By Julius Kuatre -TWIN
More and more information is emerging each day from the investigation into the shooting that took place at an Arizona grocery store January 8th, 2011; and the suspect, Jared Loughner, 22, Of Tucson, Az., and his true motivations for committing the heinous crime have become the subject of intense debate and heated controversy. Some allege that Loughner's act was politically motivated, while others assert that Loughner was apolitical and detached from the world of current events. Of those that tend to argue that Loughner's madness is rooted in politics, it was first circulated in the news that Loughner was supposedly heavily influenced by the precepts of so-called "right-wing rants". Lately, this claim has been refuted by some outlets as bogus, with numerous individuals suggesting instead that Loughner was of quite the opposite persuasion, or in the words of one former classmate, that he was a "left-wing pothead". To this effect, an analysis has surfaced that places the blame for Loughner's left-wing indoctrination squarely on the shoulders of Barack Obama And William Ayers, though holding this connection directly culpable for his actions is a stretch at best. Additionally, one Texe Marrs, on his website "The Power Of Prophecy", has even gone so far as to call the shooter a "Jewish Liberal Satan worshipper. These left-wing and right-wing accusations, however, are needlessly polarizing and are nothing more than elaborate distractions based solely upon speculation which serve to steal focus from the details demanding the most scrutiny in this case
Most rudimentarily, the argument that Jared Loughner's rampage was politically motivated and fueled by anti-government sentiment is a conclusion that is not supported by any hard evidence. There are, in fact, significant pieces of evidence which demonstrate that Loughner's behavior was the peak of a mentally unstable man's madness-- the sour fruits of a murderous nutcase's downward spiral into pure evil. His bloodletting, if one is to carefully inspect reports of his character and recent comportment, eyewitness reports from the scene of the shooting telling of the pure evil seen in him, and his apparent lack of both a coherent political ideology and purpose and awareness of current affairs, actually appears to reveal itself to be of a psychotic nature, and not primarily politically motivated.
Proponents of the theory that Loughner's violent outburst was politically motivated contend that the writings, recordings, belongings, and personal impressions he left in his wake up to his wretched day of infamy point to Loughner's obsession with several topics which would seem peculiar interests to many Americans. Judging essentially from the following, many journalists have committed the error of associating Loughner with so-called "extremism" and "extremist groups", which are both defined by concrete political ideologies and avowed political agendas. Love 'em or hate 'em, here are some of the "conspiracy theories" he was attracted to:
- U.S. Government complicity in 9/11
- NWO and a one-world currency
- The "2012 apocalypse"
- NASA faking space flights
- The government's use of mind control to brainwash people by controlling grammar
Some of his favorite books are purported to include Mein Kampf, Animal Farm, The Communist Manifesto, We The Living, and The Republic. These works do not share a common political ideology, but as one writer has pointed out, they do have one underlying theme, that of "the individual versus the state".
The traces left behind of Loughner's mindset immediately prior to the shooting mesh together to give his vague and largely unrelated "obsessions", as some have described them, a tone that is above all else highly distrustful and even disdainful of government. Because of this broad feeling, and because a vast theme or two may be attributed to his opinions, countless media establishments were mighty hasty to tag the shooting as "politically motivated".
This "smash the state" mentality and the idea of struggling as one against many does seem to permeate Loughner's self as of late, especially when taking into consideration that his best friend, Zach Osler, said of January 8th that Loughner was "not shooting at people, he was shooting at the world".
Given that his individual musings don't even come close to making up a solid symphony of political values, and that he belongs to no "extremist" order or group whatsoever governed by focused political principles, it is of paramount importance to note that Loughner can by no means be considered to possess, much less properly wield, a bona fide political ideology. In order to be so mercilessly audacious as to make attempts at allegedly "politically motivated" assassinations or other acts of political violence, a man must be made fearless by an unwavering and indefatigable orchestrated set of beliefs and ideals which constitute a political ideology worth risking your life for. Whether or not anyone outside of this man's school of thought agrees that he is justified in his actions matters not to the man; for the true "extremist", only a just cause can propel a man to "politically motivated" violence. A brief review of any example of an "extremist" group in confrontation with the United States, such as the Islamic Jihadist extremist group known as "Al-Qaeda", will yield a cause believed to be noble directed by a synchronized body of political values and postures. In order for violence to qualify as "politically motivated", the criminals must act, at least ostensibly, in the name of a cause with tangible, potential political gain. What political goals did Loughner, now oddly silent in custody for an alleged "extremist", hope to accomplish? The shooting served no concentrated purpose, but was instead an example of the devil on display in the habitat of man.
