Banner
    Terror Tactics By The Left
    By Hank Campbell | July 12th 2012 05:00 AM | 36 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    It's no secret that an alarming number of left-wing people hate science - and scientists.  But why do far-left anarchists really hate science, enough to get violent about it? And why don't the right do anything more than be Freedom of Information Act pests?

    Sure, more people on the right than on the left deny evolution, but they aren't shooting evolutionary biologists, we just have to be embarrassed that fringe sectarian zealots in backwater counties try to teach children how God planted fossils as some sort of faith-based head fake. There is no physical danger.

    But science is deadly if you get a left-wing group after you.

    The gunning down in Italy of one of the "sorcerers of the atom" by a left-wing kook and the blatant advertising of the date when eco-terrorists were going to attack plant scientists because they were modifying wheat to not need aphid pesticides are just the tip of the cultural iceberg - a large chunk of the left believes scientists are running us headlong into a science-based apocalypse, and they are willing to blow people up to show how they will protect us.

    Sometimes these militants even target groups that other activist groups like. Shaklee Inc. of Pleasanton, California was listed as a "Caring Consumer" on PETA's website but the Animal Liberation Brigade attacked the company with a nail-covered, 10-pound ammonium nitrate bomb  - because the parent company of Shaklee, Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical, did business with animal testing company HLS. 

    Now, the FBI is worried that activist froth about fracking is inspiring a new wave of violent causes

    What is behind this mentality?  It may be the thing that social scientists extol as a virtue of being liberal, only twisted into the unbalanced notions of progressivism that gave us social authoritarian concepts like eugenics and forced busing in schools. Namely, the idea that being left-wing is mentally harder. Don't believe it?  Well, they did surveys outside bars, so it must be true. They found people get more conservative as they get drunk which makes being liberal more thoughtful.(1)  Perhaps social scientists have a point. It certainly  takes 'nuance' and 'complexity' and more 'focused concentration' to invent ways that it is right to kill innocent people. Mentally lazy right-wing brains just accept science and obey laws about not blowing up people unless their country has a lot of oil.

    Basically, the same traits that allow for understanding the subtleties of global warming during a blizzard make it easy to rationalize killing scientists.

    I'm not saying it is true but it is a logical extrapolation and anyone who agrees that liberals think with more complexity can see my point - I know that simple-minded conservatives lack the sophistication to glean it and would say you have to be a total moron to believe that the common political leaning of people who accept UFO conspiracies, ghosts, psychics and the link between vaccines and autism leads to a greater inclination to kill people. 

    But it doesn't hurt to be safe, so if you are in food science, biotechnology, medical research, energy research or apparently anything except climate science, stem cells and evolutionary biology, watch your back.  Justin Solondz, who bombed a University of Washington research facility, was sentenced to seven years in prison earlier this year - but the other members of his eco-terrorist cell known as “The Family” are still out there.

    NOTES:

    (1) Obviously, it may also be that when people are drunk they become less inhibited and drunk left-wing people simply say what they really think instead of stating what they are supposed to think and never reveal when the filter in place - i.e., maybe they are hypocrites, no different than some guy who gets drunk and starts making racist jokes.

    Comments

    Bravo!

    It's more than just abortionists that right-wing haters and hate-groups target with violence. Here is a partial list of their crimes: http://www.recreatingtampa.com/2011/01/politics-monday-the-rhetoric-of-v...

    MikeCrow
    Well to be fair, to be a proud late term-abortionist might get you shot be someone on the far right. And probably for almost the exact same broken mental processes.
    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    Well, the numbers don't show that the right kills abortion providers in any great degree.  7 abortion providers in history attacked versus 40 million abortions is a pretty safe metric. If all kinds of doctors were being attacked by all kinds of right wing people it would be a better analogy - but they aren't.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    True enough, but let's also consider that most of what is now classified as "hate crimes" are based on what many would consider "right wing" values.  So, indirectly you could make the argument that such killings are more oriented towards individuals [and the values they represent] rather than the groups targeted by left wing radicals.
    Hank
    I suppose but you both are somewhat off-topic. The scope of this article is about attacks on scientists.  Both the left and the right are bureaucracy pests (the right with FOIA and the left with lawsuits) and emails and threats are split but I can't find instances where evolutionary biologists or climate scientists are getting bombed or their labs broken into and destroyed by right-wing people.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    The targets of threats or bombs, probably feel like individuals. Why make distinctions about groups vs individuals in the first place? If we're going to, seems more. heinous to attack the group than the individuals.

    "Obviously, it may also be that when people are drunk they become less inhibited and drunk left-wing people simply say what they really think instead of stating what they are supposed to think and never reveal when the filter in place - i.e., maybe they are hypocrites, no different than some guy who gets drunk and starts making racist jokes."

