Jared Lee Loughner shot and seriously injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. He killed a Federal judge, a girl, and some other people.
There's an obvious pattern in statist logic. Consider
Someone had a gun and did something bad. Therefore, non-policemen should be barred from owning guns.Contrast that with
Some policemen abused their power. There are no systemic flaws that need to be fixed.or
Bernard Madoff was an isolated bad guy. There's no systemic widespread fraud in the financial industry.or
Lehman/Bear Stearns/Enron/FRE/FNM/LTCM/etc. were isolated instances of corruption. There's nothing to see here.It is wrong to excessively mourn a Congresswoman victim, if you don't also mourn the people inappropriately murdered by police. A statist might say "Those people resisted arrest. They deserved to die." or "It's tough being a policeman. They make mistakes."
When an insider commits a crime, there's always an excuse. "It's just one isolated bad guy." When a non-insider commits a crime, the response is "Pass laws that restrict everyone's freedom!" This is particularly true for key State powers, like gun control and spying on people.
Most laws are designed to deal with the worst-case, really bad criminals. The "advantage" is that you restrict everyone's freedom, just to catch a few bad guys. One good example is TSA airport screening, which inconveniences everyone because of a handful of terrorists. It's wrong to restrict everyone's freedom, just because there's a few bad people.
It's wrong to prevent everyone from owning a gun, just because some people would misuse guns. Actually, if everyone is armed, that limits the damage that one crazy person with a gun can do. Some of the people who stopped Jared Lee Loughner were themselves armed, although they didn't use their gun to stop him.
Another theme is "Jared Lee Loughner read crazy anti-government ideas on the Internet. Therefore, we should restrict freedom of speech on the Internet." Also, the "Tea Party"/libertarian faction is blamed, although that doesn't seem to be Loughner's interest. He didn't seem to be a real libertarian or real "market anarchist".
I'm noticing increased anti-freedom sentiment from statists. "People who criticize big government are violent, dangerous, crazy, and racist." That seems to be a blanket excuse designed to shut-down the minds of statists, when they see freedom ideas. If you call someone a racist, then you can safely dismiss any other points they make.
Loughner said that he supported a gold standard, but his ideas were incoherent. He probably thought "Other intelligent people are advocating for gold money. Therefore, I should." He didn't really understand the Austrian economic viewpoint regarding money. The correct answer is "There should be no government regulation of money." Loughner might be an excuse to ridicule all people who criticize State control of money. I noticed "Loughner supported gold!" being mentioned disproportionately too often, compared to other things he did.
Psychopaths and parasites cooperate to enslave everyone. They use government as their tool for control. One explanation is "government monopoly + psychopaths = State". Psychopaths have seized control of the government. That's the reason government's actions lead to evil outcomes, even though a lot of low-ranking government workers have good intentions.
If there were no psychopaths, government would follow the abstract ideal. The problem is that psychopaths have seized control of government. "Color of law" gives cover to psychopath crime. Most Congressmen are psychopaths, along with most high-ranking State insiders.
In every group of people, there's always at least one parasite. They will correct anyone who has deviant ideas. Loughner had partially cracked his pro-State brainwashing. However, psychopaths and parasites were keeping him from discovering the full truth. It's very traumatic, to realize that almost everything you know is a lie.
When I had a panic attack, I tried to run away but didn't hurt anyone. When Loughner had his panic attack, he tried a murder-suicide.
Psychopaths and parasites are everywhere, intimidating everyone. This creates a massive highly-coordinated conspiracy that spies on everyone all the time. Psychopaths and parasites can tell when someone starts having a "dangerous" thinking pattern, and correct them.
I can identify psychopaths and parasites. It's very frustrating to notice that everyone is insane, but I can handle it. Almost everyone either has the evil personality type, or is continually afraid that some evil person will retaliate against them.
Since I've cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I can think like a serial killer. I'm focusing on productive nonviolent tactics. I know why Jared Lee Loughner targeted that Congresswoman. I understand his mental state, even though I wouldn't murder someone.
Most Congressmen are highly-skilled psychopaths. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans, both male and female politicians.
Jarel Lee Loughner had suffered much abuse by parasites and psychopaths. Congresswoman Giffords was the most-skilled psychopath he had ever met. Therefore, he became overly obsessed about her.
It was very disturbing, when I saw Chuck Schumer on the subway. I could tell instantly that he was a highly-skilled psychopath. I can't be sure that Congresswoman Giffords is a psychopath, because I haven't met her, but she probably is.
Similarly, Jared Lee Loughner was upset, when he saw that Congresswoman Giffords was a highly-skilled psychopath. It was very frustrating. He noticed that she was criminally insane, but nobody else believed him (and he couldn't articulate it clearly like I can).
Jared Lee Loughner didn't realize consciously that most politicians are psychopaths. He didn't understand the parasite/psychopath vs. productive worker dynamic. His frustration with the Matrix became focused on Congresswoman Giffords. She was a representative of the State, and it turned out she was a fraud.
