Guest Post: The Giffords Shooting Changes Nothing

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Giordano Bruno of Neithercorp Press

The Giffords Shooting Changes Nothing

Generally, when one is in the midst of national tragedy, unspoken but
expected rules of social conduct tend to take effect. These rules
require us to engage in a chorus of collective theater in which every
person must act out their best teary-eyed monologue. We suddenly feel
obliged to showcase for the world how much more empathetic we are to the
plight of the victim or victims than others, or, we simply silence our
dissent so that we might avoid appearing “insensitive” to the fads of
cultural grieving. That is to say, if you dare to question the honesty
behind the sobs, the outrage, or the reactionary zealotry of the
ideologues hell bent on exploiting the latest calamity to their own
benefit, then you are usually branded as monstrous as the villain or
villains who carried out the terrible event in the first place.

Frankly, I could care less about such conventions. The truth takes precedence over all things, even tragedy…

While the murder of 6 bystanders, the wounding of 14 people, and the
attempted murder of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is indeed a horrible
smear in the history of the America, it is but one of many. This fact
seems to have eluded the mainstream media, which is declaring (rather
prematurely) that the very political climate of our nation will be
irrevocably altered by said event. Before any dead had been put to
rest, before Jared Loughner had even been officially charged, the MSM
unleashed a hailstorm of editorials linking the shooting to the Tea
Party, conservatives, gun rights advocates, Constitutionalists,
Libertarians, Sarah Palin (as if she has any real influence), and
“divisive political rhetoric” overall. Yet again, the media thrust it
sinewy index finger of doom at the Liberty Movement, and yet again I had
to see the sniveling sourpuss of SPLC representative Mark Potok spewing
lines from his standardized anti-Constitutionalist playbook. Of
course, as it turned out, Loughner’s political beliefs were decidedly
left-leaning, and his affiliations with the groups the establishment
accused were non-existent.

After several incidences over the past few years involving “lone
gunman”, or random over-medicated psychotics, it has become clear that
the DHS and corporate run news sources have endeavored to immediately
link any domestic shooting or bombing event with grass-roots
organizations which are fighting for limited government. The Giffords
shooting is a perfect example of how insincere establishment pundits
are, and how willing they will be to exploit every random (or
engineered) tragedy to their own ends. I discussed this phenomenon last
spring in my article ‘One Day Soon, We’ll All Be “Homegrown
Terrorists”’

http://neithercorp.us/npress/2010/04/one-day-soon-we%E2%80%99ll-all-be-%E2%80%9Chomegrown-terrorists%E2%80%9D/

To be blunt, what the MSM is desperately searching for is another
Timothy McVeigh, and another massive body count. In order to defuse the
fast growing Liberty Movement, its image would have to be tarnished
beyond recognition and its participants shamed into silence. This is
what occurred in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing, as many pro-civil
militia and Constitutionalist groups disbanded purely on the fear that
they would be found guilty by association. Not association with McVeigh
himself, but mere association with McVeigh’s claimed beliefs!

The very idea that an entire movement or cultural philosophy should
somehow be held responsible for the actions of a single maniac is
ludicrous, to say the least. There are extremists at the far ends of
the spectrum of every political body or movement on Earth (most
especially in governments), but it seems that only governments and their
affiliated media feel it necessary to use these extremists to classify
opposing political movements in broad strokes designed to defame. Are
the personal beliefs of Timothy McVeigh or Jared Loughner really
relevant to the greater debate and the greater disaster taking place in
our country today? Do these men matter at all in the grand scheme of
things? The answer is no, they do not, unless we allow the
establishment to fashion them into convoluted symbols used to manipulate
the wider conflict.

