Connect with us


Destroying Western Media’s “Swedish Public Health Disaster” Narrative In Two Simple Charts

Destroying Western Media’s "Swedish Public Health Disaster" Narrative In Two Simple Charts



Destroying Western Media's "Swedish Public Health Disaster" Narrative In Two Simple Charts Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2020 - 05:00

Via SKWealthAcademy,

"In order to control public opinion of the masses, the ruling class should “regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments [soldiers’] bodies."

– Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

– Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

Recently, the Western media has made a point to publish a plethora of stories about the public health disaster of Sweden’s no lockdown policy in order to deliberately discredit, in the minds of most people, the only science-based approach to covid19 undertaken by any nation in the world.

Since the end of July, there have been a lot of completely false and misleading stories about the failures of Sweden’s no lockdown policy and Sweden officials’ choices to not tyrannically shut down businesses in Sweden, to only suggest that the elderly vulnerable population self-quarantine, and to allow for the complete normalization of life under the conditions. Of course, the criticisms of portraying life as completely normal in Sweden had some merit. The most normalized behavior occurred in Stockholm, and though no businesses were ordered to close, some more cautious, conservative business owners chose to shut down their cinemas and ski resorts chose to voluntarily close and GDP in Sweden is still forecast to shrink by 4%. Still a 4% annual shrinkage in GDP is 1000 times more preferable to the annual pace of a 32.9% drop in GDP forecast in America just this past quarter.

Furthermore, if the most human interaction is happening in Stockholm, the most densely populated city in Sweden with a central population of 1.5M and a metropolitan population of over 2.4M, then this fact would serve as stronger proof, not weaker proof, that their no-lockdown, normal life behavior approach was a resounding success. This logical, science-based and humanitarian approach starkly contrasted with the totalitarian, misanthropic ruling class’s approach to restrict the movements of everyone, including fully-abled healthy people with strong immune systems, and legislating mandated stay-at-home orders for large swaths of entire nations, orders which the United Nations claim may bring 260 million people to the verge of starvation by year’s end, which would make the State leaders responsible for an outcome, if it happens, guilty of genocide on a scale that would make Hitler, Mao, and Mussolini’s repugnant genocidal feats appear as child’s play.

In fact, in response to my legitimate claims that Sweden’s no-lockdown response was the only science-based response to covid 19 in the entire world, and also, non-coincidentally, the most successful response, I heard many Westerners attempt to rebut my arguments with counterclaims that were not the result of any research or intellect, but the consequence of obedient parroting of Western media headlines, that on the surface, seemed to dispute the science I had presented.  

In response to Sweden’s massive success rates with its no lockdown policy, the only State that dared stand up to the global banking cartel that was likely behind the global economic lockdown policy, the Western mass media deployed a pre-emptive counterstrike by literally releasing hundreds of articles about the grave “failure” of Sweden’s no lockdown policy and disseminating these articles to millions of websites online. So even though I debunked their false claims already in this article, since social media has reduced everyone’s attention span to small chunks of a few seconds at a time, with the exception of a handful for every million, I’ve created a couple of charts, drawing data from the sites of the US Centers for Disease Control and Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden, to address this problem whereby the false Western mass media narrative about Sweden’s virus response will be destroyed in a glance.

In the top chart, when we compare the mortality rates of covid19 in Sweden v. the US, including all data until the end of July, the US’s mortality rate of covid 19 in the age group of less than 39 years of age was 0.58%, more than 1,230 times greater than the 0.00047% mortality rate of Sweden. Furthermore, in the age demographics of 40-59 and 59-69, the death rate in the US from covid19 versus Sweden was respectively 215 times and 211 times greater than Sweden.

In the bottom chart, I compared Sweden’s mortality rate for different age demographics compared to the US mortality rate for the common flu. For the comprehensive age group of all ages less than 60 years of age, the Swedish mortality rate of covid19 is less than 1/3rd of the American mortality rate for the common flu. Clearly, as can be easily observed in the bottom chart, the overall covid19 mortality rate for Sweden’s population was greatly skewed by nearly all covid19 deaths occurring in the above 70 year old demographic, with the majority of Sweden’s covid19 deaths occurring in those older than 80 and 90 years of age!

