Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Dave Neiwert Claims Loughner Was Motivated by Politics, Yet One Link He Posts to Prove It Actually Debunks It

Neiwert posts a link to an ABC video, in which a friend of Loughner’s says he was obsessed with the film Zeitgeist, but the friend also says, “He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right”, but it was all political right, Neiwert?by Larry Simons
January 18, 2011

Liberal blogger Dave Neiwert is at it again. This time, instead of his traditional flat out lying to make his point, he ignores the words of a friend of Jared Loughner’s [the Tucson massacre shooter] even though those words were from the very same video from ABC News that he posted a link to in order to prove another unrelated point.

In his article, titled, “Sorry, right-wing talkers. Loughner's rampage was a clear act of political terrorism directed at a liberal 'government' target” [Jan. 17] on the site [ironically called Crooks and Liars], Neiwert posted this excerpt from an ABC news story:

“One of Loughner's friends, a fellow named Zach Osler, says that the internet movie Zeitgeist “poured gasoline on his fire” and had “a profound impact on Jared Loughner's mindset and how he views the world that he lives in.””

First of all, before I get to the main point, let me just add that Neiwert claims that “poured gasoline on his fire” were Osler’s words, despite the fact that in the video clip they were clearly the words of reporter Ashleigh Banfield, who was just saying they were Osler’s words.

The only thing Osler said on camera about the film Zeitgeist was, “I really think this Zeitgeist documentary had a profound impact upon Jared Loughner’s mindset and how he viewed the world that he lives in.” Big deal. It had a profound impact on my mindset too but absolutely nowhere in the film does it advocate or mention anything about violence, but Banfield wants everyone to think it does. Also, when did the words “profound impact” upon a person’s mindset automatically translate to “kill people”? "Schindlers List" had a profound impact on many people’s lives as well, but has it influenced anyone to murder millions of Jews?

Banfield says this about Zeitgeist:

It’s a documentary movement that rails on currency-based economics”. Huh?

Perhaps the best way to describe the film is the director’s [Peter Joseph] own words:

"…the understanding that human society is and has been controlled and manipulated for millennia through the ancient strategy of “divide and conquer”. Whether we are considering the Roman Empirical from 2000 years ago or the now falling American Empire, the tactic is the same - keep the people divided in order to maintain control. This isn’t a notion of conspiracy - it is pattern of social conditioning and human survival as contrived from the social system and the mechanisms inherent in this “social game” we have invented. The Market/Monetary System has put forward a “Social Darwinism” value which most of the world’s people now share. Community and Social Capital becomes secondary to selfish gain. This elitist value nearly removes the idea of people working together for the greater good and rather reinforces an “every man for himself” mentality. Hence, those in high positions of political and financial control operate with the same self-serving and manipulative attitude. This is natural to their world.

At any rate, it is my firm belief that the corrupt power establishment’s biggest fear is the coming together of collective human intent for the good of society as a whole. In other words, governments know they can continue corrupt, self-serving practices as long as they successfully divide their population across politically exaggerated lines using race, religion, class, sexuality and the like. It is a tool to separate such groups - and keep them separated. Again- this isn’t the result of some omnipotent, evil “elite” as some ignorantly claim. Rather, it is the natural, systemic result of the kind of social system we are maintaining. The power establishment has no face - there is no empirical “they”- it is an ever-rotating group of manifested mentalities which result as a direct consequence from the system we perpetuate.

In fact, the most important singular statement of the film’s narration, which defines the purpose of Zeitgeist: The Movie itself, is: 

“The social manipulation of society through the generation of fear and division has completely inhibited the culture. Religion, patriotism, race, wealth, class and every other form of arbitrary separatist identification and thus conceit has served to create a controlled population utterly malleable in the hands of the few. Divide and conquer is the motto... And as long as people continue to see themselves as separate from everything else they lend themselves to being completely enslaved.”

How in the world does the above synopsis of the Zeitgeist film influence someone to go on a shooting spree? It doesn’t. But assholes like Neiwert, Andy Ostroy and everyone at CNN and NBC wants you to think being anti-government [which even the founding fathers were] makes one go on rampages.

