Faking an Assassination Attempt

How and why?

On July 13^th there was a reported assassination attempt on former US president and current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Viewing the event with a critical eye, there seem to be three possibilities.

1. The events took place wholly as portrayed by the media – which requires the belief that the security services were woefully incompetent.

2. The security services were not incompetent but compromised by malicious intent. This requires the belief in a conspiracy, but as with the fable that covid was made in a lab in China, this appears to be one such theory that does not attract ridicule from the corporate media.

3. The shooting was in some way staged to make it appear as though Trump had been shot.

As the first two of these possibilities are being extensively discussed in the corporate media we shall focus on the possibility of fakery. This is a notion which has been dismissed and for which there have been calls for censorship. At this stage it is difficult to prove the case for any of the hypotheses, although the employment of Occam's razor -that the simplest explanation is the most likely- would point to the first. Sometimes things are just as they appear.

The problem is that sometimes things are not as they appear. 9/11 provides a striking example that the most readily presented and accepted explanation is not always correct. The lockdown and injections also remind us that straightforward acceptance of media narratives can be misleading, even when people die. Both of these fake narratives were bolstered by papers that were written, peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals within 48 hours -when the norm for review alone is six months. In 2020, at least one western leader appears to have faked his own brush with death.

When dealing with those with a history of lies and deceit, it is advisable not to take their offerings at face value. The past four years have shown that the media is not a vehicle for the truth but for the control of our thoughts and reactions. This has been particularly evident in its reporting of the lockdowns and the vaccines of which Donald Trump considers himself 'the father.'

Rather than believing what is presented by corporate outfits and individuals who are trying to kill us, perhaps we should start from the default position that we are being manipulated unless we can prove otherwise. A similar stance is being taken in the face of the media's unrelenting deception with regards to the ‘covid’ injections which are now reckoned in some quarters to be the cause of unspecified death, “unless proven otherwise."

Putting ourselves in the position of the perpetrators, if we were to undertake to provide the spectacle of an assassination attempt, how would we go about it? Firstly, we would require the event to be seen by the widest possible audience, so it would be preferable for it to be filmed and aired live. Trump's rally at Butler, Pennsylvania is said to be the first in 2024 and perhaps since 2020 to be broadcast live by CNN.

If we were to engage in the "principle of the Revelation of the Method (that) has as its chief component, a clown-like, grinning mockery of the victim(s) as a show of power and macabre arrogance," perhaps we would produce our faked assassination attempt on a literal stage, using a camera angle that places the television viewer in the stalls. We could prime our audience by having his political adversary declare that 'It’s time to put Trump in the bull’s-eye,' and by having the shooting prophesied by a pastor in the way that online influencers prepared their audiences for lockdown restrictions and vaccines. We could distribute placards with the words “you’re fired” among the crowd.

To give a sense of mortal danger we would have to give the appearance of a shot intended to kill. How could we achieve this without actually killing Trump or providing the long term inconvenience of simulating recovery from gunshot wounds? An ear wound satisfies these requirements. We could have him turn away from our camera and clutch his ear on the TV viewer's blind side before ducking for cover.

It would help if our shooting victim was a seasoned actor.

The crowd behind the podium -the chorus of our theatre- could be unwitting bystanders or they could be selected and complicit. In the actual incident three spectators were reported to have been shot. If this is true it would not necessarily negate the possibility of Trump not being shot. The state has demonstrated that such lives are expendable. If we were to fake these injuries we would plan the scene in advance, position them accordingly and require them to fall on cue. We could place them high up in the corners of the seating where access is difficult. If necessary we could control these areas and surround them with our spectators.

If we were going to have fake victims they would require remuneration. We could provide this with amounts such as the $1,242,212 raised by the “GoFundMe for slain Corey Comperatore” and the $4m raised by a similar “high-profile fundraiser for the victims.”

In order to reinforce the perception of the injured ear we could have Trump wear a large bandage at his next rally. As part of the mockery of our revelation of the method we could have a hero of simulated violence address the attendees. Ten days after the shooting Trump could be photographed with an intact ear making a masonic hand gesture.

