nearing midnight here so this will be my last reply for some time. Sorry.
You say

A free market system encourages people to do what they ought by rewarding productive behavior. Ought in this case means done with the most productive result while also preserving liberty. Statism can only punish good behavior & reward bad.

No country has – or can have – a truly free market.
Please read the post by Gail Combs at August 12, 2013 at 12:51 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387860
She there provides a short but clear explanation of excessive market distortion in the US.
But, yes, free markets do encourage productivity, and that is one reason why socialists favour free markets. Indeed, free markets are a need of business people so socialism demands an attempt to provide them. However, socialists admit that many factors inhibit free markets, so socialists try to address those factors with a view to avoiding or minimising problems e.g. of the kind described by Gail Combs.
Your definition of “liberty” may differ from mine. I consider liberty to be freedom from constraints and not license to deprive others of their rights. It is a desirable objective that is encouraged by the practice of socialism which attempts to meet the needs of every individual so far as is possible.
I do not know what you mean by “statism”: perhaps it is the Rule Of Law?
If so, then you are plain wrong when you assert that it “can only punish good behavior & reward bad”: the Rule Of Law exists to do exactly the opposite.
You continue by saying of a “free market system”

It’s as far from wishful thinking as possible. Socialism is based upon the wishful thinking that humans are different from our nature.

Well, perhaps that is true where you are, but here on planet Earth the opposite is true. On this planet there is no possibility of a truly free market (hoping for one IS wishful thinking) and socialism addresses the individual needs of people so – in its every activity – takes account of their nature.
I agree that

Communism is not just impractical, but evil.

This is because communism tries to treat everyone as being the same when they are not.
But you assert

So is the sort of socialism you advocate, ultimately.

That is a grossly offensive and unsubstantiated insult which says much about you and nothing about socialism.
You say

The Tolpuddle Martyrs were an agricultural trade union. I don’t know what aspect of their Friendly Society you find socialistic, except as perhaps any organization in restraint of trade could be so considered. I also don’t know why you don’t find Owen’s societies to fit your concept of socialism. Maybe because they’re not statist?

The Tolpuddle Martyrs founded their Friendly Society (a fore-runner of modern trade unions) because of their socialist principles. And their devising of those principles is why they are the origin of socialism.
I fail to understand why you think Owen had those principles, and you do not say why you think he did.
Also, as I said, I don’t know what you mean by “statist”.
You demonstrate your lack of ability at reading comprehension when you write

Thanks for clarifying your view of “society”. As I thought, you conceive of it as state-run.

Say what!?
I wrote

a “society” can be a family, a golf club, a trade union, or many other groups of people.
In the context of this discussion, society is a nation state or a locality subject to a local government

What is there about “In the context of this discussion” that you do not understand?
We are talking about political systems which are operated by governments.
It seems you are arguing for anarchism.
Indeed, you follow that with this rant which seems to be a call for anarchism.

The majority of people in government may not be evil themselves, humans too can end up doing bad while imagining they’re doing good. Telling other people what to do & wanting to keep your growing your budget every year are enough gateway to evil. Dogs revert to wolves when they pack up.

A country without a government will collapse. We are discussing which principles should apply to government activity. You seem to be claiming there should be no government activity.
You say

The American Founding Fathers’ study of history led them to the right conclusion that government needed to be limited & restrained by a system of checks & balances because the state, while sometimes necessary, is always inclined to evil.

“Always”? I doubt they thought that. But they rightly recognised that government activity requires constraints.
Socialism is one such constraint and the US Constitution is another. But government is ALWAYS and CONSTANTLY “necessary”: government is not only “sometimes” necessary. Again, you seem to have a yearning for anarchism.
And you follow that nonsense with this silly rant

When the welfare states of Europe can no longer beg, borrow, steal other peoples’ money or print funny money, the end will be ugly. Maybe more like Argentina than Zimbabwe, but not pretty in any case. The US is hurrying down the same path to doom.

The “welfare states of Europe” (and elsewhere) do not “beg, borrow, steal other peoples’ money”. I wonder how you obtained such a strange idea. People who are having their money stolen do not vote for the thieves to remain in office.
All civilisations fall eventually, but your prediction seems very improbable. Indeed, the economy of the quasi-communist China is growing more than the US economy. And few socialist countries have economies which are growing at a dissimilar rate to the US economy.
You conclude with this laughable twaddle

I wonder just in what ways you imagine Britain freer than the US, although we’re rapidly joining you in abject serfdom. The slaves must rejoice in their chains.