I created the above graphics, using official date of both the US Centers for Disease Control and and Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden. The major disclaimer I have about the graphics I created is that the US lockdown response to covid19 that is hundreds to thousands times worse in result versus Sweden’s no lockdown, free and open society response is likely skewed a little higher than reality. This bias originates from the inaccurate reporting of covid deaths in America, as already four states, Washington, New York, Texas and Colorado, have admitted to many cases of falsely categorizing non-covid19 deaths, including even deaths from fatal transportation crashes and murders, as covid19 deaths. However, it is not my fault that US health agencies have reported wildly inflated covid19 deaths that make their management of the virus appear pathetic in comparison to Sweden’s chosen strategies of continuing to operate their nation as if covid19 was less dangerous than the common flu for healthy, working-age people, which their statistics have thus far validated. Secondly, the only other factor that introduces some slight margins of error in the above graphics is the fact that the data available for mortality rates among different demographics do not exactly match the population data also provided for these demographic groups to determine mortality rates. Thus I was required to make some extrapolations with the data to determine mortality rates of covid19 for the Swedish age demographics.

For example, the population data I used for the Swedish population split the demographic data into age brackets of 45-55, 55-65,and so on, that slightly differed from the age brackets of 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and so on provided by the Public Health Agency of Sweden for the number of deaths from covid19. Therefore to determine the mortality rates for covid19 and the common flu, I was required to extrapolate the population data for age categories to match the age categories for the data provided regarding number of deaths. The methodology I used to estimate the Swedish population to arrive at mortality rates for each age group was a direct linear extrapolation.

For example, Sweden reported 1.282M citizens between the ages of 35 and 44, an age group of 10 years. Consequently, to estimate how many citizens were among those aged 35 to 39, I merely divided the number of the total citizens for that age group of 1.282M citizens in half to arrive at 641,000 citizens and then added this figure to the 4.448M Swedes that are 34 years of age or younger to arrive at a total population of 5.1M Swedes for the demographic of 0-39 years of age for my mortality rate calculations. Of course, if the number of 1.282M citizens is more heavily skewed in favor of the 35 to 39 year old group than the 40 to 44 year old group, than my total population of 0-39 years of age will yield a slightly higher mortality rate than reality. However, since all census data is based upon estimates from sampling a much smaller portion of the population, I assume that my own estimates of portions of the demographic categories to yield my mortality rates that were based on simple mathematical extrapolations should not introduce any significant margins of error that will distort the true message and reality contained within my two charts.

Despite this overwhelming scientific evidence of the Swedish approach as the most effective combined dual health and economic-based approach in the entire world, I was amazed at the volume of Western media lies and propaganda about Sweden’s approach being a horrific failure.

Western media in the US and the UK were all too eager to oblige in spreading complete lies and fabricated garbage by painting Sweden’s massive success as a complete failure by printing headlines that blared,

Sweden has nearly 10 times the number of COVID-19-related deaths than its Nordic neighbors”,  

“Sweden's coronavirus death rate is nearly 6 times that of neighboring Norway and Finland”, 

“A Very Swedish Sort of Failure”,  and

“Sweden’s Coronavirus Experiment Has Well and Truly Failed.”

And just in case you’re not the type to watch the nightly news, the Western media flooded the internet with the same false narrative to ensure that everyone that heard about these stories and consequently searched for additional stories about Sweden’s no lockdown policy would receive plenty of confirmation about these false narratives.

The mission of these fake, non-science and non-mathematical based stories was to ensure that the maximum amount of people around the world remain completely unthinking, obedient slaves to State mandated, martial-law style lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, in which the consequent social isolation from others would not only produce devastating  financial and  psychological effects but also have the added bonus, for the ruling class, of producing a mental state among the global population extremely receptive to hate and fear.  Yesterday, I conducted a search on the Google Search engine for “the failure of Sweden’s coronavirus response”, and Google, as an apparatus of the parasitic ruling class, returned 52M results for this topic. 

