A wing-nut’s wing-nut

This is creepy.

Derek Skees, Guy Fawkes, and unintentional irony on a couple of levels.

Pictured here is our friend Derek Skees and a woman in a Guy Fawkes mask at a Tea Party holding up signs. The mask and the signs send a problematic message. This guy is out there. He’s as out there as they get.

First, the mask.  Are we to assume that Skees and his local conspira-tea buddies have “embraced the symbolism” of this Guy Fawkes, the Catholic radical who is remembered primarily for his failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament and kill King James I on November 5, 1605?

It’s going to be hard to argue that this is just an ordinary mask that the woman wears because she seeks anonymity (as it would indeed be embarrassing to be seen tea-bagging) and not an evocation of anti-government terrorism, because of  the distinct anti-faceless message on the signs she and Skees hold.  It’s going to be hard for Skees to distance himself from this, because he is proudly posing for these pictures.

Another problem, Mr Skees, is that your sign calls the “coaching” of doctors by bureaucrats “socialism” but what do you call it when you so-called “pro-lifers” in state legislatures start mandating in law what care a doctor is allowed to provide for women? [~crickets~]  Your other sign also conflicts with the supposed “pro-life” positions you claim to hold.

Will Hammerquist needs our support.

Creepy photo of Derek Skees with a creepy sign and a woman in a creepy mask.


30 Comments on "A wing-nut’s wing-nut"

  1. This woman appears to have the same build, height, and hair as Skees wife, who appears in the embarrassing ad below. Hmmm.

  2. George 3, We have no way of knowing whether or not that is Skees’ wife.

  3. Please, ma’am, comments on anonymity are inappropriate.

    • I’m not saying that she doesn’t have the right to be anonymous, I’m pointing out that her signs seem to denigrate the “faceless” and “nameless.” I’m saying, therefore, that the mask is to evoke the image of anti-government terrorism.

      • Then why are you trying to figure out who she is?

        Guy Fawkes is an appropriate image for anyone resisting tyranny. I’m surprised they know about him, given that they apparently know neither the meaning of history or tyranny.

        • Then why are you trying to figure out who she is?

          She didn’t Mark. George3 did. You might want to offer something at least resembling an apology, but I know you too well to think you will.

          The rest is explained below, and no. Guy Fawkes is not an appropriate image for those resisting tyranny, unless those others agree with authoritarian theocratic rule.

          • Horse feathers, Rod. It’s a mere image, and so far as I can tell, perfectly legal and appropriate in a protest environment.

            Gee whiz – Guy Fawkes was an awful man who wanted to do things that have routinely been done throughout history. Now the fake indignation. I look forward to further fake emotions from you. Have at it.

  4. Thanks for the follow-up question. I’m not trying to figure out who she is. It doesn’t matter. I’m making the point that this is an image that evokes anti-government terrorism. There is even a holiday in England “Guy Fawkes Day” that commemorates the discovery of the Fawkes Gunpowder Plot, during which Fawkes’ effigy is burned on a bonfire, as a traitor.

    • But what terrorism? They are merely marching and holding signs. I’ve seen much worse in anti-war protests, which, by the way, get no notable coverage.

      That reminds me … the coverage these guys get! 15,000 protested on Wall Street earlier this year … a little coverage, not much. Two million protested the Iraq War … they are just a fringe. Ralph Nader – yes – Ralph Nader routinely filled up 15,000 sear venues for his “Super rallies”in 2000. No coverage.

      Get 150 Teabaggers together, it’s a fricking news event. It is no accident.

  5. That someone would use a Guy Fawlkes mask in America – especially in this context – should come as a surprise to NO ONE. The Blockbuster movie “V” made it vogue to express concern with the way the Government is operating by using Guy Fawlkes references. Back when King Bush II was in office, many references were made to the similarities between the Bush administration (as well as a well known, right wing radio personality) and characters in that movie. I still use a tagline from that movie in my sig block in email.