Loughner was a bust for the MSM. His views are too random and too
“leftist” to be used against the Liberty Movement. However, eventually,
they WILL find their new McVeigh. Someone, somewhere, with enough
psychological baggage, some conservative beliefs, and a track record of
visiting websites like this one, will one day pop out of the woodwork
and shoot somebody. Will we see a repeat of 1995? Will the event be
wielded like a precision blade to cut down the Liberty Movement and the
independent educational apparatus we have worked so hard to build? Not
this time…

Today’s circumstances are far different from 1995. Neither the
Giffords shooting, nor any other nationally condemned attack will derail
the current social climate, or the Liberty Movement itself. Here’s
why…

Constitutionalism Going “Viral”: The desire for
smaller, transparent, non-intrusive government is becoming wildly
popular and will continue to do so the more the DHS attempts to tighten
its stranglehold on civil liberties. Sovereignty is the new focus for a
large percentage of Americans from every conceivable background. The
Liberty Movement can no longer be accused of representing a “fringe”
element of the “far right”, composed of rednecks and gun nuts. Today,
our membership includes insightful leaders in the business community,
top minds of alternative economics, health professionals disenchanted
with the unseemly medical bureaucracy, scientists and engineers who
realize their great talents are being misapplied or misused, veterans
and servicemen who have awakened to the fact that the government they
take marching orders from does not truly represent the people they are
sworn to protect, and even many in law enforcement who see corruption in
the legal system everyday and are finally fed up. The “fringe”
accusation was weak to begin with, now, it’s laughable. The people
involved in this movement are aware of their prominence. No arbitrary
label is going to frighten them off, or shut them up.

Seeing The Big Picture: Twenty years ago, an
attempt on the life of a U.S. Rep or a similar event would have
dominated every waking moment of the average American for months on end.
The water cooler discussions would be relentless and the made-for-TV
movies would flow like a flash flood. Today, though, I rarely hear a
word in passing about the tragedy in Arizona, and I’ve never heard
anyone use the names “Giffords” or “Loughner” in those brief exchanges
that do arise. Does this mean that the public has finally gone
completely cold and passive towards violence and disaster? Not
necessarily. We live in an age of crossroads. We stand at a nexus of
social tribulation, where so much danger and instability is present that
we no longer have time to obsess over one sad but ultimately less
important incident. Americans have much more pressing and immediate
concerns than they did in decades past, including the collapse of the
global economy, the end of the dollar, the total centralization of
financial and political power into the hands of an elite minority, and
the complete dissolution of their cherished freedoms. Its not that the
public does not care about Giffords, but they certainly aren’t reacting
as hastily as they have during previous ill periods. For many,
perspective has tempered our fears, and made us less malleable to the
hypnotic suggestions of mass panic.

Legitimate Concerns, Not “Rhetoric”: The primary
talking point of the past few days has been to suggest that the Giffords
shooting was product of “angry or violent political rhetoric”. Some in
Washington D.C. have even had the nerve to assert that it is the
vitriol of those on the hill that has caused all the heartache in the
heartland, as if the American people simply take all their emotional and
philosophical cues from the deadbeats in the capitol. While I would
never deny that there are plenty of people in this country who do not
know how to think for themselves, I feel it far more likely that those
folks take their emotional cues from television rather than the puppet
show in Washington. The real reason behind the rhetoric talking point
is to perpetuate the myth of the false left right paradigm, as well as
to lure Americans towards the doldrums of false “moderation”. The
“vitriol” in Washington is mostly for show, being that the leaderships
of both major parties end up voting for the same bills and policies
regardless of how they pretend to fight with one another. Moderation,
in the eyes of the establishment, means inaction. When the MSM or the
government calls for a “calming of rhetoric”, what they really want is a
pacification of the anger in the citizenry present because of
legitimate concerns. Does the establishment really believe that using
the Giffords shooting as political leverage will somehow embarrass
independent Americans, or shock them into diluting their challenges to a
system which is on the verge of self destruction? I can only hope they
are that out of touch with the U.S. mindset…