And though a search for “the success of Swedens’ coronavirus response” returned 63.9M results, and one may see the results and perhaps think that for the first time in history, the Google search engine did not have an agenda in its search results, a quick glance at the titles of the articles on the entire first page quickly dispel such faith. The first articles for this search were titled,

“Has Sweden’s Controversial Covid19 Strategy Been Successful?”,

“Dramatic Drop in Deaths Doesn’t Mean Plan Worked”,

“Misinformation and De-Contextualization”, “Sweden’s Prime Minister Rejects Criticism”, and

“A Warning from Sweden’s Coronavirus Response”.

Although a few of these articles appear that they may focus on the positive aspects of Sweden’s response, they did not. Every single article focused on the slightly negative outcomes of their response, and completely ignored their much more heavily positive outcomes, whereby the results of this “positive” search were nearly indistinguishable from the results of the “negative” search about Sweden’s covid19 response.

In any event, the hypocritical Western media that blasted Sweden’s response as a complete failure for having six times the mortality rate of its neighbors in Finland and Norway, these faux journalists should have turned their propaganda lens inward to within domestic borders and blasted a covid19 death rate in the US in the under 40 year old population that was more than 1,230 times that of Sweden. If Sweden’s response was a disaster, how would you categorize a response that was worse by a factor of more than twelve-hundred times? A complete apocalypse? And why was this rate so much higher in the US than in Sweden? As I already stated,  it was so much higher because nearly no one died in Sweden who was under the age of 60 from this virus, so printing a headline that US deaths in the under 40 category were “apocalyptic” when compared to Sweden, though it would never happen in a million years, would still be a headline upon which I would heavily frown, as publishing such a headline would obviously only be done with the to deceive. Even though the data of mortality rates for the under 40-year old category would qualify as a comparison of apples to apples, in some instances, comparing apples to apples does not mean that such a comparison would not be deceitful.  Quoting statistics should not be used when one knows that their use will paint biased, misleading views of the actual situation, yet the mass media repeatedly engages in such deception with no qualms about doing so.

Likewise, the reason Sweden possessed a covid19 death rate six times higher than Finland and Norway was because

(1) Sweden’s elderly population was much greater than the elderly population  of either of those two nations; and

(2) As small as was Sweden’s mortality rates were for all age groups except the elderly, Finland and Norway’s mortality rates were even more minute.

Consequently, compare minute to minute statistics, a 6 times higher mortality rate is very easy to manufacture and can be extremely misleading.  For example if one country reports six deaths out of 100,000 and another country reports 36 deaths out of 100,000 and both nations have populations under 10 million people, reporting a mortality rate six times higher in the former nation versus the latter nation is truly misleading. Now if both nations had populations over 150M people and this were still the case, then it would be okay to report such a statistic as there would be much more truth in such a stat.

As is evident in the bottom chart, the bulk of deaths from coronavirus in Sweden happened in the over 70 year old demographic, but particularly in the over 80 year old category. If a nation has many more elderly citizens, percentage wise than another nation, then of course its overall mortality rate will be much higher, as its overall mortality rate will be greatly skewed by its large elderly population. This is why it would be fake science to extrapolate the high mortality rate of covid19 in Lombardy, a region with a high percentage of elderly, to the entire nation of Italy.

All of the Western media’s headlines about this particular set of data in Sweden in comparison to its neighboring nations was completely disingenuous and deliberately intended to mislead the American public about the “failure” of the Sweden no lockdown policy, that in reality, was among the most successful, if not the most successful, in the entire world. If you compared the mortality rate of Sweden to another Nation A in which only 5% of Nation’s A population was over 70 years of age with 90% of its population under 60, and then published headlines, “Sweden’s Covid19 Death Rate 3,000 Times Greater than Nation A”, you would not be a journalist interested in spreading truth but a spineless coward whose printed propaganda would be directly responsible for the extension of lockdowns that would likely cause many unnecessary deaths.

