Trump, Conspiracies, and Intuitions

A primer to help us all think about the Trump shooting in Butler PA, the gaffes in Secret Service protection, and many other similar things.

Yesterday I talked about Donald Trump being shot at a rally in the small town of Butler Pennsylvania. Today I want to talk about the conspiracy theories that have been proffered, and try to suggest how one should think about these various hypotheses.

First, let’s point out how quick so many of us are to latch on to conspiracy theories with very slim (or no) evidence. I’m not sure why that is, exactly. It could be an aspect of tribalism that we’ve evolved with. Maybe we can’t help it.

But it could also be a function of the incredibly low-trust environment we are currently in. We have been lied to by our governments and news sources for so long now, we might just be primed to disbelieve any “official” narrative.

On the left, social media immediately blew up with theories about how the entire event was a lie and there was no “assassin”. In some versions of these stories, Trump used a hand-held blood packet to fake being hit. In others, there were real bullets, but Trump (the front-runner) was “in on it”, intentionally risking a fatal headshot by centimeters to gain — something.

Seems… unlikely.

Why did many on the left think this? Because Trump came out of the event looking like a sympathetic hero. I mean, look at that magnificent shot of him, bloodied, surrounded by Secret Service, fist in the air, American flag behind him. Surely something so “good” for Trump’s campaign must have been staged, right?

But most of the conspiracies were on the political right and came with a wide variety of operating features. In some, there were multiple shooters, including one on the water tower. In others, the shooter was recruited by Deep State operatives.

In almost all of the stories, Secret Service protection was degraded and faulty on purpose. How else could a shooter get so close to Trump that he could set up in a position with a clear line of sight just 150 yards away?

Why wasn’t somebody on that roof? When spectators pointed out a strange man in the area, even a strange man on the roof, why didn’t Secret Service act faster? Why did they wait so long to shoot him?

If there wasn’t a conspiracy to “allow” Trump to be shot, then how on earth could his protection detail be so incompetent?

It’s a compelling bunch of questions and theories, especially that last one about some kind of intentional incompetence. And it could well be true.

If, over the fullness of time, some credible evidence came out that there was a Deep State conspiracy of some kind to kill Trump, I wouldn’t be surprised. Some very nasty and powerful people have very strong motives to kill him. I wouldn’t put anything past these jackals.

But still, I’d bet against all these theories. At even-money odds, I’ll bet on the lone gunman theory with no Deep State help of any kind.

And the reason why is that all these “unbelievable” lapses in security that the conspiracists latch onto as the basis for their theories make perfect sense to me.

I believe that government is incompetent, and wildly so. Every day. All the time. And especially in this scenario in Butler, PA on July 13, 2024.

Our intuitions about the competence of institutions like the Secret Service have been wildly distorted from reality by the books we read and the movies and TV shows we watch. It wildly inflates our intuition about what kinds of people and processes were in place on this day to protect the president.

Not so much NYPD Blue or CSI or SWAT. More like Reno 911. Not so much John Wick. More like Barney Fife. It wasn’t so much Seal Team Six protecting Trump that day. More like your local DMV or postal worker. Or some fat, useless donut-eating cop.

To correct our misaligned intuitions, consider this. Talent, focus, and effort are widely distributed in any area of life. On an NBA team, look at the difference between the stars and the rest of the team on that 12-man roster. In every organization, there is a wide gap between ability. Most people aren’t exceptional.

This is doubly true of government. In the NBA, at least all the market forces and incentives are aligned to make sure management is doing everything they can to put the best players possible out there on the court. In government, each and every one of those processes are broken.

But on this particular occasion, it gets even worse. Consider:

Trump didn’t get the “A-team” of the Secret Service. That’s assigned to Joe Biden, and for obvious reasons. Trump didn’t even get the “B-team”. That was assigned to Jill Biden. She was also in Pennsylvania that day, campaigning.

Trump got the “C-team”, comprised of (by definition) the worst of the Secret Service personnel, cobbled together with personnel from two different local police departments and some operators borrowed from other government departments.

Just this fact alone explains a lot of the screw-ups. Not only were these people not the cream of the crop, but they never trained together.

They couldn’t even communicate together properly on the day. They weren’t on the same radio frequencies. In many cases, for one of “the team” to talk to another member, they had to call through a switchboard somewhere.

It gets worse. Then there are the obvious problems associated with a two-decade (at least) policy of DEI hiring. We all saw the video of that unfortunate agent (who resembles Melissa McCarthy) who couldn’t competently holster her gun. We all saw examples of male agents immediately rushing to dive on top of Trump, while other agents… didn’t.

And it’s not even just a matter of “not performing” on the day. In the misguided effort to hire a specific percentage of females to hit diversity targets, they lowered the standards on physical capability. They have to. Most women aren’t Brianna of Tarth. If they were (and they wanted to be agents) there would be no need to lower the standards.

But it gets worse. Remember when Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said there were no agents on the same roof as the shooter because the roof was “too sloped”, and therefor too dangerous to station personnel there?

Holy cow.

First of all, the term is “pitched”. Call me sexist, but I feel a man would have known that. Second of all, remember: Secret Service protection is a government operation. For cryin’ out loud. The freaking roof was “too sloped”?

If the government has this reason not to do the obviously correct thing because of some OSHA-like safety regulation, what else are they screwing up in the name of safety rules? It was hot on that day too, right? Too hot to station a guy on the roof? Is that against the union handbook? Employees got rights, right?

Then, let’s add to the mix the very normal features of human nature called boredom and complacency. Usually in these kinds of details, nothing happens. Super-boring. Plus, again, it’s hot. Isn’t it perfectly natural for some people to just… stop caring? Stop focusing? Stop giving their best?

Again, don’t imagine a Seal Team operator here, with theme music playing. Imagine Barney Fife. Neither image is perfect, but one is more accurate than the other in guiding your intuition.

That’s why the “blatant and glaring” gaps in security on that day don’t look nefarious to me. They look normal. I bet there are massive gaps in security in every single detail. I bet they happen all the time.

Protected people don’t get shot all the time because most people don’t want to kill other people. Not that much friction is required to prevent it. Most of the time just a “show of force” is enough to keep the target safe.

And again, I’m not trying to rule out some more nefarious plot. We are ruled by some very dark and powerful people who have made it clear that they will stop at nothing to make sure Donald Trump doesn’t attain the presidency again.

And they may well resort to killing him. But that doesn’t mean that this incident was that. To conclude so, you need actual proof, not merely suppositions and conjecture. Motive isn’t enough to convict. You need solid evidence too. And we don’t have it — at least not yet.

People who have been “red-pilled” (like you and I, dear reader) understand that the media and many of our other powerful institutions (most notably the government) tell us carefully constructed narratives to control us.

They may tell us the truth, when convenient. But they certainly have no fealty to the truth. They will re-invent it on the spot if it serves their purposes.

But there’s a danger in being red-pilled that is best summed up by the brilliant Michael Malice:

“You take one red pill. Not the whole bottle.”

Naturally,

Adam