PART 2: IS TRUMP FOR REAL? A weird insouciance with assassination...

An MOR series

If you didn’t read PART 2 yet, you may do so here:

PART 1: IS TRUMP FOR REAL? Or is this more management of reality?

---

I am shedding subscribers. It’s not a catastrophic hemorrhage—nothing like that. But it’s happening. Why? My best guess: because I am skeptical of Donald Trump. I don’t know this for a fact, but I wasn’t shedding subscribers before I published my recent pieces, of which the most offensive to unreserved Trump fans is probably Part 1 of this series.

This may get worse for me, because I will not change my stance just to keep my subscribers. That’s what they call ‘audience capture,’ and it’s a form of (agent-less) corruption. Or, if there is an agent, it would have to be me, because I allowed my audience (you, my dear five readers) to capture me. But I won’t allow it.

There is some healthy controversy, though, because that piece has now become one of my most popular. And one reader published a comment saying it is “the best.”

Anyway, I certainly do love some of the things Donald Trump is doing. His dismantling of woke DEI—that’s fantastic. His audit of the government—long overdue. Bravo! Quitting the WHO—great! I applaud all that.

But there is still a question here: is this the real thing? Or is this what they call a limited hangout? That’s a term from intelligence circles that references efforts to make the citizenry think the system is reforming itself by making limited disclosures, the tip of the iceberg, that in fact conceal the rest of the iceberg below everybody’s awareness.

We’ve had limited hangouts before (for example, the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee, and the Iran-Contra investigations), and people have been fooled by them, sucked into believing that the US government was reforming itself when it wasn’t. So I will remain skeptical. And that, my dear readers, is good for you.

Let me explain something about myself: I am a libertarian.

This means I hate the State. Not only the so-called ‘Deep State,’ but the State. I hate even the most legitimate and democratically elected State, because I believe that the State, any State, always tends to become a ‘Deep State’ sliding in the direction of totalitarian oppression, and only citizen vigilance and, yes, hatred of the State, can keep the State within acceptable bounds.

Yes, I believe we need some kind of democratic government, but I don’t have to love it, and I don’t recommend that you do. The more carefully and skeptically (and even hatefully) we scrutinize our democratic governments, the more likely we are to preserve our basic democratic rights and freedoms. To love and trust the State—whether presided by Donald Trump or anyone else—is idolatry, and that is the first step on the road to totalitarian slavery.

Therefore, if you love Donald Trump, my skepticism—which is not from the left but from the libertarian ‘right’—is doing you a favor. I am your watchdog to make sure that Trump keeps his promises to you. If he deviates, I—or someone like me—will be the one to spot it.

And that, by the way, is the social contract inherent to scientific, critical thinking: you need others—people who disagree with you—to protect you from your love of your own theories, which you are unlikely to examine with sufficient skepticism (because you love your own theories).

Here follows, then, some MOR skepticism of Trump. Shall we? Here we go…

---

Synchronicity is a strange thing.

After quoting at length, in Part 1 of this series, a conversation between Joe Rogan and Chad Daniels discussing the simply unbelievable performance of the Secret Service in the first alleged assassination attempt on Donald Trump, which seemed completely scripted to them (and I concur), Netflix offered me Clark Johnson’s The Sentinel, a film about an assassination attempt on a US president.

This popcorn movie is packed with good looks and star power (Michael Douglas, Keifer Sutherland, Kim Bassinger, Eva Longoria), but it’s just a thriller with no depth, and I saw it already back in the day. Yet I was tempted, because the The Sentinel features a Secret-Service traitor. Perhaps it would stimulate some thoughts… So I got some popcorn and watched it again.

And, lo and behold, this nothing film did pop one thought into my head! (Go figure…)

It was something obvious—something I should have noticed right away. So obvious, in fact, that I am amazed (and ashamed) I didn’t notice this before. But nobody’s perfect. In my defense, I am, like many others, always still reeling from Trump’s last bombshell when he drops the next one, and that makes it hard to concentrate, even on the obvious, because the Trumpian media carpet-bombing sucks you back into the managed reality.

So let’s mute the media circus for a second and focus once again on Joe Rogan’s reaction, when his jaw dropped to the floor concerning the Secret Service’s failures on the day that Donald Trump allegedly almost got killed by a sniper:

ROGAN: [Reads from an article:] “Secret Service ramped up security after receiving intel of Iranian plot to assassinate Trump. …” Oh, they ramped that up!? And so they ignored the roof 150 yards away!?

