Responding to the False Intimidating Manipulative Smears (FIMS)


Because the POWELL Memo in 1971 Characterized organizations and activists who support of progressive causes as radical Marists, anyone who supports progressive government.programs as radical left wing activists who hate the free market system Any one who supports goveernrnment policies to reducet US federal or state GHG emissions is likely to be accused of one or more epithets such as socialist, alarmist,. ,job killer, tax and spend liberals, doomist ,and killers of  my freedom.  We will call these epithets false, intimidating, manipulative, smears or FIMS   We welcome comments on these FIMs,inccluding suggestions on additional FIMs in the contact box below

FIMS are often deployed against supporters of  government policies to solve environmental problems to put proponents of policies on the defensive while undermining public support for proposed government policies.  The most efficacious impacts of FIMS however, is to intimidate people from speaking publicly about solutions to a problem if the FIMS is widely spread.+

In the over four-decade debate about climate change in the US, the most frequent epithets hurled at proponents of climate change policies have usually been charges that the proponents are socialists, alarmists  job killers,, killers of freedom, or doomers.

Social scientists who study how powerful entities in a democracy get their way often point to the successful spread of a narrative that often includes these epithets so widely accepted that many citizens are afraid to challenge it.


Proponents of progressive government solutions to societies’ problems are often accused of being socialists or communists,

 Socialist / Communist- FIMS


Proponents of government action to achieve some common good should require the person or entity responsible for the socialist FIMS to define what he or she means by socialist.  The textbook definition of socialism is government ownership of the means o+f production-factories, farms, and enterprises. (Zakari,F,,39).  Proponents of government policies to reduce the threat of climate change or achieve some common or public good are rarely if ever socialists or communist in this sense.  Citizens have rights to ask their governments to support public goods particularly if the private sector is not adequately supporting public goods.

When US citizens have occasionally approvingly mentioned the public goods enjoyed by the Nordic counties, opponents of government provided public goods have very frequently referred to these countries as undermine public support for government supplied public goods such as health care, affordable higher education, and public transportation among many others,

When Bernie Sanders asserted that Denmark was a model of a democratic socialist state that the United States should emulate, the Prime Minister of Denmark,Lars Rasmussen, said::

Denmark is far from a socialist, planned economy, Denmark is a market economy. Denmark ranks higher than the US In the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom,  8TH DENMARK, 17TH US.  In general, Denmark, and other Northern European countries have an open, low tariff, competitive economies/

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. If citizens support government financing public goods that the market is not or cannot provide such as high quality health care, education ,public transportation,these are public goods that they have a right to request their government to provide the public good.


Your violating my freedom 


Citizens never have had the freedom to harm others, protected public resources, waive legal obligations, or put others at great risk.There are many rules of international and national law  that require nations to not harm others including the “no harm” rule, ‘  and agreed upon rules of international ” human rights law that require governments to assure that  right holders enjoy human rights.


You are a doomster . Like the epithet alarmist the doomster epithet is a claim that you are interpreting the climate change problem too pessimistically



Although it is not clear what doomster means,  it likely is a claim that someone takes an overly pessimistic view of climate threats. The same is true of the “alarmist” epithet. To critically evaluate these epithets one  needs to understand what issue the epithet refers to and what CO2e reductions are required of nations,.

The job killer epithet has frequently been a response to proposed government action to achieve their CO2 reduction responsibilities goals that would require governments to achieve zero CO2e, emissions. Job elimination is not an ethically or legally acceptable justification for d  government emission reduction goals particularly if the emissions reduction target are needed to prevent great harm around the world, If governments want to preserve the jobs they can make alternative jobs available under programs like the Green New Deal


Leave a Reply