Somehow not perceiving the significant difference between a legitimate "extremist" prone to real "politically motivated" violence aimed at achieving a usually stubborn agenda and a troubled young man who has simply gone insane and embraced evil deeds as a sick outlet for his frustrations with the world and themselves, much time is being wasted by all sorts of media contributors on painting a picture Jared Loughner as a perpetrator of "political violence" and "domestic extremism". Though the earliest reports coming out of Tucson may have had an excuse to be deceived by this now widely accepted illusion of Loughner as an extremist by definition, thorough scruples should have discovered that Loughner was a human of compromised sanity and morality, and furthermore, that the maximum role his "anti-government" and "conspiracy-minded" disposition played in the attack served but to point his madness in the direction of a single victim in close proximity to him.
The Only Apparent Motive To Kill Was Insanity
As is proffered in the second paragraph, there is absolutely no concrete or even semi-concrete evidence depicting that Loughner chose to kill these 6 people and shoot at tens more surrounding Representative Giffords, his initial target, because of any single one or combination of the aforementioned "radical" beliefs he held. Gabrielle Giffords, the Congresswoman he shot in the head at almost point-blank range, is not publicly known to have espoused any definitive opinion on any of Loughner's "conspiracy theory" fascinations listed above. She, in that regard, is your standard Congressperson-- such cockimamy conjecture, as all but maybe Ron Paul would tell you, is unworthy of being publicly addressed by a federal legislator. By not even publicly acknowledging any of Loughner's known "conspiracy" curiosities, Giffords has made it so that she and Loughner do not have, to our knowledge, any directly opposing views worthy of animosity on this scale. Her stance of ignoring "conspiracy cuckoos" may have caused Loughner to dislike her, but it would not have caused him to dislike her any more so than the hundreds of other federal legislators that ignore anything dubbed a "conspiracy theory" by the mainstream media. Thus, this particular so-construed "political motivation" does not amount to any motive not considered criminally insane for attempted assassination and the subsequent mass-shooting.
Stepping away from the realm of "conspiracy theories" and into terms of the everyday political arena, Gabrielle Giffords is considered by most to be a moderate democrat on the Hill, occasionally to be found joining the other side of the aisle on an issue here or there.
According to one Bryce Tierney, an old friend of Loughner's, the latter "had exhibited a longstanding dislike for Gabrielle Giffords, a Blue Dog Democrat, and he repeatedly derided her as a 'fake'". Tierney maintains that this grudge intensified when Loughner, "attended her August 25, 2007 campaign event, and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer his question: 'what is government if words have no meaning?' ". The shooter kept a letter that Gifford sent him in thanks for his attendance at the event. An envelope in the same box where Loughner was found to have kept this letter had phrases like "die bitch" and "assassination plans have been made" written on it.
It may be that the question Tierney recalls Loughner posing to Gifford may have been Loughner's way of measuring Gifford's feelings on his "mind control through grammar" theory, and if this is so, Loughner finding her response unsatisfactory might have earned her some sort of backwards enmity harbored within the shooter for her personally. It may be that Loughner came to visualize Gifford as his world's symbol of that specific government-run "conspiracy" against the people, and it may also be that because of this, Loughner's confused anger towards his perceived reality of a world centered on the theme of the individual versus the repressive state laid its crosshairs on her. Whether or not this incident turns out to have been the single-greatest contributing factor to his decision to throw away his life and any remnants of his sanity on a barbaric attempt on hers, it is readily visible that, though Loughner did become immersed in subjects often coupled with "politics" and though this often unintelligible immersion most likely fed into his designs at attempted murder, it is only an absolutely insane man that would do such a savage thing with such dolorous, heart-wrenching consequences for the Tucson community over something so simple as a question not adequately answered or a reputation as a Blue Dog Democrat. Jared Loughner is, quite simply, fuckin' nuts-- a designation which fits the warning signs and red flags that he hoisted for years leading up to this incident, foreshadowing just how deranged he would become. This same Jared Loughner, on the night of January 7th, took pictures of himself holding his Glock 19 while wearing only a bright red g-string. This is definitely not a man in his right mind; he's not even in the same planetary orbit as the popular definition of sanity.