We Brits enjoy our chains and row the galleys for fun /sarc.
In fact, we are freed by our rights to education, housing and healthcare of which Americans are deprived.
Richard

Gail Combs

August 12, 2013 4:19 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 12, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Gail Combs…
It states your views of “corporatism” most of which I agree.
I hope you will understand and forgive my failure to discuss your post….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No problem. I have not made a study of philosophy so I am following the rest of your comments and that of others with interest.
The differences in viewpoints, much of which is influenced by what we have heard and read is fascinating.
I would like to point out that the ‘Progressives’ or whatever they choose to call themselves have done a great deal of damage to my country under the name of ‘Socialism’ If you have read any of what Robin has written or some of what I have written there has been a very successful attack on our education system by Fabian Socialist John Dewey such that by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.” and In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework. Heck my state in desperation past a law that kids had to learn handwriting and how to do the multiplication tables!
These may be wolves hiding under the sheepskin of socialism as their coat of arms suggests but they have smeared the name of socialism good and proper.

milodonharlani

August 12, 2013 4:35 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:54 pm
I neglected to reply to your question if I worked in a prison. No, but I have worked in the public, for & non-profit private sectors. As the public sector has flourished, impoverishing the productive private sector, government workers have gotten worse in every way. Dealing with stultifying bureaucracy is a huge drain on economic growth.
While no country yet has enjoyed an unlimited free market system, those state which most encourage the ideal are most productive & enrich the lives of their citizens. Some socialists states have managed artificially to maintain high living standards, but without reform they’re doomed to go the way of Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal & Ireland. Smaller economies can be bailed out by their bigger neighbors or trading partners, but there is not enough money in the world to bail out France, too, which is now headed down the same path. So far Britain & Germany have managed their affairs better, but the EU may drag them down with the PIIGS.
Welfare states destroy humanity by making people dependent victims instead of free citizens. Your idea of rights differs from mine, but I would note that despite our public schools (not in the UK sense of the term) doing the best they can to ruin our educational system, the US still has a higher share of college grads than most if not all European countries. (Haven’t checked the latest statistics, but our high number of older grads is being eroded by fewer among the disincentivized young. I note that some European countries are now backing away from “free” university tuition.)
Housing & healthcare are also better in the US, by any meaningful measure, although there again we’re trying to ruin good things. While some changes would be good, they have nothing to do with socialism.
Detroit is a perfect example of what socialism has wrought, as are our Indian Reservations.
Maybe it comes down to our view of human nature. Many people do enjoy working hard & being creative. But a great many also are content to do nothing but amuse themselves at others’ expense. That’s why a productive system requires incentives. For at least tens of millions in this country, only fear of starving will motivate them to work. Same for every other country in which I’ve studied, lived & worked, including your own. Unlimited unemployment “insurance” becomes welfare, which is destructive & no way to love your fellow human. You wouldn’t want your kids on the dole indefinitely, so why would you want others trapped in multi-generational cycles of poverty, despair, pointlessness & crime?
Statism to me means what it originally intended in French, ie belief that government should control economic & social policy more & private institutions & individuals less, or not at all.
I’m sorry you’re offended by equating your vision of socialism with communism & Nazism, but this is one instance in which invoking Stalin & Hitler are justified. State control is simply a matter of degree. Only the rickety barrier of a constitution founded on the rights to life, liberty & property (Locke; “pursuit of happiness”, Jefferson) stands between the banal perpetrators of mass-murder in national & international socialist regimes & the creeping level of control & surveillance in Western European socialism & what’s happening in the US.
You make my point that you imagine the government giving you the “rights” to education, housing & healthcare make you free. Having no choice isn’t freedom. Having control over your own life is, & being at liberty to participate as fully as possible in power. You’re free to row the galley wherever the White Hall pilot directs & at the pace the drummers set. Here, if our officials don’t abide by the fundamental law of the land, we have the liberty & ability to defend our rights.
I’m not optimistic that such legal barriers will hold. The perspicacious prophecy of Tocqueville & insightful predictions of Schumpeter (crony capitalism cozy with statism) are sadly coming true. When a majority can vote itself the wealth of the minority, democracy become dictatorship, aided & abetted by tyrannical administrative apparatus set up by freely elected, putative representatives of the people.
But maybe the world will wake up & start turning around off the path to serfdom & disastrous debacle.