    Having witnessed this first hand on a few occasions, I think you nailed this one on the head. I've grown up with a couple people who were always conservative and outspoken about it. As a result, they ended up being pariahs in a lot of social groups (you know how intolerant liberals are of conservatives - backward, ignorant, etc). All of the sudden, they become super "progressive" and it just doesn't make sense (except now they have a large posse of "like minded progressive" friends to hang out with). Get them drunk and away from their new friends, and they are back to being conservative again. I've often wondered what percentage of liberals are actually conservatives pretending for the social rewards...

    Hank
    This article got posted and then the site was knocked out for 5 hours.  Coincidence?  Yeah, probably. 
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Stellare
    Hank, you have to stop writing this political nonsense about science. Read the 'signs' hahahaha
    There are no coincidences. :-D

    PS. When is your book coming?
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Hank
    September 12th is the official release date!  i need to hire an IT specialist before then, I assume.  I make fun of these same weirdos in the book.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, the right is probably less violent because they can't make it profitable :) ... greedy bastards :)  The left are more inclined, because (1) they "know they're right" and (2) feel that they're carrying on a tradition that they believe was started in the 1960's.

    After all, we all know that throughout mankind's history there has been nothing more important and indicative of violence and death than the intense efforts to "save" people.  Whether it be in "saving" us from ecological disaster, or in "saving" our souls [i.e. like the Spanish Inquisition].  Whenever anyone's engaged in "saving", then obviously someone has to die.
    Stellare
    "Whenever anyone's engaged in "saving", then obviously someone has to die."

    Sharply observed, Gerhard! :-)
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Right-wing extremists hate people; that's why they live out in the woods and stock up on guns and supplies waiting for armageddon. They also kill gays and minorities and abortion doctors. Left-wing extremists hate corporations and commit property crimes like burning down construction projects and SUV dealerships.

    They're both criminals and deserve to be treated as such.

    UvaE
    Left-wing extremists hate corporations and commit property crimes like burning down construction projects and SUV dealerships. 
    It's still violence. They could gain more sympathy by simply putting up rival signs that poke fun at their sacred logos. Advice for right-wing extremists: show graphic videos of abortions.

    But then that's what makes them extremists---they don't take such advice. They prefer giving in to the neural firing within the reptilian recesses of their brains.

    For not being a planet, according to 2 percent of astronomers, Pluto sure has a lot of moons.

    WHO ARE THESE 2% my fellow lefties, socialist...

    Now it has one more, joining Charon, which was discovered in 1978, Nix and Hydra, discovered in 2006, and P4, found in 2011. Pluto’s new-found moon,

    UvaE
    Shouldn't this comment be under the article: What Would You Name P5, Pluto's New Moon?
    Besides, my anonymous Lord, it is Neptune's gravity that "swept Pluto's neighborhood". If you allow Pluto to have the "planet" title, then you have to do likewise with a couple of asteroids.
    Hank
    Pluto does not agree:

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    UvaE
    :) . That's hilarious! I didn't realize NASA was a bitch. 

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    I think that a lot of the extreme left wing activists see and justify themselves in the same way that many 'terrorists' do and resort to acts of terrorism for similar reasons. They see themselves as a politically and legally powerless and often ineffective, oppressed minority, fighting against often right wing hegemonic, powerful dictatorships or governments that are threatening their environment and way of life, while crushing them both economically and politically and often incarcerating them in prisons in the process.
    Make love not war
    MikeCrow
    They see themselves as a politically and legally powerless and often ineffective, oppressed minority, fighting against often right wing hegemonic, powerful dictatorships or governments that are threatening their environment and way of life, while crushing them both economically and politically and often incarcerating them in prisons in the process.