Anti-Gun Movements Now Sterile: The 90’s were the
very pinnacle of the anti-gun movement, and gun control legislation was
highly effective during that period, mainly because Americans at that
time treated gun ownership as a political lynchpin. Gun rights were
associated with Republicans alone, and because Clinton was the flavor of
the week, the 2nd Amendment went out the window. Today, gun ownership
is breaking through the false left/right paradigm, and even
dyed-in-the-wool democrats are taking to the shooting range. The
majority of Americans like to know they have the ability and the right
to defend against any adversary, and they aren’t going to take that
right lightly again. Crime rate numbers were completely unaffected by
the assault weapons ban, and even plummeted after the ban expired. Guns
are used approximately 2.5 million times each year to STOP crimes in
progress. Imagine if more people surrounding Gabrielle Giffords had had
their own firearms at the time of Loughner’s attack; could he have been
stopped before shooting 20 people? Would he have attacked at all if he
had suspected half the crowd might be armed? The bottom line is that a
vast portion of the public is now questioning the validity of the
anti-gun position, and its progress has been effectively buried. The
Arizona shooting is not going to reawaken anything, despite the tired
calls of disarmament politicians. Once again, Americans are not going
to allow the actions of one man to dissolve the rights of all men. We
just don’t have the patience or the tolerance for this brand of circular
thinking anymore.

Rights Taking Precedence Over “Safety”: Independent
men have always been safer in the long run than dependent men, but
there are some out there that believe that government can and should
protect them from all danger. This is a childish fantasy. These same
people constantly use catastrophes like the Arizona incident to
reinforce their belief that more control is needed, more rights
relinquished, more authority figures present, but really, all these
events reinforce is the fact that no system has the ability to stop
crime, even a system as vast and well funded as the DHS. When in the
midst of a criminal event, whether or not you or your family become
victims is in most cases entirely dependent on you. THAT is the root
problem that overly dependent people don’t want to face. However, many
Americans are beginning to accept reality. Calls for more invasion of
privacy, more freedoms traded, and even more government expansion, are
meeting heavy resistance. One hundred Loughners would not change the
fundamental question; does trading our liberties away for the promise of
safety actually lead to any tangible benefits? Given the inability of
the system to actually stop violence from occurring, and the growing
threat of dysfunctional violence from the system itself, any sensible
person would have to disagree.

True Humanitarians Promote Freedom

Pro-establishment lackeys love to position themselves as
compassionate reformers and humanitarians, especially when innocent
people are suddenly subject to a volley of bullets, but do these “good
intentioned” altruists really care two cents for those caught in the
sights of a psychopath? Or, are they more interested in the
opportunities such death creates? If they are merely concerned citizens
trying to make the world a better place, then why do they find it
necessary to twist every tragedy into a weapon to be used against their
political rivals? Why do they choose to ignore the facts behind the
events or the people involved? Why do they lie to the public straight
faced and outright? Are these the methods of “humanitarians”, or
something else?

Under closer examination, we find that the goals of
anti-Constitutionalist circles are actually contrary to their stated
mission to stabilize and enrich our nation. Their tactic of muscling
Americans into a mindless mode of reactionary thinking damages our
ability to reflect, or to consider the future consequences of our
fixation with immediate disaster. Their co-option of ruinous events for
their own ends warps our sense of history and obscures the truth.
Their principles are driven by short term gains which benefit only a
select few at the expense of long term prosperity for all. They
oversimplify the complex, and overcomplicate that which is simple. They
make us weaker as a people.

At bottom, legitimate humanitarians inspired by real compassion
inevitably seek to help men become more responsible for themselves, not
less. Compared to this mission, the Loughners of the world are only a
distraction, a media game which does not need to be played. While it is
important to safeguard against events like that which took place in
Arizona, it is even more important to safeguard against the exploitation
of these events by those who would do much greater harm. The wider
view requires a respect for the enduring benefits of freedom, which
eclipse our momentary lapses of human character. The Liberty Movement’s
interest lay not just in the chaos of the present moment, but in the
clarity of a possible future; one in which man’s individual sovereignty
is valued, rather than feared.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dr. Sandi's picture

Personal responsibility. What a quaint concept. Too bad most of us are too immature to make it a lifestyle.

pan-the-ist's picture

Like people who choose to be responsible for their actions when they drive intoxicated.