(…)

How the f*** does this 20-year-old kid [the shooter] climb on that roof 150 yards away and no one sees him?

(…)

DANIELS: Well, that one guy was pointing at him the whole time. He’s like pointing, too. He’s like, “He’s right there!”

(…)

ROGAN: And they’re yelling: “He’s got a gun!” There’s a guy in the prone position on a roof 150 yards away from the former president… The whole thing’s nuts. The whole, the whole thing stinks of either incompetence, uh, or design, or we’re in The Matrix. Like, this is a f***ing fake movie.

Rogan subsequently—and rather abruptly—seems to have convinced himself that Donald Trump, the famous reality-TV actor, is, as a politician, a real person rather than an actor in “a f***ing fake movie.” But let’s stick for a minute with Rogan’s initial skeptical reaction.

On that day in Butler, Pennsylvania (and also the other day, when a would-be assassin was discovered in the bushes at Trump’s golf course at the last moment), the Secret Service was, as always, supposed to ensure that all immediate security measures around Trump were airtight. This includes:

1. Perimeter Security: Ensuring a clear, secure perimeter with no unvetted threats in close range.

2. Threat Assessment & Screening: Identifying and neutralizing potential threats before they could act.

3. Sniper Overwatch & Counter-Assault Measures: Ensuring Secret Service snipers and tactical teams were positioned to prevent an attack, not just respond to it.

4. Crowd Control & Entry Points: Overseeing controlled access and making sure no weapons entered the area.

5. Evacuation Planning: Having an effective rapid-extraction plan in case of attack.

Both alleged assassination attempts—in Butler, Pennsylvania (July 13, 2024), and at Trump International Golf Club (September 15, 2024)—suggest serious failures of perimeter control, counter-sniper measures, and tactical readiness by Trump’s Secret Service protective-security detail.

Who was directly responsible for those failures? Well, quite obviously, Sean Curran, because Curran was head of Donald Trump’s Secret-Service protective-security detail.

So here is the amazing fact:

• Donald Trump, upon taking office, immediately appointed Sean Curran to be the new Secret Service Director.

We need to explain this. But first, let us take a look at how the meaning-making system assessed responsibility for what happened on those two occasions when Trump allegedly almost got killed.

Did the meaning-making system blame Sean Curran?

Nope. They blamed Kimberly Cheatle, former Secret Service Director. And the root cause of the entire problem, according to people on the right, was DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).

“ ‘Ma’am, you are a DEI horror story,’ [Republican] Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told Cheatle during the hours-long hearing in front of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

(…)

‘There should not be any women in the Secret Service. These are supposed to be the very best, and none of the very best at this job are women,’ conservative political commentator Matt Walsh posted on X the morning after the assassination attempt. ‘If there’s a woman doing a job like this, it 100 percent means that a more qualified male was passed over.’ ”¹

I am not buying this.

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle testifying before Congress. Photo credit: ABC News.

Mind you, I can certainly agree

1. that if the Secret Service hires people entirely on objective criteria unmodulated by sex, the undeniable average physical differences between men and women, as in army combat roles, favor hiring men;

2. that neither the Secret Service nor anybody else should be implementing DEI policies, because such policies are nothing but glorified prejudice, sexism, and racism; and

3. that Cheatle must be held accountable for anything wrong with the Secret Service while she was the Director, including her DEI hiring policies.

However, it is nevertheless (obviously) true that the person in charge on the ground, and directly responsible for operational security on that day in Butler, Pennsylvania, was Sean Curran.

And Sean Curran is not a DEI hire, for he joined the Secret Service under President George W. Bush, before the DEI wave hit us. Sean Curran is a white male.

Secret Service Director Sean Curran. Photo credit: Wikipedia.

A second explanation offered for the Secret-Service failure to adequately protect Trump, aired in the congressional hearings that made Kimberly Cheatle squirm, referenced that Trump had been requesting for months some additional Secret Service support, which was supposedly denied.²

Even if that happened, however, Curran’s resources should have been perfectly adequate to spot a kid with a rifle on a roof 150 yards away from the candidate! To claim that a bullet grazed Trump’s ear on that day because Trump’s security detail had insufficient resources is like saying that you need a telescope to see what already smacked you in the nose. Curran was overseeing approximately 85 agents as the head of Trump’s personal security detail. Shouldn’t that be enough to spot a kid on a roof that even civilians in Trump’s audience saw and pointed out as a potential threat?

What happened on that day (and on the other day, too) is therefore absolutely Sean Curran’s fault. Sure, Cheatle must answer for this, no question, but I can see no particular reason why Curran should get a pass, and even less any reason to reward him with a promotion, let alone the biggest possible promotion within the Secret Service!