In the end, I’m astonished at how many people readily parrot the complete garbage implications contained within some of the misleading headlines I’ve stated above that appeared in Western media about Sweden’s virus response “failure” with not even a single minute of consideration if the headlines were really true or not.

In Edward Bernay’s 1925 book, Crystallizing Public Opinion, the person whom many consider as the father of US propaganda, stated,

“People accept the facts which come to them through existing channels. They like to hear new things in accustomed ways. They have neither the time nor the inclination to search for facts that are not readily available to them. The expert, therefore, must advise first upon the form of action desirable for his client and secondly must utilize the established mediums of communication, in order to present to the public a point of view. This is true whether it is that of a majority or minority, old or new personality, institution or group which desires to change by modification or intensification the store of knowledge and the opinion of the public.”

The most effective propaganda, which certainly the propaganda about this virus used to justify State leader mandates to lockdown economies around the world fall under, convinces the victims of the propaganda that they came to the conclusions contained within the propaganda on their own merit, and that they were not ordered to embrace such false beliefs. Bernays stated in 1925 that for propaganda to be effective, it has to fall under the category of information for which the public has “neither the time nor the inclination to search for facts” because the facts “are not readily available.” Quite sadly, this once staunch pillar of disseminating effective propaganda is not even necessary today given the century of brainwashing and dumbing down of society that has taken place since 1925. The data I complied above that would easily disprove all the lies in thousands of articles circulating around the world about the failure of Sweden’s no lockdown approach was readily available on the public website of Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden. But today, most people do not want to spend even two minutes of time to vet information as wrong or true when the information to do so is readily available. Instead, society at large still prefers to have the parasitic ruling class think for them and tell them what to believe.

For this reason, I devoted an entire course in my skwealthacademy curriculum just to the development of critical think skills, and I will launch my course as soon as the parasitic world leaders life the global lockdown, of which I’ve been subjected for 134 days and counting, and allow me to return home. Of course, if you made it to the end of this article, you are not among that group, but that also makes you a rarity in today’s world.

*  *  *

To be informed off the release of this content, subscribe to my podcast channel here. Subscribe to my news site and free newsletter here. All skwealthacademy articles are always published first on my news site.

Support my news site by becoming a patreon by visiting this link.

Read More

Continue Reading


Pentagon Boss ‘Clarifies’ Russia & China Pose Biggest Threats After Biden Says It’s Climate Change

Pentagon Boss ‘Clarifies’ Russia & China Pose Biggest Threats After Biden Says It’s Climate Change

On Wednesday, President Biden told US troops stationed in the UK that the Joint Chiefs told him "the greatest threat facing America" is…



Pentagon Boss 'Clarifies' Russia & China Pose Biggest Threats After Biden Says It's Climate Change

On Wednesday, President Biden told US troops stationed in the UK that the Joint Chiefs told him "the greatest threat facing America" is "global warming" - a curious pivot from "white supremacy."

On day later, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 'corrected' Biden, asserting instead that the biggest threats facing the US are China and Russia, according to US News, (and who allegedly had a big role in scamming half of pandemic unemployment funds to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars).

"Climate change does impact, but the president is looking at a much broader angle than I am," Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a congressional panel Thursday morning in response to a question by Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) "I'm looking at it from a strictly military standpoint. And from a strictly military standpoint, I'm putting China, Russia up there."

Milley then backpedaled a bit, saying "Climate change is a threat. Climate change has a significant impact on military operations, and we have to take that into consideration."

"Climate change is going to impact natural resources, for example," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee,adding, "It's going to impact increased instability in various parts of the world, it's going to impact migrations and so on."

When asked how his assessment that Russia and China pose the biggest threats, Milley said "This is not, however, in conflict with the acknowledgement that climate change or infrastructure or education systems– national security has a broad angle to it. I'm looking at it from a strictly military standpoint."

On Wednesday, Biden spoke to US forces at Royal Air Force Base Mildenhall, where he recounted an alleged discussion which took place while he was Vice President with the Joint Chiefs in their cloistered "tank" meeting room at the Pentagon.