    You call the use of the mask “anti-government terrorism”, but many of your compatriots – myself included – have used references to the movie (and it’s message) before when refering to King Bush II. Was that “anti-government terrorism”? I prefer to recognise that many people are not happy about the direction our current government is taking and if it takes a Guy Fawlkes mask to get the point across, so be it.

    As far as Skees is concerned, you are probably right – he appears to be a Wingnut and wouldn’t get my vote. Don’t dismiss the message, though, that many (on both sides of the isle) are not happy about where our government is going. “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people”. It is about time they started to work for us instead of the other way around.


  6. Interesting, I agree that the movie V twisted the history of this character and used poetic license to blur the terrorist symbolism into a what one could see as vigilante-style violence. The movie also had the “vigilante/terrorists” fighting a right-wing fascist government.

    • There’s a particular subtlety to the movie that is missed by most. Even the character V recognized himself as a terrorist and murderer, and willingly laughed at his chosen persona. He was a monster and he knew it, as was the real Guy Fawlkes. The historical figure, as do many in the Tea Party movement, had much more in common with the Taliban than with the founders of this country, and you are right to point that out. Just as Falwkes wanted to restore the virtual theocracy of the Catholic religion, many if not most of the Tea Party want to restore an America that has never existed, except in their fantasies which border on religious worship of 1950’s sit-coms.

      • Ah nonsense. You give them more credit than they deserve. They are mere testimony to the corrupting power of propaganda. It destroys the intellect. They’ve been inundated in fear-mongering and sloganeering, and their perceptions of Obama have been skewed by repeated use of incendiary phrasing like “socialist.” They’ve no clue what the word means other than “something really bad.”

        Keep in mind that these people were born with every brain cell intact. It was Ellul who pointed out that propaganda destroys thinking capacity. People who live under propaganda regimes never recover.

        • No Mark. I didn’t give them any credit at all. The nonsense is coming from you.

          • Tea Party = Taliban, restoration of theocracy, back to the future of the 1950’s.

            You can insult me in any way you choose and it will have no effect, but do not tell me that you did not say what you just said.

          • Mark, quit with the bullshit. You can stalk me all over the Montana Intertubes if you wish. But all you’re going to accomplish is alienating the very people you seek as ‘friends’, or at least as what passes for such with you. You insult their intelligence every single time you mischaracterize what I write, pretending that they’re not smart enough to know the difference between what I wrote, and your fantasy of what I’ve written. And at the end of the day, you’ll end up pissing on them because they won’t declare you King of The Internet. You’ve been banned from several sites already, and you’re hardly welcome at most others. Are you seriously going to try so very hard to wear out your welcome here so very quickly?

            I did not equate the Tea Party with the Taliban, Mark. I wrote that there are some similarities in their desires. You slant it into unreality because you don’t like me, and that somehow seems to make you important in your own mind. That won’t have the effect you wish to have around here, Mark. But I’ve every confidence that you’re loony-tunes enough to keep trying it anyway. I’ve no need to insult you; you insult everyone around you enough that you will be the punchline of the joke, at the end of the day.

          • This is interesting – actually, I’ve written about it and you specifically, Rod. I’ve pissed off no one here but you, and you walked in with a scowl. And I’m not stalking you. I come here, you come here. Got that?

            Anyway, what I have written about is group think, and the people who patrol the borders of groups disciplining people who step out of line. These are the authoritarians, numerous on the right, and on the “left” (you are really, as noted elsewhere, a Reagan Democrat) assigned the label of “wild card.”

            Now, Rod, go back and look at what you wrote. You’ve done this before – you are telling me, in your dense and tedious fashion, that the group does not like my behavior, that I am being excised here and there (actually, only at LITW – your place does not matter). You are, in other words, bringing the force of group standards on my errant opinions.