Pants McPants's picture

Driving while intoxicated should not be a criminal offense, if that's what you are referring to.

pan-the-ist's picture

Really?  Buying a handgun after you have been committed for being a danger to yourself and others should be legal too, right?

Pants McPants's picture

Completely separate issue.  Stay on topic.

AnAnonymous's picture

Too bad most of us are too immature to make it a lifestyle.

 

How is it a matter of immaturity?

Selective responsibility is superior to personal responsibility in the framework built by the US.

One goes farther when able to claim any positive of one's action while rejecting negative (US example) than when taking responsible for the whole package. Worst is people who are stripped of the positive of their actions to be associated with the negative only. A kind of population required in the US framework to allow the first category to exist.

johnnynaps's picture

Personal responsibility doesn't pay enough to survive in this country anymore. And, to add insult to injury, most working, money-bagged Americans have a responsibility to be ethical within their professions.......yet most aren't.

kaiserhoff's picture

Well said.  Lack of respect for an honest day's work explains many layers of problems.

Alex Lionson's picture

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves" - Abraham Lincoln

Mark Medinnus's picture

This is a tiresome bit of Abetry.  Passing from the United States are to the United States is was the constitutional perversion central to Lincoln's legacy.

Now, from the article:

"While the murder of 6 bystanders, the wounding of 14 people, and the attempted murder of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is indeed a horrible smear in the history of the America, it is but one of many."

A horrible smear, perhaps, if one were picking historical nits.  Consider:

1. 350,000 Native Americans exterminated by the US government

2. 620,000 American Civil War deaths in Lincoln's war for a new birth of freedom (and this, from a total population 10% of current numbers)

These are two statistics among many and ZH readers may enlarge this list at their leisure.  My point: this Loughner moment is lilliputian, neither a national tragedy nor a historical smear.   

Oh regional Indian's picture

Well said all around Giordano. 

But all well said-ness aside, the truth is that there is no hiding behind a return to constitutionality. Can any good student of American history tell me when it was exactly 9or around about) that the constitutional basis of the US was undermined? What about the men who wrote said constitution? Do we know the truth of them and their times or mere eulogistic historical accounts of who they were perceived to be or more importantly how they were meant to be perceived? A lot of my reading says that many of the Founding Fathers were not great or even good men. You can do your own research. Enough books and articles pointing counter to school taught history abound.

I think what this article points to is a very fundamental question, namely, what is governance and what is freedom?

Tribal societies worked because they we small, manageable and had contiguous histories.

Anything larger has always proven to be un-managable except though some flavour of despotism.

I see a return to tribalism and welcome it.

ORI

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/evolution-devolution-involution/

cossack55's picture

Screw tribalism.  A little more LIBERTY and lot less freedom would be fine by me.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Cossack, any collective experiment equals compromise. Liberty, fine word, but most people's definition of it suggests the loner life. 

tribes represent optimal collective living. Anything larger (even a village) begins to show cracks and despotism in some flavour.

ORI

pan-the-ist's picture

The problem with Tribal living is that it favors the breeders, and unless the family is very wealthy, the breeders tend to be poor and uneducated (as you need wealth to educate and provide for children.)

I'd recommend solving the worlds problems by requiring a licence to breed.  This will reduce the population of people unfit to participate in society.  The ignornant will likely call me statist, but their children will thank me.

Pants McPants's picture

I have no problem with tribal living so long as it is a voluntary association.  Freedom and voluntaryism are inseparable.

