User Answers

THE GIFFORD SHOOTING: SOME THOUGHTS

Many people have commented about the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford, offering this or that political take, or speculating about this or that conspiracy. What interests me, however, is its cultural implications. We've been, since 9/11, treated to a variety of official "conspiracy theories," from 9/11 itself, to the more recent allegations concerning Assange and Wikileaks, and now - reading between the lines a bit - the Gifford shooting.  We seem to be not only a "conspiracy culture" but, since the JFK assassination, a "lone nut" culture.

In all honesty, I have to look at my own reaction to this tragedy as a symptom of my own affliction with these two "memes" within our culture. Most of those who have heard me interview or who know me personally realize that I am just not a political creature, for I'm disgusted at the behavior of both political parties and indeed the overall corruption of our system and its inability to address the public good in a meaningful manner. So, when I heard of the shooting, and without knowing much more about it, my first gut reactions were "Oh man, here we go again, another lone nut, another Columbine" and then, almost as quickly, the thought came "what group was behind this, and why?"

It is a sorrowful comment on our society that this incident happened at all; that the victims' families now suffer the loss of their loved ones. That is the core issue, but it is an equally sad commentary on our culture that we cannot assess this for what it is, and respond accordingly with sympathy and compassion for those whose lives have been so suddenly and tragically altered because of it. It is a sad commentary that already our "two" political parties scramble to politicize the event, and that our culture is looking for the latest examples of lone nuts and conspiracies. It is a sad commentary that we have become so traumatized, passive, and apathetic that we respond to such events by looking for explanations and rationalize what, in the final analysis, cannot be rationlized. I did not and do not agree with Congresswoman Gifford's party, nor her politics. But in the end, we do not settle political differences from the barrel of a gun. My heart goes out to her and her family and to those who lost their lives, and to their families.

12 thoughts on “THE GIFFORD SHOOTING: SOME THOUGHTS”

  1. George Freund, an ex police detective from Toronto, on his radio show Conspiracy Cafe (free podcasts) is pointing out, after closely examining the photos) that there are clearly two “Laughlins” — besides of course at least two shooters. (Reminds me of the multiple Oswalds.) The real target, besides the public, was Judge Roll. Freund in examining the photo of the Congresswoman being carried from the scene questions as well whether she could have been shot, as claimed, in the head at close range: no blood and no IV, etc.

  2. Reading articles as I am sure you all are doing I can only say two main things.
    One of course the guy was mentally ill and there may or may not have been a political motivation, including possibly conspiratorial possibilities.

    But number two, points strongly to said conspiratorial possibility in that in all of his insane rantings, the only one that makes sense and is held as a belief by plenty of intelligent people is that our currency is far too devalued due to its being based on debt.

    Now that it is out that the nutjob believed in currency based on real value whether it is gold or not, now I see the powers that be taking advantage of this as usual to put anyone who wants reform of currency, economy and politics along the lines of getting off fiat currency, and anyone who wants to stand up for peoples rights against the government, sane or not, as a nutjob.

    That to me is very scary. It is like no matter how you look at it the only people who benefit from this act of idiocy are the government. Its like devils advocate. I am sure i am not the only one to see that.
    Whether or not the ubiquitous They really were behind it or not, it stands to reason that either way they profit from using it as an excuse to do crappy things.

    1. Chris: you are right; I had forgotten to mention something similar in my earlier post. It hardly matters whether or not this Jarred person was deliberately mind-controlled to his action — or whether his actions truly are just the result of his diseased mental state. The Powers That Be can sit and wait for such an event — knowing as they do thru a study of cycles and patterns that such a thing is bound to be perpetrated by somebody — and then, when it does … well, as Elitist Hillary Clinton has been wont to say, “Never waste a good crisis.”

  3. http://daviddegraw.org/2011/01/horrific-arizona-massacre-is-a-sign-of-tragedies-to-come/

    This is worth reading. As for slippery slope, it depends on the rationale
    on which some kind of thinking or talking is outlawed.

    Free speech has never been an absolute. Ever hear the old saw, that
    yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected free speech?

    Advocating assassination of the President is illegal. Do you want that to
    be protected by freedom of speech? Inciting mob violence is also
    illegal. Why? because when people say stuff and urge stuff to
    already upset people, you can indeed cause things to happen. Sure,
    they chose to do it. Fine. They wouldn’t have felt so free, so empowered,
    to act, without the encouragement.

    Conspiracy law is based exactly on the fact, that people acting in concert
    are more dangerous than people acting alone. This has roots in British
    experience and jurisprudence, and is part of American law all along.
    (Interestingly enough, Lord whatsisname’s rule is that a conspiracy to
    be charged and convicted required that there be one more person
    involved in the planning, than is necessary to actually do it. This of
    course effectively removes all negotiation and planning of the illegal
    act of prostitution, as long as carried out without the pimp being
    involved in the specific negotiations, from the reach of conspiracy
    law. I strongly suspect that Lord whatsisname was a client of
    prostitutes.)

    with all due respect, and as one who used to engage in some slogan
    think myself, I suggest that you are a victim of the slogan think promoters,
    and need to reexamine things.