Michael Moore makes anti-government films as well. Is anyone blaming Michael Moore? His last movie was about government greed [Capitalism: A Love Story--which was praised on Crooks and Liars, and months later a C & L writer posted this story, of Michael Moore saying, “'Waiting To See If People Rise Up - And If So, I'll Rise With Them'], but although people like Neiwert love to call Patriot/militia groups, conspiracy theorists and 9/11 truthers “fringe” groups, they love to portray them as having wide influence on people. Michael Moore’s movies are mainstream, distributed to thousands of theaters and seen by millions of people, but nope, his movies have no influence. It’s only the fringe 9/11 nutjob films that have any real influence, right Neiwert?

I am convinced the main reason Neiwert did not post the ABC news clip [as I did] is because in the very same clip Zach Osler says this:

“He [Loughner]did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right”.After all, Neiwert’s article is titled, “Sorry, right-wing talkers. Loughner's rampage was a clear act of political terrorism directed at a liberal 'government' target”. Mentioning Osler’s comment that Loughner ‘did not listen to political radio, was not left or right wing, nor did he take sides’ would not have meshed too well with Neiwert’s partisan vitriol. Posting the link to the video is pointless if 99% of those reading his article will not even bother click it and watch the video.

Despite Osler denying it was political, Neiwert still does not hesitate to say this:

“I hate to break it to these folks, but there is indeed an abundance of evidence that not only was Loughner's rampage a political act, it was an act of domestic terrorism committed by someone who had been unhinged by far-right conspiracy theories.”
Abundant evidence” huh? Yet, NO evidence from his best friend from the link YOU posted Neiwert, you lying fraud!

Here’s the video that Neiwert failed to post

Neiwert mentions an article by Michelle Goldberg of The Daily Beast, but when you click his link, it says, “Page not found”, so I found the article myself. In the article, titled, Zeitgeist, the documentary that may have shaped Jared Loughners worldview" [which also blames the film Loose Change], Goldberg says this:

“If you just watch the first third of Zeitgeist, you might think it comes from the left. It begins with an attack on Christianity, arguing that Jesus never existed, and that his legend derives entirely from pre-Christian cults of the sun. Calling Christianity “the fraud of the age,” it argues that the religion empowers those “who know the truth, but use the myth to manipulate and control societies.”

Ahhh, I see. When you think the movie is going to be “left-wing” because it begins attacking religion, that’s no big deal. That couldn’t possibly be a motivation, could it? After all, Giffords is Jewish and Jewish people don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Zeitgeist says Jesus never existed, but you’re right Goldberg, that couldn’t have been a motivation because that’s “left-wing”. Only when you find a “right-wing” view in the film do you say it motivated Loughner. I'm pissing my pants.

Ironically, the “9/11 is an inside job” stance is considered a “far-left” view and the Federal Reserve system not being a legitimate agency is FACT, not a conspiracy theory. Like I have said countless times before, it is the founding fathers that were against central banks and currency not being backed by gold. Not a “right-wing” view there, that’s straight from the Constitution.

Goldberg continues:

“The idea of control and manipulation is the movie’s real theme, knitting together its disparate parts. Zeitgeist's second-third rehashes classic 9/11 Truth theories that purport to show that the attacks were actually an inside job. This was done, the final section argues, at the behest of a banking cabal that has repeatedly goaded the United States into war in order to solidify its wealth and power. Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at the think tank Political Research Associates and one of the country’s foremost experts on right-wing movements, points out that Zeitgeist borrows liberally from the G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island, an “expose” of the Federal Reserve System popular with the John Birch Society, Alex Jones, and some Tea Party groups.”

Oh Jesus. Perhaps the best way to debunk this bullshit she calls “journalism” is to give you Peter Joseph’s [Zeitgeist director] response to him finding out that his films have been connected to the Tucson shootings:

“It has come to my attention that various mainstream news organizations are beginning to run an association between my 2007 performance piece/film, “Zeitgeist: The Movie” and the tragic murders conducted by an extremely troubled young man in Tucson, Arizona. They are also slowly beginning to bleed the obvious line between my 2007 documentary work, my film series as a whole and The Zeitgeist Movement, which I am the founder. Frankly, I find this isolating, growing association tremendously irresponsible on the part of ABC, NBC and their affiliates - further reflecting the disingenuous nature of the America Media Establishment today.