The Real Threat: Politicization
The senseless bickering over Jared Loughner belonging to the left or the right is massively counterproductive, and has allowed for three crucial threats to American freedom and civil rights to emerge largely undetected under the routinely employed partisan smokescreen.
The most immediate hazard is that of assigning Jared Loughner to the pool of terms including "domestic extremism", "homegrown terrorism", and "right-wing extremism". Secretary of State Clinton has already made the same mistake that a slew of journalists have by calling Loughner an "extremist", and saying, erroneously, that, "I think when you cross the line from expressing opinions that are of conflicting differences in our political environment into taking action that’s violent action, that’s a hallmark of extremism, whether it comes from the right, the left, from al-Qaida, from anarchists, whoever it is. That is a form of extremism. So yes, I think that when you’re a criminal who is in some way pursuing criminal activity connected to – however bizarre and poorly thought through – your political views, that’s a form of extremism." Clinton fails to see the pivotal difference between a "politically motivated" act of violence and an act of violence stemming from pure insanity that is not coordinated and catalyzed by a political ideology and political agenda. She desperately needs to be reminded that the U.S. government's own definition of "extremism", embodied by that of an "extremist group", is "an ideologically driven organization that advocates or attempts to bring about political, religious, economic, or social change through the use or force, violence, or ideologically motivated criminal activity". Jared Loughner does not make the cut, as he was not "ideologically driven" to kill, and was indubitably not attempting to "bring about political, religious, economic, or social change", as his acts of pure depravity had nothing to do with trying to effect any sort of change. From the information the world has thus far collected, it would be safe to say that Loughner was fueled by a personal hatred for Giffords that was the hysterical offspring of his deplorable delirium.
With this misappropriated labeling coming from the highest reached of the federal government, many reporters are begging the question: "Is Jared Loughner considered a homegrown terrorist?", or "Is Jared Loughner a right-wing extremist?", or "Is Jared Loughner a domestic extremist?". All three terms are, to the layman's interpretation of U.S. Code, interchangeable with one another for general reference purposes, as they are all abused in an overwhelming U.S. propaganda effort to reduce any cause bound by revolutionary ideals or by unbridled discontent with the government for having severely breached the agreement with its people by which it is given the privilege of governance, heretoforth referred to as the Social Contract. The U.S. government seeks to slap these labels on any "lone wolf" individual "terrorist" or "terrorist group" that threatens the embedded political institutions with disintegration in retaliation for having neglected and betrayed the will of the people. This Week In Truth does not condone political violence, but it most urgently warns its readers to be wary of the likelihood that, soon enough, organizations defined by concrete political ideology and a clear political agenda not intending on acts of violence may be mistaken for those who would, being equipped to do so, employ violence in pursuit of its ambitions. This danger is very real; outspoken political dissent in America is garnering growing federal attention and is sure to be processed at some point by this country's booming Police State infrastructure, which (for the summary purposes of this brief article) can boast of but is most definitely not limited to:
- More than 1,000,000 names on the "Terrorist Watch List"
- Fusion Centers being formed by state/local law enforcement cooperatives with federal government
- Increasingly slippery, loose definitions of "right-wing extremist", "homegrown terrorist", "domestic extremist", and other similar labels applied to enemies of the rogue state, which could conceivably be interpreted as to mistakenly include non-violent dissent groups
A government determined to preserve and perpetuate itself over the will of the people, especially one as powerful as our own, could with substantial ease play the lawyer's game of fiddling with legal definitions in order to catch all political opponents in a net of so-called "extremism" under the guise of the "war on terror". This has already been actualized to some extent, for one, by associating the "Patriot movement" with "right-wing extremism".