"This is not a joke. You know what the Joint Chiefs told us the greatest threat facing America was? Global warming," he claimed.

In response to Biden's Wednesday comments, former President Trump issued a statement.

"Biden just said that he was told by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Climate Change is our greatest threat. If that is the case, and they actually said this, he ought to immediately fire the Joint Chiefs of Staff for being incompetent," said Trump.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/11/2021 - 19:20

Read More

Continue Reading


How Fanatics Took Over The World

How Fanatics Took Over The World

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via,

Early in the pandemic, I had been furiously writing articles about lockdowns. My phone rang with a call from a man named Dr. Rajeev Venkayya. He is the head.



How Fanatics Took Over The World

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via,

Early in the pandemic, I had been furiously writing articles about lockdowns. My phone rang with a call from a man named Dr. Rajeev Venkayya. He is the head of a vaccine company but introduced himself as former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation.

Now I was listening.

I did not know it then, but I’ve since learned from Michael Lewis’s (mostly terrible) book The Premonition that Venkayya was, in fact, the founding father of lockdowns. While working for George W. Bush’s White House in 2005, he headed a bioterrorism study group. From his perch of influence – serving an apocalyptic president — he was the driving force for a dramatic change in U.S. policy during pandemics.

He literally unleashed hell.

That was 15 years ago. At the time, I wrote about the changes I was witnessing, worrying that new White House guidelines (never voted on by Congress) allowed the government to put Americans in quarantine while closing their schools, businesses, and churches shuttered, all in the name of disease containment.

I never believed it would happen in real life; surely there would be public revolt. Little did I know, we were in for a wild ride…

The Man Who Lit the Match

Last year, Venkayya and I had a 30-minute conversation; actually, it was mostly an argument. He was convinced that lockdown was the only way to deal with a virus. I countered that it was wrecking rights, destroying businesses, and disturbing public health. He said it was our only choice because we had to wait for a vaccine. I spoke about natural immunity, which he called brutal. So on it went.

The more interesting question I had at the time was why this certified Big Shot was wasting his time trying to convince a poor scribbler like me. What possible reason could there be?

The answer, I now realized, is that from February to April 2020, I was one of the few people (along with a team of researchers) who openly and aggressively opposed what was happening.

There was a hint of insecurity and even fear in Venkayya’s voice. He saw the awesome thing he had unleashed all over the world and was anxious to tamp down any hint of opposition. He was trying to silence me. He and others were determined to crush all dissent.

This is how it has been for the better part of the last 15 months, with social media and YouTube deleting videos that dissent from lockdowns. It’s been censorship from the beginning.

For all the problems with Lewis’s book, and there are plenty, he gets this whole backstory right. Bush came to his bioterrorism people and demanded some huge plan to deal with some imagined calamity. When Bush saw the conventional plan — make a threat assessment, distribute therapeutics, work toward a vaccine — he was furious.

“This is bulls**t,” the president yelled.

“We need a whole-of-society plan. What are you going to do about foreign borders? And travel? And commerce?”

Hey, if the president wants a plan, he’ll get a plan.

“We want to use all instruments of national power to confront this threat,” Venkayya reports having told colleagues.

“We were going to invent pandemic planning.”

This was October 2005, the birth of the lockdown idea.

Dr. Venkayya began to fish around for people who could come up with the domestic equivalent of Operation Desert Storm to deal with a new virus. He found no serious epidemiologists to help. They were too smart to buy into it. He eventually bumped into the real lockdown innovator working at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.

Cranks, Computers, and Cooties

His name was Robert Glass, a computer scientist with no medical training, much less knowledge, about viruses. Glass, in turn, was inspired by a science fair project that his 14-year-old daughter was working on.

She theorized (like the cooties game from grade school) that if school kids could space themselves out more or even not be at school at all, they would stop making each other sick. Glass ran with the idea and banged out a model of disease control based on stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation.

