Catalyst Events and The Trump Assassination Attempt

A Theory for How Trump Dodged the Assassin's Bullet

Note: this article is different from the content typically publish, but I felt it should be written due to a few questions I was repeatedly receiving.

Both I and my spiritual teachers believe we live in a very unique era, where due to cyclical cosmic forces that are at a play, longstanding paradigms can change in a blink of an eye and previously inconceivable events will occur one after another. On one hand, this cyclical period where “time is cut in half and cut in half again” is often thought of as “the age of darkness” because humans often cannot adapt to the rapid changes it brings forth, but on the flip side these periods offer immense opportunities for both individuals and societies at large to evolve and discard dysfunctional paradigms which caused immense damage to everyone for generations.

For example, imagine for a moment how slowly human society changed over the centuries, and then compare it to how profoundly different our society has been in each successive decade, or that the pace of change has only continued to accelerate—especially with the advent of the internet.

Because society becomes so mutable in these eras, events will frequently emerge that have the potential to radically shift the direction of the society for decades if not generations to come. More importantly, those events are often inflection points that offer two very different paths depending on which way the society bifurcates, and hence the way individuals in the society respond to the event carries truly profound consequences.

A lot of what I’ve done since 2020 (e.g., all the time I put into this publication) for example has been because I recognized that COVID-19 was one such inflection point, and that it was equally possible it would lead to a dystopian biosecurity future of government and pharmaceutical enslavement or that it would allow us at last to begin shedding the yoke of the malignant medical ideology which has enslaved us for over a century.

Recently, we had another one of those inflection points—the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. In my eyes, had it succeeded and Trump had died from a headshot on national television, it’s very possible a catastrophic war would have broken out. However, instead something even more unexpected happened—the assassin’s bullet just barely missed and a message of unity we essentially have not seen for the last decade began spreading through the country.

Since the attempted assassination is the current focus of discussion, most of the key points about the events are already known. Because of this, I waited a few days to post this so that I could share a few perspectives that could be insightful and by and large were not being discussed.

Propaganda Campaigns

In my eyes, the most defining aspect of the last century was the advent of modern propaganda and marketing (which in my eyes are two halves of the same coin), as it transformed Democracies from a system of governance where the political leadership needed to choose policies sensible enough to be supported to the electorate to one where the electorate was continually bamboozled into endorsing policies that went directly against their self interests.

In turn, a lot of my own experience within this society has been one of awe at how effective propaganda is, and how many people I meet who are under its spell, despite them ardently believing their decisions are arising from their own free will and (at least to me) the propaganda being ridiculously obvious. Similarly, I am continually in awe of how many patently absurd beliefs corporate marketers have successfully conned the entire population into believing (e.g., recently I dissected the immensely harmful cholesterol scam and the FDA’s successful war against one of the most helpful sleeping aids in existence).

So, because of how effective moderately intense propaganda campaigns are, once I saw every stop being pulled out to push the COVID vaccines on the population, I accepted that it was a forgone conclusion many people would get vaccinated irrespective of how poor the justifications for the vaccines were or how many people were getting severely injured by them on a daily basis.

While all of that is quite depressing, the one upside to propaganda (public relations) campaigns is that they are incredibly repetitive, so once you learn their techniques, they become very easy to spot. For example a pillar of modern public relations is using focus groups to sculpt emotionally manipulative language, and then blasting that language out through every part of the mass media.

In turn, since so many of the irrational and harmful decisions I see made in medicine ultimately originate from a pharmaceutical company’s marketing campaign that enshrined their erroneous belief within the medical system (and often the society at large), a key focus here has been to break down these campaigns so they are easier to identify for the frauds they are.

However, there is another critical aspect of these campaigns to understand. Typically, they are laid out in a sequence of steps that allow a propagandist’s previously inconceivable idea to emerge into the society, and then when the time is right, to mobilize a few pieces that have already been laid out so that the new paradigm can be rapidly enshrined as an unquestionable dogma.

Because of this, once you get an eye for it, it becomes very easy to spot an early step in these campaigns and then to predict what is likely coming down the pipeline. For example, once the greatly despised lockdowns started being pushed upon America, I knew that the rushed vaccine being produced for COVID-19 would be mandated upon country—something which in early 2020, was inconceivable to the majority of Americans.

In turn, I’ve tried to show how the genesis of a few of the more egregious campaigns. For example, I view sunlight as being one of the most critical things for health—a position at odds with the prevailing view its a deadly carcinogen. This in turn I argued resulted from the struggling dermatology profession hiring a marketing firm to rebrand them into a more lucrative and prestigious specialty, which was then done by rebranding dermatologists as brave cancer fighters and creating an immense hysteria about skin cancer.

Specifically, one form of skin cancer (basal cell) which was common, caused by sunlight exposure, and never lethal, was juxtaposed with a deadly and far rarer form of skin cancer (melanoma) that is caused by a lack of sunlight of exposure by simply giving both of them the label “skin cancer.” This then was used to justify regularly screening everyone for skin cancer (by doing full body visual examinations) which in turn gave countless opportunities for potential skin cancers (or pre-cancers) to be identified and hence made dermatology one of the most lucrative and coveted specialties in medicine. In turn, I would argue the current status quo was the goal envisioned by that marketing firm from the moment they began their campaign to rebrand skin cancer in the 1980s.