            It’s not about attitude or behavior. I’m relatively OK in manners and speech, though I hold my ground. You, on the other hand, are mean, condescending, vulgar, and now paranoid, as you imagine that I stalk you. I only analyze you, and think, after all this time, that I have a good bead on you. Altermeyer wrote about you.

          • You can’t even read, Tokarski.

            I’ve pissed off no one here

            I didn’t write “pissed off”. I wrote “pissing on”. And exactly as I illuminated, you continue to insult the intelligence of every reader here.

            • Again, you are in no position to criticize anyone for pissing on anyone else, as you are the premier piss king. You clean up your act now and then in order to project yourself on someone else, but you are still Rod Kailey, pisser.

  7. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! | August 8, 2010 1:25 PM at 1:25 PM |

    I’m glad to see that Skeester has finally reasserted his manhood! Instead of him wearing the mask, he made his WIFE do it! Hmm. I wonder. You don’t suppose he makes her wear it before bedtime, do you? “Here, honey. Wear the Guy Fawkes mask tonight. I’m feelin’ revolutionary”! Hey, I wouldn’t put it PAST him! The dude seems real wierd!

    (I know that’s bad. I apologize in advance.)

  8. First off we dont know if it is Skeeters wife but I will say this who ever it is sure doesnt have any guts if they just wana stand there in a mask and protest. I mean how chicken sh– is that. Ok if your going to protest in public at least have the b–ls to show your GD face for the love of pete. Second this kinda thing scares me cause first they dont care about facts they just care about emotion for example say the Obama healthcare bill was gona kill granny or take away doctor choice, ok those kinda things just get people riled up and are not true but dam they are good for geting people angry and anger is a form of power it makes individuals feel powerful. Anyway enough also it shows me this guy is way to far to the right wing to govern. Because when we go to far to the right or the left we dont govern we just fight b–ch and moan and then thats what happens to the legislative process it just breaks down like old rotten wood. Anyway theres my 2cents

  9. "J-the-man-Stevens" | August 16, 2010 2:12 PM at 2:12 PM |

    You all are pretty funny complaining about a women wearing a mask, when all of us hide behind our computers and rip these people new ones, ridicule them and beat them up, no matter where they stand on the issues. I think all of you are hypocrites. Let everyone know who you are Wulfgar, Cowgirl, Mark T, Farmboy and Moorcat. Lets be open to exposure for our selves, like Skees and Hammerquist.

    NOTE: This guy’s name got edited to show that he was pretending to be someone else, someone we all “know.” Lame. For some reason, he wasn’t smart enough to figure out that he could pick any name, and not pretend to be someone else. Also, he ruined his own point….so…

  10. As are you “J” We know that’s not your real name.

    • Some simple suggestions. At least until you can rope the trolls, it might not be a bad idea to suspect random emails from ‘supposed’ friendlies, check IPs and emails from which comments come and pay attention to timing. If you aren’t already (though I suspect you are) become familiar with traceroute and WHOIS. Those tools are your friends. If someone is pretending to not have read the facts from a thread before leveling a trollish accusation, odds are they know exactly what they’re doing. In their minds, they’re ‘playing you’, proving their intelligence. That is very true when they pretend to be someone else, and especially true when they insult everyone by loosely pretending to be someone else. Don’t be afraid to share information with those you can trust, even if they might appear to be ‘enemies’. But know that you can trust them first, or rely on the network of trust already established in the Montana web-o-tubes. It is somewhat broader than the trolls, right or left, tend to think.

      And don’t ever, not ever, be afraid to smack trolls right in the chops. This is your space, your property. You own it; they don’t. They will wail and moan about ‘free speech’ in a weak attempt to play on your better nature. Like Larry, I’m impressed that you understand ‘better nature’, and find great humor with it. Don’t let anyone else hurt that. Stomp them, hard.

      Okay, so maybe these suggestions aren’t so simple.

  11. wonderful, just what I was looking for. take it easy..

Comments are closed.