Who would issue the license to breed?  I would think sound money would take care of that on its own.  Specifically, your safety net consists of your family and (maybe) a few friends within the tribe or neighborhood.  If you are on your own, well, you will have to save $$$ before reproducing.  I mean, can you imagine?  Saving for something before purchasing/investing?

AnAnonymous's picture

I'd recommend solving the worlds problems by requiring a licence to breed.  This will reduce the population of people unfit to participate in society.  

 

This is a non sense. People have much, much troubles to get with the program.

The program is one of an unsustainable model of functioning.

The only people who must be deemed to participate in such kind of society are people who could provide a key to turn the model sustainable.

Current number: zero.

Every one is a person who is pushing more or less the model to its lethal end.

It is a classic reflex of expansionists. Usually, expansionists progress by pushing others out of their resources. Issue comes when there are no more people  to push out of their resources. At this point, expansionists are unable to notice that the tables have turned, that the people who were pushed out of their resources are the ones able to expand.

 

You cant solve an overconsumption trouble (unsustainability of the model) by kicking out people who consume less, do not consume. It never works.

pan-the-ist's picture

I apologize for the agony you put into this heartfelt response, as I was trolling.  Obviously allowing the state to explicitly decide who can breed is a mistake.

AnAnonymous's picture

It might be not.

If a rowing boat is sinking, the mistake, as it is done now, is to blame bystanders looking at the scene from the banks. Done many, many times.

Pushing over the smaller people might buy time. Pushing over the bigger people, might stop the boat from sinking.

State or not.

cossack55's picture

Sadly, I must concur with P-T-I (which normally freaks me out).  Tribes tend to grow into nations which leads us back to HERE. Only a matter of time.  Darwin/Malthus may have been right, it is only a question of how, when, and by whom.  Otherwise, please, tell me, what is the maximum sustainable population of this particular iron ball, 1 ea., blue in color.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Cossack, tribes do not grow into nations. Just take native american tribes as a great example. They stayed independent even in the face of the white man.

Most tribes faded into oblivion due to genocide by invaders or defeat at the hands of an insider supported by invaders.

Tribes as a unit survived a few 100,000 years. The nation state is a young, failed experiment.

Always god to ponder why something survived that long. usually had something going for it.

Not sure I understand your blue colour iron ball (you mean the earth?) question?

ORI

pan-the-ist's picture

But Tribes failed.  Would you rather live in Afghanistan or Canada?

Oh regional Indian's picture

Afghanistan, prior to American occupation, anyday.

You do realize that the American/Nato occupation forces have distorted that nation beyond what it's tribal origins were? Soviets did that back in the 70's 80's?

Not a good choice set. Try again?

ORI

cossack55's picture

I must disagree with above premise.  Many Indian nations united to destroy the murdering cur Custer at Little Big Horn.  Once the reason for unification was removed they went back to their seperate lands.  Lawrence was equally disappointed in his vision of a United Arabia at the end of WW1.  Ended up as a despondant green grocer. 

Granted, the nation state usually results in millions getting it in the neck, but it looks like thats the current game in progress for the at least forseeable future.

StychoKiller's picture

Look to Africa, then tell me how tribalism helped an entire continent resist those societies that left tribalism behind.  Too many humans, not enough humans using their brains, after all, thinking is hard work -- doing what the chief tells you to involves very little thought!

Hephasteus's picture

No screw this. I won't live in anything other than a tribal society. It's not perfect but it's a damn site better than this. I want to cooperate with people who have the SAME GOALS as me. I want to judge people I have a good deal of experience with and we are much more intimately acquainted than this fucking strangers doing everything in our fucking lives. Forcibly including you in monetary sytems. Laws rules which are not laws or rules at all they are fucking games of I win you lose. Calling indians and blacks idiots and lower because they won't operate outside of tribal systems of government and won't EVOLVE. Because they are better and more satisfying for more of the participants. Brutalizing and then ridiculing them all along the path of haha you lost our gangs are bigger and we can legitimize and illigitimize force and violence better than you.

