Stream: Leftists Ramping Up The Violence: How Long Until They Kill Somebody?
How long before somebody gets killed by an enraged leftist? Let’s start a pool. I’ll be the bookie (the only sure way to make money).
Odds on a killing in the next six months, 7 to 1 against; from six months to a year, 4 to 1; after a year 2 to 1. Get your bets in early; these odds might tighten.
Some friends of mine, Roy Spencer and John Christy, were shot at. Both men are bona fide atmospheric scientists, men who has actually studied and contributed greatly to their field, and men who express skepticism that global-warming-of-doom will kill us all unless we put the government in charge of all aspects of our lives.
Spencer wrote:
A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at [the University of Alabama Huntsville] over the weekend.
All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).
Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence.
The UAH police, with lickety split speed, classified the violence as a “random shooting.”
The bullets must have just showed up out of nowhere.
So the violent folks at People’s Action—why do communists always say their violence is done in the name of the people?—attacked the Heritage Foundation offices. Stormed right on in.
Media accounts call the violent actors “protesters”. The proper word is, of course, thugs, though violent rabble would do as well. The media does not use proper labels because, as everybody knows, the media is delighted by the attacks.
Why did these violent individuals storm a think tank? In their own fantastical words, “We’re shutting it down at @Heritage because it continues to be @realDonaldTrump’s think tank. #RiseUp2017 #Budget4ThePeople”
Well, what more justification is needed than in expressing (tepid) supporting for a sitting President? Off with their heads, amirite?
Does not Politico have a prime-time article entitled “100 days of Democratic rage“? Smiling at the increase in irrational tantrums, violence, and threatened violence across these once United States, Politico says there is a “vibrant culture of resistance on the left”. Vibrant.
We have already seen there exists a well ensconced culture of violence on university and college campuses, now places of strict and unthinking intolerance. Just as a for-example, students, many with those dead-alive eyes familiar from social media posts, attacked author Charles Murray and a professor at Middlebury College. The professor was sent to the hospital.
The media sighed a slight sigh and then hinted the woman with Murray had it coming because, said the Washington Post, the Southern Poverty Law Center “considers Murray a white nationalist who uses ‘racist pseudoscience…'”
[…]
If you haven’t yet been shot, click on over to read the rest.
Bonus! Some extra links and comments not found in the Stream article.
Headline “Intimidation Is the New Normal on Campus: From now on, any speaker who arouses a protest is at risk of a beating“. This is from the Chronicle of Higher Education, folks.
…Berkeley students who thought it was morally permissible to use violence to stop a lecture from taking place. As one student wrote afterward, “Violence helped ensure the safety of students.” Another asked, “When the nonviolent tactics [for stopping the talk] have been exhausted — what is left?
…for we are witnessing the emergence of a dangerous new norm for responding to speakers who challenge campus orthodoxy. Anyone offended by the speaker can put out a call on Facebook to bring together students and locals, including “antifa” (antifascist) and black-bloc activists who explicitly endorse the use of violence against racists and fascists. Because of flagrant “concept creep,” however, almost anyone who is politically right of center can be labeled a racist or a fascist.
We are all Nazis now.
Headline Antifa Shutting Down Portland’s Parade Of Roses Because REPUBLICANS Were Marching. Or, We’re All Nazis Now.
We will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out as we will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward lgbt, immigrants, people of color or others…
Headline Cornell Professor called rape apologist. No, not me. I was fired before that could happen.
Update NYT on Berkeley: Conservatives are “eagerly throwing themselves into volatile situations”. And just why are these situations volatile, then Finnigan?
Campus creeps in a nutshell: "your words are the same as violence, our violence is the same as words."
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) April 27, 2017
Slightly off-topic: the audacious epigone has noted the steady drop of IQ among college graduates. http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/04/average-iq-of-college-graduates-by.html I wonder why….
Well, many on the left are making it very clear that we are not happy about the reactionaries shutting down speeches or making riots or doing any kind of violence. We don’t want anyone getting shot! You shouldn’t go throwing stones and picking fights, though. The right has a notoriously violent reactionary streak.