The official State solution is "Solve all problems with violence." Loughner followed the model promoted by the State. He probably didn't realize that it's a much bigger problem than merely one dishonest Congresswoman.
Jared Lee Loughner didn't understand the State. He didn't know about agorism. If I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours explaining the truth to him, I might have been able to convince him to follow effective resistance tactics.
Jared Loughner asked Congresswoman Giffords "What is government if words have no meaning?" She gave an evasive non-answer. Her body language probably said "You are a scumbag unworthy of my time." That's a psychopath trick. Psychopaths are superficially verbally polite, while their body language says "You are a loser!" Jared Loughner had partially cracked his pro-State brainwashing. He noticed she was a psychopath, but nobody else could. He became obsessed. He had always been abused by parasites and psychopaths, and she was the most skilled psychopath he had ever met.
Translating his question to English, he was asking "Why do politicians always speak in evasive non-committal language?" It's pointless to confront a politician like that. What do you expect them to say, "You're right. It's all a fraud."? She gave an evasive answer. Her body language was rude. His microphone was cut off and they moved on to the next questioner. That's another politician control trick. They give an evasive answer, but the questioner can't be persistent and say "Answer my question instead of giving an evasive answer!"
"Journalists" facilitate this. Most media "journalists" are drawn from the same group of insiders as politicians. They know how the game is played. They know how their bread is buttered. The "journalist" reads questions from a script. The politician gives an evasive answer. The "journalist" moves on to the next question in his script. This gives legitimacy to the evasive answer, because the "journalist" doesn't question it.
If I were interviewing a psychopath, I'd say "Hey! You're a psychopath!" Journalists play along with the game, pretending the psychopath really is a heroic leader. Besides, most journalists themselves are psychopaths, parasites, or intelligent-but-easily-manipulated. If you're able to easily identify psychopaths and confront them, then you won't have a successful mainstream media career. "Journalists" learn to self-censor and obey orders, in order to succeed. The independent thinkers are weeded out.
You can't tell on TV if someone is a psychopath. You have to meet them in person and interact. The media should prevent psychopaths from being elected, but they're a negligent captured regulator. Superficially, you'd think "If this politician were a psychopath, some of the journalists who interview them would call them out." The problem is that the journalists and politicians are colluding to cheat everyone. Besides, only a very tiny minority has psychopath awareness. My "psychopath detector" is probably more refined than anyone else's.
Politicians are now denouncing non-insiders who use violence-tinted speech. Every politician uses violence analogies when speaking. Government *IS* violence. It's hypocritical to say "Certain people encouraged Loughner.", while some politicians are calling for the assassination of Julian Assange.
I have written "If State thugs try to enforce a bad law, it's morally acceptable (but bad tactics) to use violence to defend yourself." Is that "inciting violence against State employees"? Does that make me a criminal?
In the USA, people accept the legitimacy of the State. In less-developed countries, the slaves aren't as brainwashed. There are incidents like this one, where a bunch of Parliament members were killed. In Somalia, the people see politicians as traitors. Will that happen in the USA, as the State collapses? If everyone is severely disgruntled, people will start acting out without it being coordinated. Even if guns are illegal, there are other things a clever disgruntled person will use.
Loughner became obsessed with Congresswoman Giffords when he saw she was a highly-skilled psychopath. However, the adult way to deal with psychopaths is to ignore them. That's the advantage of agorism. The current government is controlled by criminally insane people. The correct strategy is to ignore the State, just like you would ignore a crazy person on the subway. That is risky, because the vast majority have been brainwashed to believe in the legitimacy of the State. State psychopaths spend a lot of resources tracking down people who seek freedom.
It's wrong to be obsessed with one specific State criminal. There's always someone eager to take his/her place. Also, people who understand State evil are currently greatly outnumbered by statists. You'd be throwing your life away for nothing, to get into a direct violent confrontation with State thugs.
As usual, some conspiracy theories have developed surrounding Loughner. I'm sticking with my explanation, which is "He acted alone. He became obsessed about her, when he saw she was a psychopath." To be complete, I'll mention the conspiracy theories I've seen. However, as I write this, I'm getting more suspicious.
I've also heard some suggestions that Loughner may have been taking anti-depressants. If you were taking anti-depressants, or recently stopped taking them, then that can lead to a murder-suicide. The anti-depressant angle won't be hyped if true, because psychiatric drugs are presented as beneficial. (I'm currently taking a small dose of Seroquel, which seems to work well compared to the other things I've tried.)
This conspiracy theory was interesting. Judge Roll was assassinated, because he was planning to rule against the President in a criminal trial. That case was "United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al”. It seems like a routine "asset forfeiture" case. Unfortunately, there are *MANY* cases like that all the time. There's nothing special about that particular case.
"Asset forfeiture" is an evil State practice. It's a loophole that allows State thugs to seize people's property without trial. The loophole is that the *PROPERTY* is charged with a crime and not the individual. Then, all due process gets thrown out the window. The property is guilty by default, because it doesn't get the same rights as a human defendant. The owner has the burden of proof, to prove that he's the legitimate owner and didn't commit a crime. "Asset forfeiture" turns "innocent until proven guilty" into "guilty until proven innocent" (and you don't recover your legal fees if you win). "Asset forfeiture" makes a mockery of "unreasonable search and seizure".