  4. Yes, Dr. Farrell, your post here unfortunately goes along so well with one of the conversations you recently had with George Ann regarding “social engineering.” Here we have yet another ritualistic human sacrifice and the result will be yet another attempt at the manipulation of Human Minds. The Powers out there must be getting very anxious, or desperate, to produce effects in the physical medium. Will we be able to discern, and avoid, the path along which they are trying to lead us?

  5. I was referring to the 9 year old who was tragically murdered. The media reaction has likewise been overly programmed. The target is our free speech.

  6. There are very many indications that more has occurred here than meets the eye. There was a judge murdered as well, very outspoken in support of the 1st and 2nd amendments, and opposed to the current admin. on several key issues (a close friend and supporter of Sheriff Mack if you know who he is); the congresswoman likewise supported the constitution and was speaking of needing to break out of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ paradigm. There was a 9 year old girl present, born on 9/11 and famously selected as one sign of “new hope” for the state of Arizona and the country just after 9/11. There is much more — just as there was at the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and numerous other cases of recent American tragedy. We are being “processed” (or “softened up” much as an enemy does in prelude to an outright invasion?).

    1. I generally agree, but invasion? Seems unlikely. The reason it is illegal to.yell fire is.because.people.don’t think or look. Making something illegal doesn’t stop it or fix it. And it is worth pointing out that that type of application is almost.never what the law is used to prevent. Rather, it almost always attacks free thought and political.speech.

      Absolutley.there is something weird going on here. A lot of officials being offed lately….some congress womans wife found dead in her garage, car burned, just recently. Also the fact that her husband is an astronaut on the next and last shuttle mission(he also has a twin brother who an astronaut as well). And the 9-11 girl you mentioned. Something does seem to be brewing.

      My point was that thugs never give up or go away except when.forced to.

      It is like a sheep negotiating with wolves about what is going to be for.dinner

  7. “that is why there are laws about racial slurs, sexual harassment, etc.,”

    These laws don’t exist for the benefit of the public, but to demonize certain types of thought. And if they can outlaw one type of thinking, any type of thinking, THEY CAN OUT ANY TYPE OF THINKING. Slippery slope there. To blame a person’s actions on what someone else said or did is to remove all personal responsibility from the equation… a very neo-liberal sentiment.

    Actions are what people should be judged on. Its already against the law to kill someone without cause, what difference does it make what motivated them? This is deliberate misdirection to misdirect people.

    Joseph said, “in the end, we do not settle political differences from the barrel of a gun. ” Yet, if you aren’t willing to stand up, you will be made to fall. The founding fathers understood this and were willing to risk all.

    I am reminded of a quote,

    “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.,,,There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” Winston Churchill

    and of course…

    “If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitiable.” John F. Kennedy

    “The Republic is defended in 3 stages: Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box.” Eric Schaub

  8. In Arizona, people are rushing out to buy not only that large
    magazine large caliber KIND of gun before the “gungrabbbers”
    can prevent such ownership, get this, they are rushing out to
    buy exactly the SAME MAKE OF GUN. Its like, “whoopee! I
    own the same kind of gun that leaderless resistance conehead
    staring mirk hero shot that damn communiscongress woman
    with!”

    I mean, it is like if a bunch of people who didn’t like JFK ran out
    and bought whatsiscarcano rifles so they could proudly own the
    same kind of gun that (allegedly) killed JFK.

    This act occurred in a context that encourages the mentality
    required. All you need is someone who either thinks he will
    get away with it, because in his fantasy the right thinking
    masses with bust him out of jail and take him on their shoulders
    and install him in the White House, or because he doesn’t have
    anything to lose, or doesn’t give a hoot, or whatever.

    Leaderless resistance is a notion he must have come in contact
    with, which is, if a lot of people have shared thinking about what
    is right and about what to do, and are action oriented, then
    without requiring any traceable hierachy of command and without
    any orders, they will do “the right thing” on their own. Or little
    cells will spontaneously form whose confabs result in this.

    I think William Pierce one of those neo nazi types or was it the
    Jim Beam whiskey heir, I forget which, started this idea.

    It tracks back finally as a subject to your last statement.
    ” I did not and do not agree with Congresswoman Gifford’s party, nor her politics. But in the end, we do not settle political differences from the barrel of a gun. My heart goes out to her and her family and to those who lost their lives, and to their families.”

    words do have consequences. that is why there are laws about
    racial slurs, sexual harassment, etc., because what starts as
    talk, goes on to a sense of shared empowerment among the talkers
    (this principle works both for wannabe oppressors and for those
    who want to stop this stuff) and can (and sometimes does) end up
    in action, even if the action was worse than the jesters intended
    originally. Between individual taking it to the next step, and pack
    mentality, well, that is why certain types of “free speech” are not
    cool.

    And the shooter in AZ had been soaking up exactly that kind of
    talk.

Comments are closed.