Gail Combs

August 12, 2013 4:57 pm

milodonharlani,
May I suggest you watch this presentation to at a Tea Party Meeting by a dyed in the wool California socialist on UN Agenda 21 or read what she has to say in the essay THE POST SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. She also shows not all socialist are communists and not all are statists. (It was a bit of a surprise to me.)
I am a capitalist but I feel that if we don’t quit the “Lets you and he fight” that our mutual enemies keep stirring up and open up some genuine lines of communication then TPTB will win.
Thanks to the internet I am seeing much more awareness of the political maneuvering behind the scenes than I saw five years ago. This is in ordinary people I chat with in the grocery store or at the burger place and this gives me hope.

milodonharlani

August 12, 2013 5:53 pm

Gail Combs says:
August 12, 2013 at 4:57 pm
I’m for finding common ground with a wide range of stripes of opinion, including communists who don’t want to murder kulaks. I’m familiar with variety of socialism, having studied it in college & grad school & counting many socialists among my friends. I went to grad school in England. A communist friend of mine said he thought that if the British could vote on it, they would still have a death penalty, too. That may have changed over the decades.
My beef is that utopian socialists are few & far between these days, outside hippie communes, so that pretty much leaves statists. And once you start down that road, there’s nothing stopping the slide into fascism or communism. Having studied, lived or worked on most of the continents, I’ve seen this descent happen over & over again, always to the detriment of the people supposed to benefit.
The British parliament can do whatever it wants, as the House of Lords no longer functions as a supreme court ruling on the fundamental law of the land, unchangeable except by constitutional amendment. The parties are increasingly in effect one government party, which picks its own candidates from among the elect, as it were, making a mockery of elections. The administrative apparatus is even less accountable to its subjects, no longer citizens, in telling them what to do & not do.
Nor in much of Europe is there a really free press any more, which increasingly applies to the US as well. Those who sacrifice too much liberty for security end up with neither.
And I’m sorry, but the Tolpuddle strikers wanted ten shillings per week instead of six, not public ownership of the means of production, nor even necessarily land reform. Richard may have read more of their words than I, but I haven’t found the word “socialism” in their vocabulary, although they did speak of liberty, the rights freely to assemble, associate, petition, speak & agitate. Neither, IIRC did the Webbs, Fabian socialist historians of British trade unionism, find evidence of their commitment to any brand of socialism, unless so vague as to be meaningless. I might be wrong about that, too, since it has been so long. If so, I’d welcome correction.
So I’m glad to make common cause on any number of issues with people of different opinions on other questions, as with Richard in combating CACCA. I do, as I said, apologize for offending him. I don’t take offense at his laughable twaddle or anything else.
Just don’t ask me to surrender any more of my liberties, to include worrying about what I say on the phone or in emails or have in my luggage, or go along to get along & get ahead (like mainstream Republicans). Those who sacrifice too much freedom for security end up with neither. I was willing to risk my life to cover my buddies in Afghanistan, but not my liberty. I know there are socialists who consider themselves libertarian, but they’re not connecting the dots, IMO, between big government in economics with social & political freedom.

Gail Combs

August 12, 2013 11:32 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 12, 2013 at 4:35 pm
….Maybe it comes down to our view of human nature. Many people do enjoy working hard & being creative. But a great many also are content to do nothing but amuse themselves at others’ expense. That’s why a productive system requires incentives….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A productive system does not require incentives, it just needs the government to get the hell out of the way! Red tape is strangling the small business person much to the delight of Big Business. Farming was the last ‘Unregulated business’ and that door just got slammed shut.
When I was a kid you had babysitters, house keepers, kids mowing lawns, handy men, garages and all sorts of small businesses with very little red tape to worry about. Now you need a G.D. licence to be a baby sitter! Something I did as a 13 year old. Heck they government is even going after kids lemonade stands link Grannies homemade pie at the local church bake sale, link and even regulates kiddie bounce houses.
You have to have a lawyer, an accountant and a business degree now a days to go into a small business, so who is going to bother? 80% of small businesses close within two years, not because they do not make money but because it is just too much hassle. (I have the link somewhere for that)

richardscourtney

August 13, 2013 1:25 am

milodonharlani:
My previous replies to you have quoted each of your statements and commented on them.
At this point I do not intend to do that.
You and I have clearly presented our views for others to read, understand and consider. Further such debate would be an ‘Angels On A Pin’ discussion.
I now write to make three points which highlight what I think are the significant differences between us.
Firstly, if people want to know my views as a socialist then they can read them above or ask me for any needed clarification of points.
Nobody should take your misrepresentations of my views as being other than expression of your (several) misunderstandings and prejudices.
Secondly, some of your misunderstandings and prejudices are grossly offensive.
You say those misunderstandings and prejudices are based on your belief that people are “inherently evil”, and you say that belief is based on your experience. I am sorry you have had such a sad life and I regret that I cannot help to improve your future life.
Importantly,your misunderstandings and prejudices are severe. For example, you assert to me

I’m sorry you’re offended by equating your vision of socialism with communism & Naz1sm, but this is one instance in which invoking Stalin & H1tler are justified.