I doubt Judge Roll was about to rule against the State. Due to the way corrupt State law is structured, "asset forfeiture" cases are slam-dunk easy wins for the State. The stolen property is added to the police department's budget, giving them an incentive to be over-aggressive!
This conspiracy theory was interesting. Allegedly, there's a second person who may be involved. He was Loughner's "handler", making sure he followed through with the assassination. The official excuse is that he was merely his cab driver. If he really was his "handler", then that's a convenient excuse. Just because the media proclaims "He was a cab driver and not his accomplice!", doesn't mean it's true!
Actually, the high shot-to-kill ratio suggests a professional assassin. 30 bullets fired and 6 kills is a very high kill ratio.
It's possible that Judge Roll or Congresswoman Giffords were *TOO* honest and had to be eliminated.
Here's a conspiracy theory I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else. Compare these two photos:
Are they the same guy? It looks like two different people. The width-to-height ratio for his face is completely different!
It's also suspicious that he shaved himself. Did he shave himself? Did the police shave him, so he'd look like a serial killer? Did the "stunt double" get shaved, to avoid awkward comparisons?
Explanation #1 - It really was an assassination. Loughner was set up as the patsy and he's already been executed. Someone else is standing in for the trial. After the "execution", the trial stand-in grows his hair back and assumes a new identity.
Explanation #2 - Loughner really was the murderer. However, he's already been killed and someone else was brought in to play the "defiant mass murderer" role during the trial. Rather than have Loughner be disruptive during the trial, someone else was brought in to play the part of the defendant. In Loughner's place, knowning you're going to be convicted anyway, he would be as disruptive as possible during the eventual trial.
Explanation #3 - They really are the same person and it's just the camera angle or lighting.
This YouTube video is being cited as Loughner's last Internet upload. WTF? Who makes a vlog and doesn't include a video of himself? He bought a gun but didn't buy a video camera? I say "shenanigans". How do I know this video really is by Loughner? Maybe it was mocked up by someone else. If Loughner was being set up as a patsy, someone else could have set up the Internet "evidence" before the murder, so that people who check timestamps wouldn't be suspicious.
Loughner also was studying David Wynn Miller. His website is complete gibberish. That also makes me suspicious. Maybe David Wynn Miller is also a State plant. People disgruntled by the State attach to his nonsense, rather than something else. I wonder if those obscure legal arguments against the IRS are planted by the State, so that disgruntled people focus on the wrong thing?
There's going to be a farce of a trial. Assuming he really is guilty, why bother with a trial drawn out for years and him spending years on death row? It's cruel and unusual punishment, to keep someone alive for years just so you can execute him. It really is like "1984", where you have to break someone's spirit before executing them. This way, the killer says "I'm sorry. I did a bad thing." before he's executed. If you execute someone right away, his spirit hasn't been broken yet, and he acts defiant during the execution.
If they did get the right guy, why not get it over with quickly? A long drawn-out capital murder trial is a great exhibition for the State.
I also don't get the "insanity defense". You're responsible for what you do. An "insanity" defense makes no sense. It only makes sense in bizarro Statist logic. A policeman says "I didn't mean to kill him! It was an accident!", and that's accepted as an excuse. To be consistent, non-State-licensed murders should be allowed to make the same argument.
I disagree with State logic, where "mental state" is a component of a crime. You're responsible for what you do, no matter what the reason.
A famous public defender is being assigned to defend Loughner. I was disturbed, because she looks like my current therapist. She defended several high-profile capital murder defendants. (I.e., she's excellent at helping provide the illusion of justice.) Of course, assuming Loughner did it and they got the right guy, an execution is a fair outcome.
Representing Loughner is a no-risk proposition for a public defender. If he's convicted and executed, nobody's going to accuse her of doing a lousy job. If Loughner really is a student of David Wynn Miller, then he probably would insist on representing himself rather than relying on a public defender.
This is an interesting story. My first reaction was "Jared Lee Loughner saw Congresswoman Giffords. He asked a pointless question, she give a vague answer while insulting him, and he became obsessed with her. She was a psychopath, and he became obsessed with her." I'm sticking with that, as my "most likely explanation".
Maybe Loughner really was obsessed with her. Then, he made a convenient patsy. Based on the descriptions I read of him, he wasn't skilled enough to carry out a mass murder with a high shot-to-kill ratio. He seemed pretty incompetent.
The conspiracy side of this is interesting. I'm not absolutely sure, but those two photos are of two different people! Was this an assassination, with Loughner set up as the patsy? Were those YouTube videos really by Loughner? Why didn't he get a camera and make a vlog? Were Giffords or Roll too honest, and they were assassinated due to involvement in something I don't know about.
I'm more inclined to believe "Loughner got upset because Giffords was a pyschopath." However, those two photos and his YouTube videos are very suspicious! Who makes a vlog without any videos of himself? Those two photos really look like two different people!