JMJ
I don’t know about the right having a notoriously violent reactionary streak vs the left, etc. Many sources indicate that Democrats are associated with more gun violence leading to deaths (e.g. political assassins, but credible studies usually find the data inconclusive, with party affiliation usually unknown, or, other factors [e.g. mental health] being overwhelmingly the dominant factor), but usually omitted in such analyses is that most of those violent crimes occur in poor neighborhoods where the population tilts heavily toward welfare & other govt dependencies associated with programs most strongly supported by Democrats. In other words, being in a poor crime-ridden neighborhood is a dominant factor skewing the numbers for Democrats…and taking that out the numbers are inconclusive on party affiliation.
I’d like to see objective data (numbers, arrests, etc.) about ‘notoriously violent reactionary streaks’ vs party affiliation.
Anecdotal evidence consisting of videos of rioting students on college campus’s shouting anti-Trump slogans, Wash. D.C. riots at Trump’s inauguration (well over 200 arrests with intent to prosecute to the fullest per a D.C. police officer friend) all suggest the rioters & arrestees are not Republicans.
Finding comparable indicators that are clearly associated with Republican groups (excluding unsupported assertions parroted) seems hard to come by. If anyone has any links to such please share.
The blatant bias & misrepresentations — coming from all sides — is getting tiresome.
RE: “Some friends of mine, Roy Spencer and John Christy, were shot at.”
BS – Three rounds hit offices, only one bullet came close to Christy’s office and that hit the window to the office adjacent to Christy’s office. Four bullets went into the side of the building. That’s quite a spread. Spencer’s office is in a different part of the building entirely (per his own blog, where he also makes the odd remark about that spread being a “group” he’d have difficulty matching with his handgun — which at 70 yards is undoubtedly true, but nobody with an knowledge of firearms would consider using a handgun for serious target shooting at 70 yards!). Presumably Christy was not in his office when the shots were fired, during a march during the weekend.
RE: “The UAH police, with lickety split speed, classified the violence as a “random shooting.” The bullets must have just showed up out of nowhere.”
HERE we go again playing semantics games — the police state, as reported in multiple press articles, the shot pattern and shell casing distribution [along a ditch] is consistent with a drive-by from a nearby road, noting that that location & trees make the top two floors a natural target. That’s hardly from “nowhere” … but presumably we’re seeing evidence of Briggs’ penchant for interpreting the word “random” in his particular and inflexible way. Here’s what it means in general use, such as by the police:
Random — One definition, of many that are situational dependent:
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.
“a random sample of 100 households”
synonyms: unsystematic, unmethodical, arbitrary, unplanned, undirected, casual, indiscriminate, nonspecific, haphazard, stray, erratic;
Why did the shooter(s) pick that building & floor — possibly out of convenience and a location that enabled them to get away with it. That the shooter(s) picked that building because of Dr. Christy’s science-based opposition to global warming alarmism seems reasonable/likely. However, maybe they were really targeting one of the offices actually hit [other faculty might prompt a grudge in any of their students, after all] and fired the rest randomly as a distraction (aka like the shooting in the movie Jack Reacher); if s/he/they knew Dr Christy was nearby that might have served as an added motive as it would be an added bit of cover to exploit (maybe the shooter is a global warming denialist wanting to “send a message” to another faculty member). Absent any objective evidence we might also estimate that the shooter(s) not only targeted that building, and even floor for that reason … but also picked that time because they knew the building was unoccupied and nobody would be hurt — i.e. they might have chosen to shoot precisely because they did not intend to shoot at anybody.
There’s a host of possibilities. Jumping to a very particular conclusion based on basically no evidence, and then making unfounded and even false assertions as to what is known to have happened [apparently to reinforce the presumed-but-unfounded-conclusion], as Briggs did…especially coming from Briggs who hosts this blog in particular to address logic and philosophy and even search for “Truth”…why…when Briggs says that two of his friends were shot at, is he lying?
He certainly ought to know better after preaching so much and for so long what he clearly, here, didn’t practice.
Let’s not forget that conservatives have most of the guns.
Let’s not forget that conservatives have most of the guns under lock and key.
There, fixed it for ya.
JMJ —
So you are standing guard, defending those who do not share your ideology (similar to the muscle you claimed to have provided outside abortion clinics? Or is this stance more rhetorical than real.
They seem to like to intimidate people and break things. I do think the risk of someone being killed is high (given the history of violence on the left, I would say it’s likely). But another goal seems to be to provoke someone into fighting back so they can say, “See??? THEY’RE VIOLENT KOOKS who need to be stopped!”