Crazy right? No one in public health agreed with him but like any classic crank, this convinced Glass even more. I asked myself, “Why didn’t these epidemiologists figure it out?” They didn’t figure it out because they didn’t have tools that were focused on the problem. They had tools to understand the movement of infectious diseases without the purpose of trying to stop them.

Genius, right? Glass imagined himself to be smarter than 100 years of experience in public health. One guy with a fancy computer would solve everything! Well, he managed to convince some people, including another person hanging around the White House named Carter Mecher, who became Glass’s apostle.

Please consider the following quotation from Dr. Mecher in Lewis’s book: “If you got everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn’t let them talk to anyone, you would not have any disease.”

At last, an intellectual has a plan to abolish disease — and human life as we know it too! As preposterous and terrifying as this is — a whole society not only in jail but solitary confinement — it sums up the whole of Mecher’s view of disease. It’s also completely wrong.

Pathogens are part of our world; they are generated by human contact. We pass them onto each other as the price for civilization, but we also evolved immune systems to deal with them. That’s 9th-grade biology, but Mecher didn’t have a clue.

Fanatics Win the Day

Jump forward to March 12, 2020. Who exercised the major influence over the decision to close schools, even though it was known at that time that SARS-CoV-2 posed almost risk to people under the age of 20? There was even evidence that they did not spread COVID-19 to adults in any serious way.

Didn’t matter. Mecher’s models — developed with Glass and others — kept spitting out a conclusion that shutting down schools would drop virus transmission by 80%. I’ve read his memos from this period — some of them still not public — and what you observe is not science but ideological fanaticism in play.

Based on the timestamp and length of the emails, he was clearly not sleeping much. Essentially he was Lenin on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution. How did he get his way?

There were three key elements: public fear, media and expert acquiescence, and the baked-in reality that school closures had been part of “pandemic planning” for the better part of 15 years. Essentially, the lockdowners, over the course of 15 years, had worn out the opposition. Lavish funding, attrition of wisdom within public health, and ideological fanaticism prevailed.

Figuring out how our expectations for normal life were so violently foiled, how our happy lives were brutally crushed, will consume serious intellectuals for many years. But at least we now have a first draft of history.

As with almost every revolution in history, a small minority of crazy people with a cause prevailed over the humane rationality of multitudes. When people catch on, the fires of vengeance will burn very hot.

The task now is to rebuild a civilized life that is no longer so fragile as to allow insane people to lay waste to all that humanity has worked so hard to build.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/11/2021 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading


Brandon Smith: The Real Reasons Why California Leftists Are Terrified Of The AR-15

Brandon Smith: The Real Reasons Why California Leftists Are Terrified Of The AR-15

Authored by Brandon Smith via,

This past week a US District judge in California struck down the state’s 30 year ban on high capacity semi-automa



Brandon Smith: The Real Reasons Why California Leftists Are Terrified Of The AR-15

Authored by Brandon Smith via,

This past week a US District judge in California struck down the state’s 30 year ban on high capacity semi-automatic rifles which leftists label “assault weapons”. The judge called the ban unconstitutional (which it is). In response, the progressive media has lost their collective minds, screeching in horror at the idea of AR-15 rifles being legal within the borders of their carefully manicured socialist Utopia state. Their most commonly expressed reaction seems to be fear.

Fear is rarely a rational thing. When someone operates based on fear they tend to make terrible decisions and support oppressive causes and laws. Fear leads to an obsession with control. Fearful people also tend to look for large mobs of other terrified people so they can feel safe and secure and anonymous. They want to be able to act impulsively on their fears without having to face consequences for it later.

Leftists are driven primarily by two factors: Narcissism, and yes, fear. I’ve discussed their narcissism at great length in past articles; now I think we should delve into their fear.

The most common leftist retort to the question “Why are you so afraid of the AR-15?” will usually be a snort of indignant disbelief followed by the words:

“Because it’s a military weapon designed to kill a lot of people quickly…idiot!”