It appears to have begun with a comment on NBC news referencing my film along with other “influential” films as well, such as Richard Kelly's film “Donnie Darko” and then spreading to ABC News where it singled out "Zeitgeist: The Movie" and the Series itself, stating:

“Osler pointed to an online documentary series called "Zeitgeist" as a possible influence on the man. The series rails on currency-based economics. "I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact on Jared's mindset and how he viewed that world that he lives in," Osler said.”

Let it be known that the former friend of Loughner, Zack Osler, who states the association on camera, is noted to have been out of contact with Loughner for two years. Yes, two years. So, the lack of integrity of ABC's reporting - to amplify a comment by a person who had not even been in contact with Loughner for such a long period of time - is truly poor, manipulative journalism. ABC goes on to imply that my film work was somehow an inspiration in real time even though, again, this testimony is based on interactions occurring two years prior. Needless to say, the disposition for such a horrible act of violence by anyone simply cannot be accurately assumed by behavior from 2 years prior, regardless.

When we reflect on the history of seemingly random violence or other forms of highly offensive, irrational, aberrant behavior, we see a common pattern of reaction from the public and media in their attempt to explain such extreme acts. Rather than deeply examining the Bio-Psycho-Social nature of human social development and the vast spectrum of influences that create and morph each of us in unique and sometimes detrimental ways, they take the easy way out. The first thing they do is simply ignore all modern scientific, social understandings of what generates human motivation in both positive and negative regard, for to do so can only call into question the social system itself and hence the “zeitgeist” (meaning: spirit/intellectual climate of the time/culture) at large.

Generally speaking, it is historically accurate to say that the Mainstream Media simply isn't in the business of challenging the Status Quo. The limits of debate are firmly set. Virtually all ideas, persons or groups who have succeeded in changing the world for the better, later to be hailed as heroes in the public mind, started out being condemned by those in the Mainstream Media who latch on to the dominant world view of the time. Even Martin Luther King Jr., a peaceful, loving, wonder of a man who contributed more to our social progress than likely any humanitarian in the US history, was followed by the CIA and publicly humiliated as a “Communist” which he even had to defend in front of a Congressional Committee. In fact, you can rest assured that if King were alive in the current paradigm today and seeking an equal form of justice - he would be given the name: “Terrorist”.

So, again, rather than taking the scientific view, the Mainstream Media often seeks out or implies one point of blame and runs with it. After all, it is much easier, presentable and more simplistic for the public to think that the troubling reality of seemingly random acts of mass murder is the result of a “singular influence” and hence the logic goes that if that one influence is removed, then the world will be back in balance. This gives the public a false resolve and position of focus in an otherwise ambiguous, complex world of social and biological influences. And as far as the scapegoat itself, very often any group, media or dataset that is counter-culture or even hints at wishing to challenge the status quo, is a magnet for such blame.

For example, musical groups of a counter-culture nature have been a favorite scapegoat for acts of murder/violence historically. In 1990, the rock band Judas Priest was actually taken to court for their “role” in the self-inflicted gunshot wounds in 1985 of 20-year old James Vance and 18-year old Raymond Belknap in Reno, Nevada. In 2008, the band Slipknot was publicly tied/blamed to a high-school murder in South Africa. Even the Beatles song “Helter-skelter” was associated to the murders incited by Charles Manson. It goes on and on... and, frankly, it's simply pathetic - avoiding the true nature of the problem - which is the Socio-Economic Environment itself.

Make no mistake: The Social System is to blame for the rampage of Jared Loughner – not some famous online documentary which is known as the most viewed documentary of all time in internet history. Are the other 200 million people who have seen the film also preparing for murder sprees? I think not.