    If this is how they feel in America, they need to be locked up in a mental hospital.
    Never is a long time.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Yes, but unfortunately the mental hospitals don't exist any more, at least here in Australia where we just use mentally straitjacketing prescription drugs and a hospital revolving door policy for those who daily slip through the cracks. I don't in any way support terrorism but I can understand why some people resort to terrorist tactics. You can hardly say that we live in a very just world, especially America from what I've read. You have millions of people in prisons, many who just have psychiatric disorders and drug addictions who could be treated by trained psychotherapists in these mental hospitals if they did still exist. You also have millions of homeless people and millions of empty houses that are falling apart, according to the documentaries that we see here in Australia. Your PHd's are working in McDonald's and people often have to do two jobs just to survive on your minimum wage. 90% of many of the foods that you are eating are GMOs and yet you are not even allowed to have labelling to show you which foods are not GMOs. A recent large population study and survey showed that Americans are twice as unhealthy as the Brits and yet no one knows why.
    Make love not war
    UvaE
     A recent large population study and survey showed that Americans are twice as unhealthy as the Brits and yet no one knows why. 
    Are you sure about the "twice as" factor? Source?
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Sorry, that was a bit of an over generalisation. Americans were much less healthy overall than the English and definitely had roughly twice as much diabetes and cancer, even though they spent twice as much on health care per person than the English back in 2006, according to this Washington Post article called 'Study Shows Americans Sicker Than English' By CARLA K. JOHNSON and MIKE STOBBE. I'm not sure what the stats are now though, do you know? It would be interesting to know if they are better, worse or still the same wouldn't it? I shall try to find out.
    White, middle-aged Americans, even those who are rich, are far less healthy than their peers in England, according to stunning new research that erases misconceptions and has experts scratching their heads.
    Americans had higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, strokes, lung disease and cancer - findings that held true no matter what income or education level.
    Those dismal results are despite the fact that U.S. health care spending is double what England spends on each of its citizens.
    "Everybody should be discussing it: Why isn't the richest country in the world the healthiest country in the world?" asks study co-author Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University College London in England.
    Americans reported twice the rate of diabetes compared to the English, 12.5 percent versus 6 percent. For high blood pressure, it was 42 percent for Americans versus 34 percent for the English; cancer showed up in 9.5 percent of Americans compared to 5.5 percent of the English. 
    Make love not war
    Hank
    I would be suspicious of 'socioeconomic' studies because of their matching of actual health data with self reported data. No one who visits London or San Francisco walks away thinking, 'Wow, Americans are fatter than Brits', it obviously is not true.  Plus, a lot changed since 2006.  Italians, Brits, even the French, have closed the fat gap and the idea that Brits don't drink more than Americans is downright laughable.  
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Hank, I've found an accessible copy of the original study 'Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England' published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 2006;295:2037-2045) in which they claim that the results were not due to biases in self-reporting because the biological markers of the same diseases in both countries exhibited the same patterns :- 
    These differences between countries or across SES groups within each country are not due to biases in self-reported disease because biological markers of disease exhibit exactly the same patterns. 
    To illustrate, among those aged 55 to 64 years, diabetes prevalence is twice as high in the United States and only one fifth of this difference can be explained by a common set of risk factors. Similarly, among middle aged adults, mean levels of C-reactive protein are 20% higher in the United States compared with England and mean high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are 14% lower.
    These differences are not solely driven by the bottom of the SES distribution. In many diseases, the top of the SES distribution is less healthy in the United States as well.
    Conclusion Based on self-reported illnesses and biological markers of disease, US
    residents are much less healthy than their English counterparts and these differences exist at all points of the SES distribution
    .
    Make love not war
    Hank
    Within each country, there exists a pronounced negative socioeconomic status (SES) gradient with self-reported disease so that health disparities are largest at the bottom of the education or income variants of the SES hierarchy.
    Then this analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies makes even less sense. They are basically contending poor people C-reactive protein levels are so different in the two counties they double disease for one nation.  I would remain skeptical that Brits and Americans are that biologically different.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, then again ...
    "We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts!"

    "We're mutants. There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us - we're soldiers. But we're American soldiers!"

    Stripes
    Don't know if that counts as evidence, but it is compelling :)
    Gerhard Adam
    They are basically contending poor people C-reactive protein levels are so different in the two counties they double disease for one nation.  I would remain skeptical that Brits and Americans are that biologically different.
    While I have to admit, I haven't reviewed the study, there's another possibility to consider and that is the accessibility to health care.  In that respect, there's little doubt that the disparity between the two systems might produce significantly different outcomes, without requiring biological diversity.
    Hank
    I suppose we can argue middle aged white men can't afford health care, but that is the one demographic that is not under-/un-insured in the case that was made for the Affordable Care Act.

    They make the same case but they are advocates - as we see with any number of statistical claims, when advocates are involved, reach for your wallet.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    I don't know of too many people that can "afford" health care, but, you're right.  That's not a discussion we want to be having.
    I'd say the left is far more religious than the right. Nature worship is primitive religion, leading to nonsense such as animals=humans, natural medicine, manipulating nature is evil. Cultural Marxism tries to reverse traditional religious morality, multiculturalism has failed.

    Intelligence does not imply common sense or self-criticism. Just look at all the nonsense from 20th century Marxism, Progessivism, Occupiers.

    Gerhard Adam
    Other than buzzwords, what exactly are you claiming is nonsense?  Especially since you want to couch "nature" in terms of primitive religion [as if there are any modern ones].  Then a term like "cultural Marxism" is used to what end?  

    It's clear that you're "right-wing", but who has ever claimed that animals = humans?  While you may ridicule the dubiousness of natural remedies, where do you think modern medicines derive from?  Do you believe humans invented them all?  Blanket statements like "manipulating nature is evil" begs for a response claiming that it isn't evil.  However, such a position would be foolish, so what did you have in mind?  After all, one could readily argue that "right wing" beliefs argue that "nature is evil and must be conquered".  Similarly, there's the arguments that humans can't possibly do any harm because (1) God would stop that from happening, or (2) anything that is economically good can't be bad in any other context. 

    So, shall we compare nonsense?
    my favorite bit is the religious loyalty to this very narrow, very western, nominal left-right political diagram so many folks have.

    Hank
    I'm not a fan of it either but the bulk of American science media speaks in terms of left and right so I can either prefix each article with 500 words about how we are not points on a graph, or quadrants in a rectangle, but rather for different positions we occupy some point on a triangle whose nodes are fairness and freedom and excellence, or I  can play along instead. 
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    i love your theoretical triangulation ^^ keep up the Good work x