Cognitive Divides & Cognitive Conquers

The Schismogenetic Agenda & Anomalies in the Allegedly Failed Trump Hit

(Audio at end of piece for paid subscribers.)

(First part “Kill-King 13:3”)

I did have a free-post ready to go today. It’s about the land and the goats and brotherhood. But I am compelled (?) to comment some more on the Trump-affair, so it will have to wait until the weekend.

I want to talk about this event in terms of schismogenesis, first, and anomalies, second (anomalies are essential, as I hope to show, to schismogenesis).

In case anyone isn’t familiar with schismogenesis, here’s a summation in an old post that made it into 16 Maps of Hell.

Events of this sort have always been excellent for generating disagreement, i.e., for polarizing public opinion into two or more camps.

What I want to zero in on here are the new nuances that are clearly visible in this current example, and how they pertain directly to the question of whether the assassination attempt on Trump succeeded or not; and whether it was meant to.

Facts & Speculation

Facts: We know that it did not succeed. We do not know if it was intended to succeed.

Now let’s do some speculation.

If the Trump hit had been successful, it’s reasonable to suppose we would now have the standard narrative-polarization as we did in the past: either it was a conspiracy by “the Establishment” (intelligence services, organized crime, high-level politicians) with the corresponding cover-up; or it was a “lone nut.”

It seems safe to say that few people would believe the lone nut angle in 2024 with Trump, however. This means that any resulting schismogenesis would be negligible. I don’t know anyone personally who would go along with a simple “lone nut” narrative around this event.

(Ironically, it’s perhaps more credible than usual that some ordinary Joe might have been driven to want to kill Trump by the media. But it would still require stark ineptitude on the part of Trump’s security team.)

It’s my view that schismogenesis is the primary goal of all large-scale (collective) psyop (witness covid). Since the result of the Trump-incident is fully in accord with that goal, this makes it, in my view, more likely to be an intended result.

---

In my view, we can leave out the “cui bono” question here, because it presumes too much about the theory of mind of whoever we are supposing is benefiting (their goals, their motives, etc.). It also seems less important, or less useful, than first trying to ascertain exactly what the goal might be of an event of this sort. To assume, for example, that “the Establishment” doesn’t want Trump in power is to depend on a very literal analysis of the evidence.

WEF’s Yuval Noah Harari, for example, said this: “If Trump becomes President again in 2024 . . . it will be the final death blow . . . to the Global Order.” This (along with many other such implicit high-level threats) is seen as evidence that “they” want to take Trump out. But why believe anything Harari says? Isn’t it wiser to take the exact opposite reading of what these people say as being closer to the truth?¹

As I underscored with the Girard quote in my last piece, demonizing a candidate isn’t always the best way to get them out of the game. In fact, it may be the very worst way.

Killing the candidate, of course, will work; but in that case, you have to be very, very sure you will succeed.

That the social engineers (nonpartisan, non-ideologically driven) understand Girard is confirmed by the new VP’s connection to Peter Thiel, who has publicly spoken of his interest in Girard.

Returning to goals, to repeat: if we attribute high-level involvement in this event, then we can be sure that schismogenesis, confusion, controversy, argumentation, are all central to the goal.

Anomalies

When an event of this sort occurs, the first thing to look for is anomalies. When Lady Di was murdered, for example, I knew it from the moment I heard, probably because she died in a car crash, which itself is an anomaly for such a heavily-protected figure. Then very quickly, I heard the glaring anomaly of the only living witness (driver) having lost his tongue. Bingo.

After this, the pieces fall into place because generally they don’t try that hard to hide them, or they didn’t back then, since the schismogenesis was simpler back then, and there would always be tin-foil hat types imagining all kinds of crazy stuff.

What is interesting in this current case is that “the official story” is so dependent on independent footage from witness phones, combined with social media to distribute it almost instantly. The engineers of the event would obviously know this and have no choice but to plan around it, and find ways to make it work for, rather than against, them.

Placing witnesses and thereby securing their own footage would of course be part of that. But mainly I suppose it would mean orchestrating the event in such a way—and with such meticulous care—that it would look as real as possible from all the possible angles.

---

Last week, in one of those odd coincidences, I was contacted by someone who told me about a live cinema project. In fact, Francis Coppola wrote a book on it in 2018, but I had never heard of it until several days before the event.

Perhaps this is a key to how the event is currently being written about by independent commentators. The fact that we are seeing footage via people’s cell phones makes it a lot more persuasive. Yet logically, events can also be staged for random cameras; they just have to be better staged, that’s all.

Why underestimate the ability of social engineers to keep up with the times? It seems rather foolish.