And yet that’s what Trump did: upon taking office, he made Curran the new Secret Service Director.

In case you are wondering, the Secret Service’s own “Mission Assurance” inquiry, published 1 November 2024, concurs with my assessment, for it concluded that:

“The inquiry identified deficiencies in the following areas: communications; protective advance processes, including the appropriate mitigation of line-of-sight concerns; command and control processes; coordination with outside entities; and other specific areas…”³

Those are all on-site, on-the-ground failures for which Trump’s protective-security detail is of course responsible. And the head of that protective-security detail was of course Sean Curran.

So this is our question:

• Why did Trump appoint Sean Curran, of all people, to head the Secret Service?

The mainstream hypothesis

This is what Trump himself said:

“ ‘Sean is a Great Patriot, who has protected my family over the past few years, and that is why I trust him to lead the Brave Men and Women of the United States Secret Service,’ the president wrote in a Truth Social post. Trump, 78, touted Curran’s 23 years in the Secret Service and his work as assistant special agent in charge of the Presidential Protective Division during his first term. The president noted that in that role, Curran had ‘direct oversight and responsibility of multiple protectees, and enhanced security plans for my residences.’ ‘Sean has distinguished himself as a brilliant leader, who is capable of directing and leading operational security plans for some of the most complex Special Security Events in the History of our Country, and the World,’ Trump added. ‘He proved his fearless courage when he risked his own life to help save mine from an assassin’s bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania.’ … ‘I have complete and total confidence in Sean to make the United States Secret Service stronger than ever before,’ Trump wrote.”⁴

Okay, so this is what we have:

• Mainstream hypothesis: Trump’s claims reflect the truth. 1) He considers Sean Curran a “great patriot” and a security ace. 2) Trump trusts Curran, following a relationship of many years now in which Curran has been providing security for Trump and his family. 3) Trump considers Curran “fearless,” because “he risked his own life” to protect Trump. 4) Trump, for reasons unknown, honestly considers that Curran is the best man for the uber-senior managerial job of Secret Service Director.

I am calling this the mainstream hypothesis because I asked chatGPT the following question:

• “Has anybody in the media raised questions about Trump’s decision to appoint Sean Curran Secret Service Director, despite his responsibility for Trump’s protective-security detail when the assassination attempts happened?”

and I got the following amazing response:

“As of February 18, 2025, there have been no reports of media representatives directly questioning the White House about the decision to appoint Sean Curran as Director of the U.S. Secret Service, especially concerning his role during the assassination attempts on President Trump. While the media has extensively covered Curran’s appointment and his actions during the incidents, there is no public record of these specific concerns being raised during White House press briefings.”

Hm. It seems the allegedly ‘anti-Trump’ media doesn’t want to embarrass Donald Trump on this issue, though it easily could. Anyway, since the mainstream media has accepted Trump’s claims on Curran’s appointment with nary a peep, I am calling Trump’s claims the mainstream hypothesis.

I consider this a weak hypothesis, for the following reasons.

First, you cannot consider Curran a security ace if you believe that Trump was almost killed in Butler, Pennsylvania, and even less if you believe that after that close call, Trump was almost killed again in his own golf course. This is consistent with Curran being a security disaster unable even to learn from his own close calls.

Secondly, it is unremarkable, and hardly calls for special praise, that a Secret Service agent, let alone the head of Trump’s protective-security detail, should risk his life to protect Trump. That’s the very definition of the job! It would be like praising a secretary because he or she answered the phones and took notes. That’s not going beyond the call of duty—that’s just your duty, period. All Secret Service agents close to Trump on that day huddled quickly around him after the first shot rang out. So, according to Trump’s standard, any of them qualify for Secret Service Director.

But if we take Trump’s standard entirely seriously, then Sean Curran is in fact not the best candidate for the job. The best candidate would be the female who closely hugged Trump and put herself directly in the path from which the bullet allegedly came from (from Trump’s own right). As you can see in the photograph below, Sean Curran himself was protected by Trump’s body from bullets coming from the sniper’s direction, and he looks more like he is posing for the iconic photo than he is protecting the president’s body (there he is on the right, looking straight into the camera, and rather removed from Trump’s body).

Image credit: New York Post.

If anybody was really risking their life to protect Trump, it was that female Secret Service agent. Perhaps she should be the new Secret Service Director?

But I ask facetiously. Obviously, jumping in front of bullets is not the most relevant criterion for the Director job.