But this is not an argument, it is an expression of irrational fear. Why are they, as individuals, afraid of the AR-15? What are the chances that they will EVER be faced with a person intent on killing them with an AR-15? And, why do they believe that disarming innocent law abiding Americans will somehow save them from their paranoia?

Let’s examine the first issue of statistical probability; how many people are actually killed by AR-15s each year? Not many according to the FBI, which does not track the stats on specific rifles, but does track the stats on all rifles together. And, as it turns out, only around 6% of all gun deaths involve rifles in the US each year.

How much of that 6% involves the use of military grade rifles like the AR-15? It’s impossible to say, but even if it was half, or 3% of all gun related crimes, that would still mean you have FAR more of a chance of being murdered by a knife or blunt object than an AR. By extension, Rifles overall are dwarfed by handgun murders, so, again, why are leftists so afraid of the AR-15?

What about mass shootings? It seems like the AR-15 is a favorite among mass shooters because of it’s “efficiency”, so is this reason enough to be fearful? According to the New York Times own analysis, the AR-15 was used to kill 173 people in mass shootings in the US from 2007 to 2017. Meaning around 17 homicides per year over a decade can be attributed to the rifle. Again, the AR is dwarfed by almost all other weapons in homicide including knives, even when accounting for mass shootings.

With the sheer number of military grade weapons in the hands of civilians in the US there should be mass homicides everywhere you look if you take the common position of the typical progressive gun grabber. But, this is not the case. In fact, if you want to increase your chances of being killed by a gun, move to a major Democrat run city like Chicago, New York or Philadelphia. In Chicago, there were 4033 shootings and 784 homicides, predominantly in black neighborhoods and primarily with handguns.

So, statistically, access to AR-15s does not increase gun homicides. But what about living in a black neighborhood in leftist run Chicago under some of the strictest gun laws in the country? Yes, your chances of being shot are MUCH higher (just not by an AR-15).

Since the math does not add up in favor of the leftists, perhaps we should examine other factors that might be driving them to focus on the AR in particular. Let’s talk about “precedence”…

Look at it this way – States like California are a petri dish, a testing ground for the future that leftists want for the entire country. There is an old saying that “As goes California, so goes the US”, and this is because California is often where most experimental legislation is pushed; legislation that violates the boundaries of what the constitution allows. Sometimes it’s New York or New Jersey or some other blue state, but most of the time CA is where unconstitutional precedents are set. Its massive population and large number of electoral votes make it a perfect target for conditioning the wider public to further restrictions on their freedoms.

This explains some of the fear the media is showing regarding the latest federal court decision on military grade weapons like the AR. Political elites see California as their own little kingdom with their own special laws, and they plan to eventually spread those laws across America using California as the model. But, if such laws are overturned as unconstitutional, then the precedent actually works in reverse. Now, the leftists are concerned that an overturned gun ban in CA means more blue states will follow and their entire gun grabbing scheme will go out the window.

The leftist mind thinks in terms of unchecked and unhinged “democracy”. Meaning, they believe that the majority is paramount; the majority is law. If a majority in a society wants to take away your freedoms, then they have the right to because they have the mob on their side. 51% rules over the lives of the other 49%. But this is not how things work in a Constitutional Republic.

Under the Bill of Rights your freedoms are codified and sacrosanct. They are inherent and gifted by God (or whatever you happen to believe in); government has no domain over these rights. The right to firearms and self defense is one of these inherent qualities. It does not matter what the State of California thinks, or even what the “majority” of people in California think. If an American in California wants to own an AR-15, then he/she has the right to own an AR-15.

We also cannot ignore the fact that leftists have an insatiable appetite for collectivism, usually in the name of the “greater good”. Collectivism is basically totalitarianism disguised as humanitarianism. They know what’s best for you, and they are going to make sure you follow THEIR plan for your life.

The AR-15 is indeed a weapon in military use, and maybe this is what frightens leftists the most. Not because they are personally more likely to be shot by one (we’ve already proven that notion false), but because leftists desire control over all else, and with military grade weapons in the hands of the public control becomes much more difficult. ALL totalitarian governments seek to first disarm the people they intend to enslave or destroy. This is a fact.