How Many Shooters? (Incompetent Competents Vs. Competent Incompetence)

Anomalies help us deduce that there has been a cover-up to a crime, either because they stand out from and invalidate the official story, or because they are fabricated and stand out from what our common sense tell us is likely (or both).

Normally, it is more cut and dried than in this case, however, because in this case, many of the anomalies that occur won’t help us determine whether the shooting was meant to kill Trump or not, because they would be exactly the same either way.

To be clear (since I just got into an argument with my wife about this, which is how I know this has been a very effective schismogenetic psyop): if a team of intelligence agents set about to kill Trump and failed, and if the same team set about to make it look like they failed, most of the elements of the orchestration of that event would be the same, either way.

Admittedly, in the first case, we would have to decide they were incompetent, and in the second that they were competent. But if we assume competence, then feigning incompetence is not hard. (Feigning competence is obviously not possible by incompetents.)

The anomaly of the secret service not being on the ball, for example (which is consistent with most if not all successful presidential or presidential candidate assassinations, or attempted assassinations), doesn’t really help us determine what the goal was, only that there was either inside involvement or rank incompetence.

On the other hand, that rather standard anomaly (if that’s not an oxymoron) is itself at odds with the anomaly of the shooter (improbably named Crooks) being obviously incompetent, beyond simply missing the target.

·         The fact he aimed for the head and not the body² at such long range, for example, or that he didn’t allow for the Donald’s constant head-twitching (seen throughout the video) and at least aim for the center of the head.

·         That, in the only footage we have of him, he seems to be flopping about right before the shots, like someone trying to get comfortable on a lumpy mattress (and that no gun is remotely visible).

·         All of these things become doubly anomalous when juxtaposed with the high-level insider involvement of the non-responsive security team, unless we argue incompetence across the board, which is inconsistent with it being an “Establishment” hit.

·         In other words, who the hell is this guy? If he’s the main shooter of the conspiracy, as well as the patsy, why is he so poorly trained for the job?

·         And when is the main shooter ever also the patsy? That Crooks was seen in one of Black Rock’s ads, now pulled out of good taste) definitely makes him the perfect patsy, though ironically a high-level patsy for the post-paranoid age, i.e., an obvious patsy for conspiracy researchers, to confirm the idea that he is definitely not a lone nut.

---

Next we have the anomaly of how the three shots that ring out as Trump goes down appear to time with movements of the secret service sniper, supposedly called Jonathan Willis (Bruce’s bro?), and who supposedly went public saying he was waiting for 3 minutes to get the order to shoot (likely fake). In the footage here, is he firing or flinching? If he’s firing, that means no one was shooting at Trump when Trump went down. If he was flinching, what kind of professional shooter flinches like that when aiming at a perp he knows is getting ready to fire?³

Then there is the anomaly of the alleged second shooter on the water tower, which would seem in line with a genuine assassination attempt, but has the effect of complicating the case made by the advocates that Crooks only missed because of Trump’s last-second head-move, based on bullet trajectory, and so forth.

Let’s not leave out, for fun, the crouching secret service agent moving people out of the way right before the shot, which admittedly is consistent with the inside job narrative (though there’s nothing to say the shooter(s) weren’t firing into the crowd behind Trump, while Trump went down and got nicked on the ear by one of his team; just sayin’).

Staged Miracles: The Oldest Con in the Book?

The main anomaly here is the anomaly of the miss.

The proof that this is an anomaly is that so many people—even normally hard-headed, non-Trumper commentators like Neoliberal Feudalism—have referred to it as a miracle.

A miracle, as I have been at pains to remind my wife, is an act of God.

It is not an unlikely or lucky event. Nor is it a paranormal, supernatural, or occultly-orchestrated occurrence. When the Beast in Revelation survives the head wound, and all the world wonders, that is clearly not meant to be read as a miracle, but as a form of satanic stagecraft that persuades the world that one has happened, and that the Beast has been chosen by God.

Sound familiar?

Also, without getting apocalyptic (which might be a mistake), it is exactly in line with Girard’s thesis that the future King must be publicly victimized before his inauguration.

---

So, if this was a sincere attempt by intelligence services, organized crime, and high-level politicians to take out Donald Trump, why on earth use this guy as your primary (or even only) shooter? From what we know, these sorts of high-level hits always employ a second shooter, and the second shooter is usually the one who delivers the kill-shot, generally from closer, if not very close, range.

In the footage, we can see there is plenty of time, after the first shot misses and Trump touches his ear, for a second shot. Then after Trump goes down, there’s a full 5 seconds in which a secret service guy could have done Trump in on the ground, with no cameras to see it.

One thing I think we can say with reasonable certainty is this: if this was a genuine attempt to kill Trump, then it was genuinely, even historically, incompetent. Ergo no miracle was required to “save” him.

Thou canst not have it both ways.