Of course I am “offended”. Your slur is untrue, insulting and ridiculous.
It says much about your distorted world-view and nothing about socialism (n.b. NOT [my] “vision of socialism”).
Your distorted world-view is demonstrated in many ways. For example, your repeated assertion that socialism derives from France, NO! Socialism arose in Southern England as an alternative to the revolutionary horrors of Republicanism which had happened across the channel in France. Indeed, the consideration of all needs and abilities which socialism requires is the major reason why the UK retained the British monarchy while republicans in France and communists in Russia executed theirs: and this while the pressures on the poor and middle class were greater in the UK because the UK devised the Industrial Revolution.
Thirdly, I agree with Gail Combs when she writes to you at August 12, 2013 at 11:32 pm saying

A productive system does not require incentives, it just needs the government to get the hell out of the way!

Her need to say this again demonstrates your distorted world view. Business people seek business success. They do not need “incentives” to do what they want to do.
The Rule Of Law (which you seem to dislike) can protect application of peoples’ abilities (e.g. by punishing business fr@ud) or inhibit people in applying their abilities (e.g. by stifling business people with ‘red tape’). Socialists recognise the needs and abilities of everybody including business people. Hence, socialists try to protect everyone from limitations on meeting their needs and fulfilling their abilities.
You seem to think that ‘wishing away’ bureaucracy is achievable. But it is not achievable because bureaucracies (e.g. legal systems) are inevitable in the imposition of the Rule Of Law. Socialism recognises the needs of all (including business people) so attempts to control the acquisition of power by bureaucrats: you merely arm-wave about how bureaucrats should not exist.
And this emphasises the importance of voting to socialism (which I explained to Mark Bofill). The EU is an unelected bureaucracy operated by unelected bureaucrats who continue to expand their powers. This is a form of fascism and is a denial of socialism. This problem can only be corrected by imposition of democracy as required by socialism.
Richard

Gail Combs

August 13, 2013 5:31 am

richardscourtney says:
….The EU is an unelected bureaucracy operated by unelected bureaucrats who continue to expand their powers. This is a form of fascism and is a denial of socialism. This problem can only be corrected by imposition of democracy as required by socialism…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will nit pick with you there. Unelected bureaucrats and the pseudo- elections we have in the USA and Europe are strongly aided and abetted by the capture of the media by the political/ruling class. This allows them to ‘pre-select’ the ‘Winner’
The second problem is Democracy.
“A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.” ~ George Bernard Shaw
That is why the USA was originally set-up as a Republic with the Senate representing the interest of the individual states. (State legislatures selected senators) This was done to prevent the Federal government from grabbing too much power based on James Madison’s advice that the best way to protect against tyrannical governments was to balance the ambitions of one branch against those of a corresponding branch. Unfortunately this was changed to direct election of senators in 1913. The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.” 1913 was the same year the USA got saddled with the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th amendment was ratified establishing Congress’s right to impose a Federal income tax. (Enough to make one think the number 13 is a jinx )
This is the face of (Fabian) socialism that Milodonharlani and I find so abhorrent.

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable
and Co., 1934), p. 296.
Source

(It is interesting to note I had four links to that quote now I get ‘page not found’ or this drivel )
The link between the Fabian Socialists and the Eugenics movement is documented even in the Guardian. Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet: Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable
Given this discussion the following passage may be of interest:

The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html
“…During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West…. Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Naz1 League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression…

It is no wonder the ‘Definitions’ are all mucked-up. Münzenberg was a master propagandist.

Gail Combs

August 13, 2013 6:51 am

And just in case you thought the USA was ‘Free” (Remember our 1st amendment rights to freedom of Speech, of the Press, Petition, Assembly and Religion.)
Dr. Spencer got a taste of what our rulers think of freedom of religion. Now it seems the state capital of the Live Free or Die state, New Hampshire wants a ‘Tank’ to protect them against ‘Domestic Terrorists’ New Hampshire City Requests a Tank [Armored vehicle] to Deal with “Domestic Terrorist” Groups Like Occupy Wall Street and Libertarians

…. an application to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeking more than $250,000 to purchase an armored police vehicle, the capital city of New Hampshire specified the local branch of the Occupy movement and the Free State Project, an effort to recruit “liberty-loving people” to relocate to the Granite State, as potential sources of terrorist action.
“The State of New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism slants primarily towards the domestic type,” the filing reads. “We are fortunate that our State has not been victimized from a mass casualty event from an international terrorism strike however on the domestic front, the threat is real and here. Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges.”
The application was obtained by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union (NHCLU) through a public records request, and is one of more than 250 filed by the American Civil Liberties Unionto track what it sees as the increasing militarization of police departments throughout the country….

