Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

[Scepcop]

James Randi, Michael Shermer and the CSICOPers are highly selective with their skepticism. Not only do they not question their own beliefs, but they never challenge or apply skepticism to the status quo. Instead, they have a fanatical allegiance to it, evidenced by their behavior. A true skeptic examines all sides, including his own. But pseudoskeptics only point their skepticism at what they don't believe in, which everyone else does too. So what makes them different than anyone else then? Only one thing: The SIDE they're on. In this case, they are on the side of authority, orthodoxy and materialism. That is why their skepticism and critical examination is ONLY directed at anything and anyone that challenges the status quo, but NEVER at the status quo itself. In essence, that makes them "establishment defenders" (or establishment whores), not real skeptics.

That is why you will never see James Randi, Michael Shermer or the CSICOP crowd apply any skepticism, criticism or condemnation toward orthodoxy or establishment. They hold that side to be blameless and infallible, not overtly, but by their selective skepticism. And they take on faith anything that the establishment says as true, without the need for evidence or critical inquiry. You can see this in ALL their publications, writings, interviews and speeches. Thus they are the farthest thing from objectivity, logic, freethinking, unbiased mindsets, or true skepticism, for they hold the programmed mentality that "authority = truth".

Now, is that the mark of a freethinker, truth seeker, or true skeptic? I don't think so.

This is why not only are they against all validity of the paranormal, but also against all claims of conspiracy as well, which are not even paranormal in nature. In their view, anyone that challenges the system or the agenda of the elite, is automatically discredited, regardless of whether their claims are true, credible or backed by evidence. And this includes former high ranking government officials as well.

For those of you who have followed the work of Randi, Shermer or CSICOP, ask yourself this: Have you ever seen them criticize anything of the establishment, including crimes, murders, lies, conspiracies, evil plots, etc?

I'll bet not.

Consider the following documented facts and let me ask you:

Do they ever speak out against the senseless killings in the Iraq War for power and profit?

Nope.

Do they ever admit that the US Navy was wrong to fake the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 (which has now been exposed) which resulted in the deaths of 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, making the war and their deaths a FRAUD?

Nope.

Are they outraged with the fact that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking for many years, which even some in the mainstream media have reported? Or the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders who refused to abide by US policy?

Nope.

Are they outraged that the EPA lied after 9/11 that the air was safe to breathe, which caused thousands of First Responders to develop cancer from the toxic air and slowly die?

Nope.

Are they outraged that upper levels of government have concocted secret plots to sacrifice innocent lives to stage terrorist activities and blame it on others to start wars, such as Operation Northwoods and Operation Dirty Trick? (Google them for more info)

Nope.

Do they speak out against the thousands of people that die from pharmaceutical drugs every year?

Nope.

But will they go ballistic if ONE person allegedly dies from alternative treatment such as homeopathy?

You betcha!

So, what does it say about them then if they have no problem with lies and evil plots that result in the death of millions, yet have a big problem with the death of a few if alternative medicine is involved?

It tells you that they are one sided with an axe to grind, rather than fair, honest or objective. They are fanatical defenders of establishment and orthodoxy, holding that side to be blameless. As such they are totally blind to the faults of authority, or deliberately ignore them at least. Their critical thinking and skepticism can ONLY be directed at anything AGAINST the establishment, and NEVER at anything FROM the establishment.

Tell that to the pseudoskeptics. And when they deny it, challenge them to produce a publication from a media skeptic or skeptic organization that openly condemns or criticizes the above crimes of the establishment (elite or shadow government, whatever you want to call it). When they come up empty handed, then you've got them. From that point, it does not matter if they continue in their denial, for the facts speak for themselves.

Now, is that true skepticism to you? Is that objectivity, logic and science? Is that the mark of a freethinker independent of authority or bias? Or is that fanaticism from a programmed mind who has given up his intellect to become an intellectual slave of authority?

You tell me.

A REAL skeptic is able to apply skepticism to ALL SIDES, including their own. They do not hold one side to be blameless and the other to be always wrong, like the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers do. Fanatics are always one-sided, independent free thinkers aren't.

The ability to independently assess all sides, including your own, is the mark of a true freethinking at a higher level of consciousness. These folks clearly do not fit the bill.

You gotta remember that "actions speak louder than words". Anyone can claim to be a skeptic or critical freethinker. But if their ACTIONS do not show the hallmark of one, then they aren't. And by their actions, the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers aren't.

[Craig Browning]

I fear that on several levels, you're preaching to the choir

[tiger]

[Nostradamus]

[ProfWag]

ND hit it on the head when he pointed out that this rant to start the thread is all about political issues and not science issues. People, in general, don't have to time to study and look at everything so they tend to stick with what's most interesting to them at the time (not to you). This thread is a rather pointless, emotional based, evidence lacking, waste of time. And, just because they haven't posted their opinion on pharma, etc. do you really know what their opinions are of those things?

[Kevin Kane]

[ProfWag]

[ciscop]

your posts make me laught!!

[Kubla Khan]

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

Oh gee. I must have missed all this hoopla.
Obviously so did Eteponge and SCEPCOP. Imagine that!

First of all gentlemen, allow me to give you some background between SCEPCOP and Nostradamus. Those two have been at it long before I was appointed a Moderator. They both dish it out and they both take it very well. Some of the most interesting topics have spawned from those two going at it. Besides, I agree with SCEPCOP on his OP and ND made some valid points as well that I would enjoy seeing rebutted and that can't happen if one of them is banned. SCEPCOP is a big boy and takes care of himself very well. He doesn't need me to step in at times like this.

I also had nothing personally to add as I don't get involved with Randi, Shermer and the rest of them. It's not my cup of tea so I don't pay much attention to such topics, especially when I know that SCEPCOP has it covered. In the future, if you see something that you believe needs Moderation, I suggest that you use the "REPORT A POST" button. It keeps things in perspective for those who might want to rebutt without having to scroll around through the complaints.

[Nostradamus]

Did Scepcop write this? I took this to be a typical cut and paste from an unknown source which happens here often. That is the reason I referred to the author as I did.

As far as 4 letter word Kevin is concerned I see that he has been saying bad things again by vandalizing my name. Shame, shame, shame on him. If he wants a ban so bad then I suggest that:

1. I apologize to Scepcop for being the original author of the post if that is the case
2. Both I and Kevin get 1 week bans for our language
a. My ban for tearing into what I had erroneous (this unclear on this point) believed to an anonymous author
b. Kevin's ban for singling out a known author

[Kevin Kane]

If SCEPCOP is cool with the name-calling by ND, it's his call. I'm just pointing out a pattern of double standards which I am subjected to which don't appear to apply to skeptics who washed in off the street from some godless forum who refused to put up with them, I suspect. Just saying.

[Kubla Khan]

[NinjaPuppy]

ND - I had assumed the exact same thing... that this was a compilation of articles and information put together by SCEPCOP.