Ken, “party affiliation” wouldn’t be the identifier. It’s really more of a “right and left” thing. I doubt most “antifa” sorts are registered Democrats, or are particularly enamored with that party. I’d bet most of the very far right sorts are not registered to a party either. We’re talking extremes here. But if you want an example from the right wing, just look at the abortion provider murders, or the murders and assaults of people who happen to look “Muslim,” or the Trump rallies where people were getting sucker-punched. I mean, you really shouldn’t need anyone to remind you of these things.
JMJ
Dr. Spencer is blogging more about the shooting:
…says the FN Five-seven (5.7 mm) gun is loud, everyone would have noticed
– NOT necessarily —
Many guns can fire the 5.7 mm round, the AR57 rifle being popular, and use of the M16 to force the slightly larger 5.7mm round thru is not unusual (though risky). Many shooters load their own rounds, and adjusting the amount of powder downwards, for a slower speed bullet, is common — often expressly to achieve a subsonic (quiet) shot, important when shooting intrusive varmints without overly bothering one’s neighbors. Assassins do this for similar reasons (and, with practice, can install just enough powder for the round to reach the target and have the powder be completely burned before the slow-but-fast-enough bullet leaves the muzzle — leaving no discernible flash).
In other words, a group of kids, recreational shooters, very easily could have popped off a few homemade rounds, perhaps with a plastic bottle taped to the muzzle (an improvised silencer). Shot from inside a car (compounding the silencing effect a bit), with the radio loud, a passing bystander might not even have noticed.
Why is the fact that some bullets that hit were “near” Christy’s office so significant — so much so that whatever faculty member’s office(s) that were actually hit is of no apparent significance? On what basis is that leap of relevance being made?
Whatever exactly happened, any serious threat would look quite different.
Spencer’s blog post about why he & Christy weren’t questioned (along with their moves to the center of the limelight on this) maybe smacks of narcissism, certainly good press…for…something. Press reports already have made the connection to Christy’s office & his positions on climate change (which are well-known). Do the police really need to ask them about their views on the topic vs mainstream alarmist views? They aren’t that ignorant. If Spencer/Christy had any other threats, those should have been reported already and law enforcement would/does know.
That kind of self-serving posturing makes some wonder, along the lines of the adage, “follow the money” — who’s interests benefit from this shooting?
Its said Nero burned a section of Rome to make way for a new palace, then blamed the Christians to get away with it. And people have been pulling that sort of stunt ever since, and undoubtedly earlier. Its a tried & true tactic. There’s even a website now for staged hate crimes, www[dot]fakehatecrimes[dot]org.
With a Trump Administration, with Trump’s well-known views on climate change (e.g., “hoax”) this shooting may serve as an example justifying cracking down on the alarmist side … for bolstering the influence of the “denialist” side [that include as prominent members Christy & Spencer].
Would a serious climate alarmist engage in such a type of eco-terrorism, fire off a bunch of rounds of ammo, to thereby politically arm the opposition?
And if such an eco-terrorist did do so, would you, as a prime target, draw public attention to yourself, effectively using the event as a bully pulpit — and goading the terrorist, or, would you keep a low public profile and approach law enforcement discretely? Or, would you only do such a thing if you believe the actual threat was minimal or not real?
Could someone on the right [maybe someone with a “violent reactionary streak”] have staged the crime for broader politically self-interested benefit?
Doesn’t the patterns of facts & behaviors we observe raise a whole new set of suspects?
There’s very good reasons why lawyers tell clients associated with a crime to keep their mouths shut and keep a low profile — anything other, much more often than not, works against their best interests.
JMJ,
Some good point re abortion murders, etc. … but from what little I know about those, and other, events the common denominator seems to be with people with strongly held and rigidly held extreme beliefs & values. Ideology intolerant of opposing views, or, behaviors inconsistent with that ideology.
Yes, one can point to people on the Right engaging in personal violence, but these are almost always individuals. And yes, those examples tend to be more direct and confrontational, but generally on a small scale, approaching one-on-one.
What we’re seeing, mostly from those on the Left, with the epicenter on university campus’s, is wholesale intolerance leading to mob bullying, including sometimes rioting. What ever happened to simply endorsing a boycott or peaceful protest? Such mob behavior used to be seen in the ’60s, with the race riots, where an entire class of individuals had major discrimination to overcome — they were pursuing something of high value, equal rights.