When a group of people in power are working hard to remove defensive or even offensive weapons from your hands, it’s best to assume that their intentions are malevolent. They are not trying to help you, they are trying to help themselves.

They will deny this motive to the grave, but look at how the political left has been acting lately: They are the only people that have supported mass censorship of opposing viewpoints. They are the only people that are supported by international conglomerates and Big Tech companies. They are the only people that supported the pandemic lockdowns, which were completely useless in stopping the spread of covid, but they were very useful in killing hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the US. They are also the only people in favor of vaccine passports which would destroy the very fabric of our society and erase what is left of our freedoms.

It’s not really surprising that they want to disarm us as well.

Of course, they will claim that this argument is “silly”. After all, what can an AR-15 do against an Apache helicopter or a Abrams battle tank? Well, these rifles in the right hands can do a hell of a lot to stop a technologically advanced military, as we have seen for the past two decades in Afghanistan. Let us not play games; there is a reason why leftists and elites are obsessed with our disarmament. If military grade rifles were not a threat to them, then they would not be going after them so aggressively.

Finally, the mainstream media has rolled out all the typical propaganda tools when it comes to spinning the federal decision in CA, including attacking the judge and his character. Almost every single article on this issue focuses on the fact that the judge compared the AR-15 to a “Swiss Army knife”.

The left will continue to use this narrative as a means to distract from the real problem at hand because false conflations and straw man arguments have worked for them in the past. Clearly, the judge was not trying to say that an AR-15 and a Swiss Army knife are exactly the same, or that they are equally capable of killing people. The logical interpretation is that the AR-15 is a tool like any other tool, and it has multiple uses. It is a utilitarian object, not an inherently demonic death machine as leftists would have us believe.

Gun grabbers love to make the argument that firearms are only designed for one purpose: “Killing”. This is a lie. They are also tools for self defense. They are a means to defuse a violent situation before it even happens. There are thousands of videos on the web showing people with criminal intent running away from a Good Samaritan with a gun. There is no way of telling how many potential victims have been saved by the mere presence of a firearm, but the accounts are documented and numerous.

This is on top of all the other uses for guns, including hunting and sporting uses. So, yes, the judge is absolutely correct; an AR-15 is a multipurpose tool, just like a Swiss Army knife.

In my view, the gun control lobby in America is in the midst of a considerable decline, and maybe it is even about to die. The political left has long operated on the mantra that “the squeaky wheel gets the oil”. In other words, they think if they whine long enough and loud enough about an issue someone will come along and give them what they want just to shut them up, even if what they want is illogical or morally bankrupt.

This strategy has worked out for them for many decades so it’s not surprising that they keep using it, but times are changing. Now, the squeaky wheel gets no oil, at least not from gun owners. The squeaky wheel gets nothing.

Gun control is the big line in the sand for most law abiding conservatives and moderates, and we have grown tired of the debate because it’s no longer a debate, it’s a imposition of ideology and cultism. All the facts are on the side of gun owners. All the legal protections are on the side of gun owners. All the moral dynamics are on the side of gun owners. As long as we stand our ground, there is nothing that leftists can do about it.

They can continue to lie, they can continue to threaten and they can continue exploiting emotional arguments, but they’ll NEVER get the guns. And, as we have seen recently, we might even start returning some of those gun rights and rifles to states like California, where fear was used to cloud the public mind and people were conned into compliance.

What are California leftists and their comrades in other blue states really afraid of? They are afraid that their strategies are failing, that the public is getting wise to their games, that their incrementalism only works for so long, that their true intentions have become transparent, that their narcissism has blinded them to their own frailties, that the law is not their plaything and that every piece of constitutional ground they have stolen over the decades could be taken back from them in the blink of an eye; as fast as a speeding bullet.

Leftists and totalitarians fear the AR-15, but what they fear more is what it represents. And with each carefully placed practice shot at every gun range across America, they hear the crushing sound of inevitability.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/11/2021 - 22:20

Read More

Continue Reading