These systems do nothing but create systems, make them honest and forthright, this is the tradiitionalizing stage. Then they corrupt them but keep the tradition.

pan-the-ist's picture

ORI, leaving no opportunity unspent to push his agenda.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Interesting pan, what agenda do you perceive? Please do tell.

ORI

Oh regional Indian's picture

Hmmmmm..... maybe you see a trend that I don't in what I'm saying.

ORI

Oh regional Indian's picture

Hmmmmm..... maybe you see a trend that I don't in what I'm saying.

If you really understood my agenda, I think you'd pop an artery. ;-)

ORI

cossack55's picture

I've some arteries to spare, go for it.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Butlerian jihad. Takedown of the current industrial paradigm, deeply flawed in it's very origins.

In-ovation of a new energy/tech-no-logical paradigm, perfect harmony between man/machine/nature.

A re-evolution (in-volution) leading to the quest for the  discovery of the 'self" as the true basis/reason for our existence.

ORI

Rodent Freikorps's picture

I believe ORI will defend the Caste system.

cossack55's picture

ORI, as a Deist I have no argument with your vision.  It is currently apparent that both your vision and my vision of Liberty are both probably not going to happen, hope springs eternal.  The interesting occurrence is that both of our visions of a better world are not mutually exclusive.  I just think our species has yet to evolve enough to "see" it.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Awesome Cossack. So interesting to discover inner worlds of seemingly anonymous people, eh?

our vision and it's roots are a lot, a whole lot closer than you think. ;-)

Well met.

ORI

pan-the-ist's picture

You both scare the shit out of me. :)

StychoKiller's picture

Sure, feel free to stuff all the Djinnis in their respective bottles.  All things must pass -- Time marches on.

Mark Medinnus's picture

"Can any good student of American history tell me..."

History, American or otherwise, may not hold the key.  Poetry suggests the antecedents: Of man's first disobedience and the fruit of that forbidden tree/Whose mortall taste cliffnotes of sadness lent/To each Leviathanic public woe  

Oh regional Indian's picture

nice Mark. Thanks. Good to read classical english. Who wrote it? Not familiar.

ORI

Mark Medinnus's picture

Hi OHI!

It comes from Palgrave's Book of Twisted Lyrics.

BTW, for eighteen months now I've lived with my family on a Native American reservation as a health care provider.  The atmosphere here is tribal and familial.  This is fine.  But the other day I felt very outsider.  This made me feel sad.  I'm neither Native nor part of the tribal family.  And although my professional position has prescribed levels of respect and responsibilities, my authority was successfully undermined by a Native staff member well under my supervision.  I have much to learn.  Blessings, Mark       

Oh regional Indian's picture

So interesting to hear that Mark. And thanks for the book reference.

Interestingly enough, I find that kind of disconnect you mention here in india, being an indian. My "foreign returned" past has forever made me another, different. Very interesting feeling.

ORI

Mark Medinnus's picture

Forgive me, ORI.  I was kidding about the book reference.  The quote comes from the opening line of Milton's Paradise Lost, which I twisted in the words that followed.

I value your insight.  Yes, being somehow "another" or "different" is an interesting feeling.  Of course, I'd like to feel welcomed as a member of the community.  In time, perhaps, I may become so.  This is my hope.  Take care, Mark  

pan-the-ist's picture

Let no opportunity to exploit a high profile event go to waste.  Reframe it and use it to push your agenda.

snowball777's picture

You mean like Bruno is pushing the NRA's?

pan-the-ist's picture

Pick an agenda, I'll provide a Laughner related sound-bite.

pan-the-ist's picture

Had Mr. Laughner been allowed to experiment with drugs in the mainstream, he would not have mixed with the criminal underground, which, no doubt, assisted his descent into insanity.

His psychotic symptoms may also have been recognized by the family doctor and dealt with sooner, as the family would not have been afraid to seek help.