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

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

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.