What should be the relevant criterion? What you need, most obviously, is senior managerial experience in these matters. The US Secret Service is a rather large agency that, as of 2024, employs over 8,300 personnel, including approximately 3,200 special agents, 1,300 Uniformed Division officers, and more than 2,000 technical, professional, and administrative support staff.⁵ Sean Curran had managed at most 85 people, and he had no career path in headquarters assignments or progression through the Senior Executive Service, which are common among past directors.

Okay, let us now consider the challenger.

The Machiavellian hypothesis

I have been pushing that Donald Trump’s past in pro-wrestling kayfabe and as an accomplished reality-TV actor makes him ideal for the managers of reality to employ (see Part 1). From this point of view, the alternative hypothesis we must consider is the following:

• Machiavellian hypothesis: The alleged assassination attempt on Donald Trump was not real. It was faked. Sean Curran, as head of Trump’s security detail, played a leading role in faking it. The best way to cover up the conspiracy to fake the assassination attempt would be to promote Curran, responsible for the faking, to head the entire Secret Service. So that’s what Trump did.

And what was the point of the fake ‘assassination attempt’? That’s a secondary question but it must be addressed. My hypothesis: to raise Trump’s prestige as an ‘outsider’ in the rifle sights of the ‘Deep State,’ and therefore truly out to get that ‘Deep State.’

Now that Trump’s prestige has been raised in this manner, his fans and detractors are likely to accept the ‘evidence of their own eyes’: Trump is transforming the system, cleaning house. Just look at his audits. Just look at all the dirty laundry he is hanging out to dry.

Yes, but maybe this is a limited hangout.

As mentioned, this is a term from intelligence circles. It is used in reference to calculated disclosures to make it seem as though the system is reforming itself when in reality everything is business as usual. So they confess to some dirty tricks, make it seem as though they’ve confessed to everything, and promise to reform. US citizens breathe a sigh of relief and assume that ‘the greatest democracy in the world’ is back on track. The system works!

That’s what I think is going on.

This hypothesis is at least consistent with Donald Trump’s weird insouciance with the alleged attempts on his life.

I asked chatGPT to do a thorough search on whether Donald Trump had made any statements concerning the alleged assassination attempts since assuming office on 20 January 2025. Amazingly, this was the answer:

“Upon reviewing available information, it appears that President Donald Trump has made limited public statements regarding the assassination attempts on his life since assuming office on January 20, 2025. Notably, during his inaugural address, he referenced surviving two assassination attempts, attributing his survival to divine intervention by stating he was ‘saved by God to make America great again.’ Beyond this inaugural mention, there are no widely reported statements from President Trump addressing the assassination attempts since taking office.”

This is… very strange. Trump is now the most powerful person in the world. And, as ever, more than ever, a target for assassination attempts. Doesn’t he want to find out who and why has been trying to kill him? But since he assumed office he has said nothing about this. It’s almost as if he wished everybody to forget about it.

I think this is quite consistent with my favored hypothesis.

But the best evidence, in my view, that Donald Trump is not what he claims to be, comes from a careful examination of his policies towards jihadi forces in the Middle East. Up next!

1. ‘Conservatives use shooting at Trump rally to attack DEI efforts at Secret Service’; Associated Press; 22 July 2024; by Claire Savage.
https://apnews.com/article/dei-trump-assassination-attempt-secret-service-dei-women-law-enforcement-7cacbc33b23b95a3ae263efae22a1117

2. ‘Hearing Wrap Up: Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle Fails to Answer Basic Questions and Must Resign Following Historic Security Failures at President Trump’s Rally’; Committe on Oversight and Government Reform; US Congress; 22 July 2024.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-secret-service-director-kimberly-cheatle-fails-to-answer-basic-questions-and-must-resign-following-historic-security-failures-at-president-trumps-rally-%EF%BF%BC/

3. ‘U.S. Secret Service Releases Completed Mission Assurance Inquiry into the Attempted Assassination of Former President Donald Trump’; U.S. Secret Service Media Relations; 1 November 2024.
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2024/11/us-secret-service-releases-completed-mission-assurance-inquiry-attempted

4. ‘Trump taps Sean Curran, an agent who rushed on stage during Butler assassination attempt, to lead Secret Service’; New York Post; 23 January 2025; by Victor Nava
https://nypost.com/2025/01/23/us-news/trump-taps-sean-curran-the-agent-who-rushed-on-stage-during-butler-assassination-attempt-to-lead-secret-service/

5. ‘Frequently Asked Questions About Us’; United States Secret Service.
https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general