Trump said he was "shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear" and said he felt the bullet "ripping through the skin." His former White House doctor described the injury as “a 2 cm wide wound.”

Researcher Ole Dammergard studies state crimes such as false flag events -real events that, for political reasons, are blamed on innocent parties. In doing so he has discovered false false flag events -incidents that are faked for the same purpose. He has found that in recent years the tendency has been for governments to falsify terror events using fake victims because doing so is less troublesome, with one reason being that it does not provoke dogged investigation from grieving family members.

Dammergard has noticed that such events are marked by the unusual appearance of shoes in media footage and photographs that document the scenes. These are left as a calling card in the style of the signature habit of a serial killer. This serves both as part of the 'revelation of the method,' and to communicate the nature of the event to the initiated. Dammergard also explains that the shoes may provoke a Pavlovian reaction in the uninitiated as they become subconsciously associated with trauma.

The use of the symbol of shoes is referenced in the movie 'Wag the Dog,' a film about the manufacture by the White House of a fake war for television viewers in order to distract from a presidential scandal. As part of the simulated war production a hostage situation is concocted. The hostage is imagined to have 'been discarded like an old shoe,' and so given the name Schumann and the nickname 'Old Shoe.' A spin-doctor (Robert de Niro) and a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) go out under the cover of darkness to inititate a fake 'grass-roots' show of solidarity with the hostage, by throwing tied pairs of shoes into a tree.

So we could somehow incorporate shoes being left behind into our event.

“After Trump got back to his feet following the attack, he could be heard making an unusual request. ‘Let me get my shoes, let me get my shoes,’ he said to his security detail, as they tried to rush him off the stage to safety.

'The agents hit me so hard that my shoes fell off, and my shoes are tight,' he said.” 

Trump had already ducked before the Secret Service rushed him. How could they hit him in such a way as to remove both his shoes?

What lines would we give our heroic victim in the immediate aftermath of an attempt on his life? Perhaps "Fight, fight, fight?" If our goal was to cause division and civil discord, what instruction would be better? Perhaps people will take it up as a chant.

Our dabbling in revelation of the method could also take the form of numbers coded into the nomenclature, dating and timing of the event. Favoured numbers include 33, and other multiples of 11, 13, and three sixes.

Numbering letters in accordance with their position in the alphabet, the victims Corey Comperator, David Dutch, James Copenhaver and their initials CC, DD, and JC provide the numbers 33, 44, and 13. The phrase "Fight, Fight Fight," provides three F's, the sixth letter of the alphabet, so 666.

We could ensure that our victims were sympathetic figures, such as a firefighter, a marine and a grandfather. The FF of firefighter would provide 66, and the M of marine, 13.

The notion that whilst under live fire and themselves in mortal danger, the secret service would stop and pause so that their charge could address the crowd and thereby expose himself to further peril would be too ridiculous for our script as it would risk exposing the sham. Like the idea of astronauts clowning around on the moon, this is not something that would be done in a situation where one error could lead to sudden death.

However we would have to balance the risk of the charade’s exposure against the propaganda value of photographs taken by a veteran of a favoured outlet. We could have a photograph reminiscent of the raising of the star spangled banner at Iwo Jima, except this time with the flag inverted, indicating a nation in distress.

We could publish a photo that reinforces the notion that Trump was actually fired upon by capturing the 'million to one' image of a bullet by his head. We would caption this photograph cleverly.

For light relief and the diversion of commentary on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, we could include in our performance a bumbling female secret service agent who is unable to holster her weapon.

Of course this is all hypothetical but why would anyone wish to fake such a thing? We might do this if we wished to reinforce the idea that Trump was a threat to the established order. We would do this if Trump was useful as a Trojan Horse leader under whose administration we could implement unpopular policies such as lockdowns, mandates, and vaccines, whilst disarming any opposition from the most well-armed and insubordinate portions of the population, who constitute his supporters.

Trump’s apparently miraculous escape from death could be used to instil the idea that he is protected by God against the forces of evil -something that would play well with the Christian right. It would bolster his popularity and wipe from short memories his failures and shortcomings. It would reignite interest in the fake political system and pit the left against the right, encouraging the divide necessary to conquer.