In my new film: "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", I feature a prominent Harvard Criminal Psychologist by the name of Dr. James Gilligan who headed the Centre for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School for many years. In his life work of personally engaging the most dangerous, violent offenders the US system produces, he found some basic trends. The most common is the social issue of “shame”. Our socio-economic system inherently breeds social division and there is a natural demeaning of others generated as a result. It is a scientific fact that mass murderers and those who many just dismiss as “evil” today, are the product of years of being shamed, humiliated and demeaned. Their acts of violence is a reaction from these highly oppressive feelings and the real resolve to such acts can only come from removing the real source of such emotional hurt. You will notice that most other countries don't come close to the level of violence we see in the United States. The US is the capital of violence with 30-300 times more acts of violence than any other country. We have produced more serial killers in America than all other countries combined. Why? You will notice the Mainstream never asks this question.

If anyone would like to understand why more and more people in the modern world end up like Jared Loughner and why these patterns are only going to get worse as time goes on in this system, I suggest the book “Violence” by Harvard Criminal Psychologist Dr. Gilligan. In conclusion, let it be stated that the Zeitgeist Film Series is about critical thought regarding various social issues which challenge many erroneous notions held as fact in the modern culture. It also explicitly promotes non-violence, human unity and prosperous human development based on truth and science.”
Neiwert also repeats the lie I debunked in my very first article about the Tucson shootings when he said [my response after each in parenthesis]:

“We document 19 cases of extremist domestic-terror violence just in the past two and a half years; this does not even begin to take into account the litany of criminal violent threats against liberals in the past year.”

[I debunked 10 of them immediately on my story last week. Only 10 because I don’t know much about the other 9]

“-- Loughner self-identifies as a terrorist. (See the videos he left behind; in our version, the page in which he identifies himself as a "terrorist" is at the 1:00 mark).”

[So, why didn’t the FBI and at least the Pima County Sheriff’s Department do anything about him, especially since he had made threats to the Sheriff’s Department in the past?]

“ --He also clearly has adopted two strands of right-wing conspiracism: He believes that American currency is "phony" because it no longer is on the gold standard, and he believes Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theories about "mind control." The SPLC's Mark Potok has more on this.”

[The founding fathers say it’s phony too because they, except for Alexander Hamilton, did not want central banks. Do you read the Constitution, Neiwert? As for Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theories...you’re saying mind-control is a “theory”? That would be news to the CIA. I have debunked that fool Potok so many times, he’s not worthy of my time right now]

“--He had developed an unhealthy fixation on Giffords, but his hatred of her was largely political in nature and not personal.”

[There is no evidence that even if he did “hate” her as you claim, it was POLITICAL. She supports the 2nd amendment and is strong on border security….two issues Tea Partiers support, but you claim Loughner is pro-tea party]

“-- There was a powerful campaign of demonization directed at Giffords throughout the 2010 campaign, including but hardly limited to Sarah Palin's attack ads -- much of it featuring rhetoric condoning the idea of targeting Giffords with guns.”

[True, but do you have any proof Loughner even knew who Sarah Palin is? You just posted a link of his best friend saying it was NOT political and he didn’t take sides. Oh, that’s right, you left that part out!]

“--Giffords was a mainstream moderate Democrat -- a classic target of hatred from the conspiracist right, which despises real liberals but reserves its special venom for centrist Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.”

[That just might be the dumbest thing I have heard any liberal say since the shooting, and that includes the ramblings of Clarence Dupnik. That takes some doing!]

Neiwert hides behind words like Constitution, liberty and freedom when, in reality, it is these very things he has clearly established a hatred of. He will say anything to promote his views, even if it is resorting to sloppy and irresponsible journalism [showcased by omitting a major piece of information like the fact that Loughner was not political according to his best friend] in order to advance his allegiance to his political party.

Neiwert continually attempts to defend his articles with many links throughout his stories, but most [sometimes all] of his links revert right back to his very own stories! In other words, Neiwert is saying: I'm right because I said so.

Neiwert is a classic example of the "party over country" crowd. His undying love for his political party will not be separated, not by a love for his country and sure as hell not by facts.


Anonymous said...

i smell fraudie.

the_last_name_left said...

Ironically, the “9/11 is an inside job” stance is considered a “far-left” view

It is not a far-left view.

What is left about it?

Provide some names of leftwing groups and individuals whom believe "911 was an inside job"?

If you can't do this, you have no reason to make such a claim.

Also, you did not debunk 10 of Neiwert's 19 examples. See my posts in response under your article - which you have completely failed to respond to.