Now, we’re seeing similar mob behavior (and its worsening) — in institutions of learning, where ideas are the essence — and the riotous protesting isn’t prompted as a means FOR anything, but rather as intolerance to ideas that challenge a particular ideology. Mob rule as a means to suppress ideas, to suppress thinking. To preserve a very particular narrow viewpoint. Suppression of ideas is a core tactic of tyranny; from cults to entire nations. Bizarrely, this is arising from institutions whose purpose is the cultivation of thinking.
This reflects a “sea change” and its coming almost exclusively from the Left, who overwhelmingly dominate colleges & universities.
The Atlantic [not known for being a Right-Wing publication] has a decent article about some of the underlying factors and why they’re so insidious:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
The physical violent, or mob bullying, is bad enough. The “mind-raping” that is creating a generation of future leaders who cannot tolerate a dissenting view, now becoming common in colleges, is of even more concern.
K
JMJ —
I thought you proudly claim to have assaulted someone outside an abortion clinic. Hmmm …
perhaps with a plastic bottle taped to the muzzle (an improvised silencer).
You apparently have never fired a gun with a suppressor. Unlike the Hollywood ones, real ones reduce the sound volume to around 120-140 db — roughly the volume of an ambulance siren. Even if fired from within a mostly closed vehicle it’s still really loud. The car might muffle the higher frequencies but would barely touch the lower ones. An auto mounted boom box can be heard for 1/4 to 1/2 mile.
The “pistol
Durn browser.
The”pistol” referred to is an FN P90, while called a pistol, is a machine gun slightly smaller than a sawed-off shotgun. Like all machine guns it takes some effort to group shots at 70 yards. The smaller the gun the harder it is.
We don’t have to ask when the right will resort to violence because violence is the way of life for the right.
Gail,
Can you provide examples of your claim?
I have asked myself the very same question, given that the ironically-named Antifa seems to be escalating the level of violence at successive encounters. It’s certainly an escalation from sticks (for banners/placards) and pepper spray to M80s and thrown bricks. It’s a matter of when, not if. It is appallling that it has been allowed to escalate this much already. By allowed, I mean the appropriate authorities not stepping in when it was their duty to do so.
If a far left speaker decides to talk at a campus you don’t see Antifa-like right-wing mobs wreaking havoc on person and property, so any left-right comparisons of this nature are entirely spurious. It is Antifa that is trying to silence free speech. The truly distasteful thing is that some of the more repellant members of Antifa are educators.
DAV – [Re-]Read the ENTIRE note so you don’t embarrass yourself; here’s the key detail:
“Many shooters load their own rounds, and adjusting the amount of powder downwards, for a slower speed bullet, is common — often expressly to achieve a subsonic (quiet) shot…a passing bystander might not even have noticed.”
A .22 cal rifle bullet (1.0 mm bigger than the rounds used), primed to be subsonic, unsuppressed, can exit the barrel well under 70 dB at the shooter’s ear (e.g. see:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2012/6/14/hush-it-s-cci-s-quiet-22/)
That’s about as loud as an old noisy dishwasher — easily masked by ambient noise, especially including a camouflaging loud car radio, and, noting sound dissipates per an inverse square law not saying it would be inaudible, but am asserting with certainty that even if heard it could easily be dismissed as a bystander could very easily fail to recognize it for what it was.
HEREs what DAV Said: “You apparently have never fired a gun with a suppressor. Unlike the Hollywood ones, real ones reduce the sound volume to around 120-140 db — roughly the volume of an ambulance siren.”
Even Hollywood understands about homemade & subsonic ammo, there’s a scene in the movie Grosse Pointe Blank where the receptionist is trying to order subsonic rounds.
Most pistol rounds are subsonic. It’s one of the reasons they have limited effective range. Pistol are also very loud even with a suppressor.
Why being a rifle then compromise the reason for using it? Just to be quiet? You apparently have limited experience — as in none — and from this are forming uninformed opinions.
Got a new keyboard app for the phone and it has some bizarre guesses. Sentence above should have been: Why bring a rifle then compromise the reason for using it?
Socialism has murdered 150 million human beings–so far–and ruined the lives of hundreds of millions more –even as it is turning Venezuela into a &*^%hole as we write.
Why is the violence of young, indoctrinated,sanctimonious leftist scum a surprise to anyone?