This goes right along with the “Anti-Occupy” law ends American’s right to protest

…Thanks to almost zero media coverage, few of us know about a law passed this past March, severely limiting our right to protest. The silence may have been due to the lack of controversy in bringing the bill to law: Only three of our federal elected officials voted against the bill’s passage. Yes, Republicans and Democrats agreed on something almost 100%….
The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees us the rights of free speech and assembly. A fundamental purpose of our free speech guarantee is to invite dispute. Protests can and have been the catalyst for positive change. Thus while we despise that protestors can burn our flag as protected political speech, and we hate that Neo-Nazis can march down our streets, we recognize the rights of these groups to do what they do and we send our troops across the world to fight for these rights.
Last year’s “occupy movement” scared the government. On March 8, President Obama signed a law that makes protesting more difficult and more criminal. The law is titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, and it passed unanimously in the Senate and with only three “no” votes in the House. It was called the “Trepass Bill” by Congress and the “anti-Occupy law” by everyone else who commented.
The law “improves” public grounds by forcing people – protestors – elsewhere. It amends an older law that made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly” enter a restricted space. Now you will be found guilty of this offense if you simply “knowingly” enter a restricted area, even if you did not know it was illegal to do so. The Department of Homeland Security can designate an event as one of “national significance,” making protests or demonstrations near the event illegal.
The law makes it punishable by up to ten years in jail to protest anywhere the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting,” or anywhere they might be guarding someone. Does the name Secret tell you anything about your chances of knowing where they are? The law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.” You can no longer heckle or “boo” at a political candidate’s speech, as that would be disruptive….

It would seem our ‘Elite’ Rulers are getting uneasy about losing control of the masses. Interesting that the ACLU, Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party now all have a ‘Common Cause’

richardscourtney

August 13, 2013 10:14 am

philjourdan
re your diatribe at August 13, 2013 at 5:53 am.
Your claim that I am “paranoid” is as delusional as the rest of your irrational, illogical and offensive comments in this thread.
And it may come as a surprise to you, but I could not care less if I am losing the “respect” of an anonymous, disingenuous and offensive boor posting on a blog.
Richard

philjourdan

Reply to richardscourtney

August 13, 2013 10:39 am

@richard – enough of your childishness. I said I did not care if I lost ‘friends’ as you warned me what was going to happen.

I suggest you would benefit from learning the basics of ‘how to make friends and influence people’.

If speaking the truth makes me lose ‘friends’, so be it. I have not insulted you yet, nor will I. Nor will I worry about your petty insults.
I will respect your statements on Climate. Not on economic or political matters. You want to make everything personal. So be it. That only makes you narcissistic. It does not make you right.

richardscourtney

August 13, 2013 10:26 am

Gail Combs:
At August 13, 2013 at 5:31 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1388406
you comment on my having said

….The EU is an unelected bureaucracy operated by unelected bureaucrats who continue to expand their powers. This is a form of fascism and is a denial of socialism. This problem can only be corrected by imposition of democracy as required by socialism…..

by replying

I will nit pick with you there. Unelected bureaucrats and the pseudo- elections we have in the USA and Europe are strongly aided and abetted by the capture of the media by the political/ruling class. This allows them to ‘pre-select’ the ‘Winner’, …

I concede your point and I do not have an answer to it.
I remind that the issue of ‘the richest getting the biggest campaign’ is addressed in socialist countries by limiting expenditure on elections by each person standing in the election. This limits advertising in the press but does not limit the press. But it would be a dangerous undertaking to put any limit on the press reporting and commenting on elections and election candidates.
So, as i said, I don’t have a suggestion for dealing with the problem you mention. Sorry.
Richard

richardscourtney

August 13, 2013 10:33 am

John R T:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 13, 2013 at 8:19 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1388494
It clearly states your view which disagrees with my views. Good.
However, your final paragraph is plain wrong. I have attempted to state my views as clearly as I could, and I have recited nothing (although I have provided links to supporting information). That you disagree with my views does not make my views “self-serving”, and my views are certainly NOT “smoke and mirrors”.
Richard