To answer the question before us today regarding the consideration of Jared Loughner as a "homegrown, right-wing extremist terrorist", This Week In Truth boisterously proclaims that Loughner, without a political ideology, strong political affiliation, or pointed political goals, is most definitely not any of these things. Acting ultimately out of insanity and without a single political accomplishment in mind, Loughner must and cannot be grouped into the same classification as violent "domestic extremists", by definition determined to plan for "politically motivated violence". Such a grouping is a barbed one, for it further debases, if it were to become accepted by officials in our government and by a significant portion of the people, the legal definitions discussed above. If these are to be further debased and therefore further loosened, then the uneducated people of America will be even more duped into believing that simply being branded one of these things by the federal government must mean that the subject is truly an enemy of America. The more that the population thinks of this terminology as pertaining to the same nature of violence as common criminals and trigger-happy madmen, the more that organizations such as the "Patriot movement" will be alienated in the public forums and treated as the equivalent of "Al-Qaeda" or the Taliban.
Some journalists have been pointing out certain apparent similarities in the political rhetoric of Loughner with that of "right-wing extremist" members of the "Patriot movement", citing mutual interest in the fiat currency scam and the private, international entities behind the Federal Reserve central banking system. This comparison was the direct source for a good number of the early reports alleging Loughner's "right-wing extremism." This common ground alone is nowhere near the amount of corroboratory material needed to back up a definition-fusion of Loughner-like madness with politically-motivated and often intelligent resistance believed to be patriotic by its participants but detested as a threat to stability by the establishment. Additionally, and contrary to what the mainstream media would have the American people believe, the idea that interest-riddled paper monies controlled in all aspects of circulation by an entity that is in fact not an authentic part of the federal government might be a thorn in the ass of national sovereignty is one which has been valid since at least the age of the Founding Fathers, and the idea of this type of central banking was one that Thomas Jefferson resented: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered". To suggest that valuing a sovereign currency backed by precious metal or otherwise worthy assets is "right-wing extremism" is blatant baffoon business given the concept's longevity and logical economic appeal.
This Week In Truth casts not even a shadow of doubt upon the fact that there are indeed hardcore, so to speak, "domestic extremists" who almost blindly turn to violence as the solution to the problems ailing the nation as it is perceived by them. Yet, we must emphasize the importance of the difference between violent, equipped dissent groups and nonviolent activist groups honoring the Social Contract because the gap between the two is being whittled away by the federal government to the point where, as is stated above, we may soon find ourselves being punished for merely thinking, organizing, and mobilizing against injustice and tyranny in our country if "reforms" continue at this rate. Loughner and his psychotic ilk must forever and always be distinguished as a breed apart from "extremists", for the federal government has already succeeded in conning much of the population into swallowing the lie that the "Patriot movement" and other such groups are by default enemies of the people of the United States of America. Like Takamori Saigo of Japan, also known as "The Last Samurai", whose notorious rebellion was done in the name of Japan and whose participants believed themselves to be fighting for the good of the country, many more contemporary American activist groups might soon be condemned as traitors when in fact they believe their struggle to be in the service of the homeland and of the people.
Threats Posed To The First And Second Amendments
Since January the 8th, legitimate concerns for the sanctity of the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution have arisen.
First Amendment proponents are up in arms over two specific developments in the aftermath of the shooting. For one, the Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnick has blamed "free speech" for the state of our "angry country".
This notion has been picked up by at least one member of Congress. Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina has proposed a new bill to ban "uncivil" criticism of politicians.
The Second Amendment is also facing dire challenges to its integrity, and therefore so is the Constitution-given right of the people to ward off the standing armies of tyranny with their own arms if the Social Contract be so gravely severed. There are at least 3 separate proposed pieces of gun-control legislation soon to hit the books in Congress on the heels of the Tucson shooting. Ardent Second Amendment supporters tout that without this key piece of the Bill of Rights, the American people are doomed to become defenseless slaves.
- - - - - - -
Though the tragedy of January 8th is a very real one that must be assessed and dealt with very seriously with proper responsive measures aimed at preventing another shooting of this sort, we as responsible citizens cannot allow for ourselves to be muddled by inconsequential and insignificant arguments over these hugely important matters. We as responsible citizens cannot allow for these 6 deaths and nearly 20 other casualties to become just another totem to Rahm Emanuel's favorite political axiom: "Never waste a good crisis".
Our IP Address: