As I've mentioned on several past occasions, I'm very bad at maths, so please forgive me if I don't get the answer to the following equation exactly accurate to the nearest decimal point, but I think there's an important bit of number crunching we need to do in relation to the latest media circus...

Imagine you have an event (murder) that is very rare, and only happens to 6.1 people per 100,000 of the population. A further subdivision of that event (serial murder) is even rarer, happening in less than one percent of all instances (so that's less than one percent of 0.061%). A certain demographic (transgender) comprises just 0.5% of the population.

Therefore, the statistical chances of a transgendered person (0.5% of the population) committing a serial murder (less than 1% of all murders, the overall murder rate being 0.061%) are approximately... uh... "you are more likely to see a unicorn whilst being hit by lightning holding onto the winning lottery ticket" (or, if anyone can work out the exact percentage and the precise number of zeroes involved, please do...).

Obviously, that's not to say transgender serial murder can't happen - anything can, as the last three years have so indubitably illustrated to us - it's just to highlight that it's so staggeringly statistically unlikely, it's almost as if the big, bombastic "transgender school shooter" event splashed across all the world's papers was confected by intelligence agencies to further inflame the two most provocative and divisive political issues in the USA right now - gender wars and guns.

A "transgender school shooter" gives incredible ammunition to both sides of the political divide to further entrench themselves in their positions (one side blames guns, the other transgenders), and, consequently, further turns these warring factions against each other, in a lead up to a brutal, bloody civil war where they will ultimately tear the country to pieces, in preparation for it to be '6uilt 6ack 6etter'. That's what the point of this event is.

For all those tiresome individuals (mercifully few of whom read my site...) who are tempted to respond, "OMG r u sayin people didn't die, dont u care about the children U MONSTER!" - no, I am not saying that. Governments are quite happy to sacrifice their own people, including children, for political purposes, and they do it all the time (see: "routine" vaccination schedule). Of course it's reprehensible when the government or anyone else kills children, and that should really go without saying, hence I haven't (well, I guess I sort of have now).

What I am saying is that this event - if it actually happened and wasn't staged, which is certainly a big if - was almost certainly set up by intelligence agencies using programmed assassins to push a political agenda. If you want to know both why we now have frequent school shootings, yet no more 'conventional' serial killers (never hear about them any more, do you, whereas in the '70s and '80s there was virtually a new one every week), the answer to both questions is the same: "serial killers" and "school shooters" are not organic phenomena - they are government/military dark ops: their purpose being to stoke up fear in order to terrorise and control a population, which is something the ruling classes have been doing since the year dot - they've just got a lot more ruthless and convincing more recently.

An excellent tome that details this situation further - how the ruling classes do this, and why - is the late, great David McGowan's book. 'Programmed To Kill: The Politics of Serial Murder'. Written nearly twenty years ago, the book's description reads:

"The specter of the marauding serial killer has become a relatively common feature on the American landscape. Reactions to these modern-day monsters range from revulsion to morbid fascination-fascination that is either fed by, or a product of, the saturation coverage provided by print and broadcast media, along with a dizzying array of books, documentary films, websites, and "Movies of the Week". The prevalence in Western culture of images of serial killers (and mass murderers) has created in the public mind a consensus view of what a serial killer is. Most people are aware, to some degree, of the classic serial killer 'profile.' But what if there is a much different 'profile'-one that has not received much media attention? In Programmed to Kill, acclaimed and always controversial author David McGowan takes a fresh look at the lives of many of America's most notorious accused murderers, focusing on the largely hidden patterns that suggest that there may be more to the average serial killer story than meets the eye. Think you know everything there is to know about serial killers? Or is it possible that sometimes what everyone 'knows' to be true isn't really true at all?"

I won't spoil the whole tome for you (which really is essential reading for any discerning conspiracist, its veracity further underlined by the fact McGowan died prematurely, aged just 55, not long after writing it), but, suffice to say, you will come away from it with no doubt as to what 'serial killers' (and their successors, 'school shooters') really are.

We know from 'Covid' that the ruling classes and their puppets (the government) and propaganda organs (the mainstream media) make extensive use of continually whipped up fear and hysteria in order to control us - they intentionally make us fearful of something so we will start clamouring for it to be abolished - and one thing they are definitely aiming for abolishing is conventional schooling, in favour of moving the syllabus entirely online. So now, across the USA, families are going to be terrified of sending their children to schools (thus, one key agenda item is moved further forward), and viewing either gun-owners or transgenders with deep hostility and contempt (turning people further against each other - another agenda item advanced).

For full disclosure, I'm pro-gun - because guns exist, and "gun control" laws don't stop guns existing, they simply concentrate them in the hands of criminals and the government (but I repeat myself...). If there was a magic wand I could wave to disappear all guns, I'd use it, but as there isn't, the next best thing - by far - is that law-abiding "good guys" have the same access to guns as criminal, corrupt bad guys. And that is literally why the second amendment exists: not simply for hunting, not merely to protect yourself from burglars - but as a mechanism to protect the American people from a tyrannical government.

I'm also "anti-trans", insofar as I believe the current iteration of the trans movement is a devious and disfiguring cult hellbent on brainwashing the youth into mutilating and sterilising themselves, and I oppose that. As any remotely sane person should. I'm not, however, anti any individual who wants to cross-dress or adopt a name more commonly used by the opposite sex (I'll call you by whatever name you like, but I won't use "your pronouns", since there is never any need to - if I need to refer to you, I will just use your name).

Nevertheless, despite being "pro-gun" and "anti-trans", I don't think this alleged school shooting gives us any useful insight into either the gun or the transgender issue, because I think the whole situation has been confected by the government to bait and manipulate the populace into the desired responses, just like all those famous "serial killers" were (who are, let's face it, just as famous as any Hollywood star).

You are supposed to react to this latest gory crime-drama-thriller by either condemning guns, or condemning transgenders, and then start fighting furiously with anyone who holds the opposing view. That's the whole point of the event.

It's interesting also that it's a female-to-male transgender who did this, which further reduces the statistical likelihood that it actually happened, as female serial murderers are even more vanishingly rare than male ones. This female, however, was pumped full of synthetic testosterone, so the story being woven is that giving females testosterone causes them to commit despicable crimes (women being so much more emotionally unstable than men, you see, so they lack the restraint testosterone-heavy men have - yes, this is really being said), so - we might conclude - this is now too dangerous to do.

Turning males into "females" suits the overlords, because castrating men and dousing them with girly hormones, neutralises them and makes them less of a threat - but a female jacked up on testosterone could get too combative and the ruling classes don't want that, so, potentially, this is another psy-op within a psy-op: that "trans women" are safe, because female hormones make these biological men less dangerous. But "trans men" - e.g., women on a form of HRT - are a real threat, because women are too crazy and emotionally volatile to be put on an aggression-promoting hormone like "T", and just go mad and kill a load of children when they are. That seems to be the takeaway we're supposed to get from this.

So this could, ultimately, be yet another way of disenfranchising biological women, especially considering, in the younger generation, the large majority of "trans" youths are female. I've made the point previously that women are being so categorically erased from public life, it's understandable that many are responding to this by concluding the only remaining option is to become a "trans man" instead (and this is certainly nothing new: women have been disguising themselves as men in order to participate in public life since there's been a public life).

Yet if we prohibit women from even trying to mimic men, as (the story will go) the required hormonal dosing is "too dangerous", then that's yet another option erased for biological females.

So ultimately, this "transgender shooter" event - like literally any event which gets sensationalist, international media coverage - is about pushing an agenda, and, it would appear, several agendas.

I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen or trying to detract from the magnitude of mass slaughter, which is always a tragedy, especially when it involves children. What I am saying is that it is always our obligation to remain vigilant and discerning, and not fall for the obvious media mind traps set to bait us into certain responses. Just looking at the fantastical statistical unlikelihood of this event really happening is enough to make us seriously question it.

And you know, I'd never have thought, when I was in the process of failing GCSE Maths, that the subject could end up being a good defence against military-grade mind control operations in the future. I might actually have occasionally done my Maths homework had I known...

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...

1. BuyMeACoffee for one-off or monthly donations
2. Patreon, for monthly pledges
3. Direct bank transfer, for either monthly or one-off donations, to Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.