Note: for those wishing to learning more about the great dermatology scam, it is discussed in this segment by comedian Jimmy Dore.

Since this modern form of propaganda (Public Relations) is highly effective, many industries utilize it to promote their interests. For example, once you understand how these campaigns are structurally assembled, it is remarkable how similar the propaganda we see to sell a medical product mirrors the campaign used to sell the war to the public. This for instance is why many of us referred to COVID-19 as the Democrat’s War on Iraq as both were founded on lies, enriched one political party (which fanatically defended the policy) and resulted in a massive degree of profiteering off the conflict for a variety of overpriced and failed initiatives that frequently made the situation far worse.

Catalyst Events

Frequently, PR campaigns are tasked with creating a large shift in public opinion which initially appears insurmountable. In these situations, some type of “catalyst” event is typically required that is so shocking to the American public they become amenable to agreeing to something they would have never otherwise considered.

For example, every major war the United States has fought since World War 1 was opposed by the public, but eventually sold to them after a tragic and unexpected event occurred that managed to shift public opinion towards supporting the war.

Note: the only exception I know of to this was the Korean War (which was due to some diplomatic mistakes made at the end of World War 2), that as best as I can tell, the United States did not want to be involved in (due to our military already being overextended) but felt they had to due the events that were transpiring. Conversely, many other wars prior to World War 1 and those outside the United States also fit this pattern but I refrained from covering them.

Since these catalyst events happen so consistently, each time one occurs, three different dissident viewpoints typically emerge:

•The event was created on purpose so the war could commence.

•There was a strong reason to believe the event would happen and rather than address the threat, the government chose to drop its defenses so the event could happen (commonly referred to as “let it happen on purpose”).

•The catalyst event was the result of corruption, incompetence, and bad luck.

The essential challenge with these is that there is often a good case to be made for each, so the possibility someone asserts as being true is always to some degree a product of the individual’s preconceived biases rather than an objective assessment of reality. For example:

•From having been involved in evaluating numerous medical mistakes which led to a bad patient outcome, I’ve come to same conclusion the safety industry has—most accidents are a result of multiple small failures (e.g., people not properly following established procedures that were created to avoid an accident occurring) which compound into the critical event. Likewise, when I’ve looked at all the recent disasters at Boeing, I would argue they were due to a corrupt management which prioritized making money over ensuring airline safety, and as a result, eventually enough critical errors accumulated to cause the disaster. In turn, the safety industry has a fairly standard approach for addressing these incidents—recognize what errors led to the mistake and then try to put procedures in place which will prevent those errors from happening again in the future. As a result, I often am often “biased” to believe disasters result from incompetence and bad luck.

•From studying the conspiracy field extensively, I came to recognize many things labeled as “conspiracies” were simply instances of corrupt industries burying an inconvenient truth (e.g., that their business model was hurting or killing Americans). In turn, I felt that it was incredibly unfortunate those events (which only the alternative media would touch) were labeled as “conspiracy theories” as this caused many people to reflexively adopt their biases towards “conspiracy theories” and reject clear cases of corporate crime they would have been believed if a label besides “conspiracies” was used to characterize the events.

•Conversely, many of the other conspiracies were more speculative. In the case of the “catalyst events,” it seemed hard to argue some of them were not carried out by the government or at least allowed to happen. However, with others, due to the pre-existing biases of the conspiracy researchers, a lot of inferences and connections had to be drawn (which weren’t necessarily correct) to conclude they were due to an organized conspiracy and I felt the major mistake the conspiracy field kept on making was asserting more than they could with the available evidence—which in turn cast everything they put forward (including their well supported positions) into doubt. Likewise, I’ve had numerous conspiracies I believed for a long time, but when I went to verify the key pieces of evidence for them prior to putting the story in writing here, I realized the evidence had been misinterpreted by someone who had a preconceived bias to prove their narrative, and I thus had to drop the entire story (which can be quite frustrating when a lot of time had already been invested into it).

War Catalysts

In the case of the catalyst events for our major wars, I’ve seen examples of each type of catalyst event (e.g., those which were deliberately engineered). For example, at the time the Gulf War, the American public had no interest in getting involved in it. This quickly changed after a United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus allowed Nayirah to testify about the atrocities Saddam Hussein was committing when he invaded Kuwait. Her emotionally compelling testimony about “babies being thrown out of incubators and left to die on the cold floor” in turn was repeated by leaders around the globe, trusted unquestionably by the entire media (along with Amnesty International), and quickly garnished the public support George Bush needed to launch the previously unpopular Gulf War.

Once the war ended, a few journalists looked into it and discovered that Nayirah was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, that the entire testimony had been arranged by a Public Relations firm and that when investigators actually visited Kuwait, they learned it hadn’t happened.

Note: shortly after the Gulf War, in 1993, the Kuwaitis allegedly foiled an attempt by Iraq to assassinate former President Bush—something many believe was why his son was so insistent on toppling Saddam Hussein.

Let’s now briefly look at what happened with the other major wars.

1. Initially, the American public was highly opposed to entering World War I. However, once the English passenger ship the Lusitania was sunk by a German Submarine, the imagery of that sinking mobilized public opinion against Germany, and two years later the US entered the war. However, a few key points were successfully hidden from the American public such as the fact the English and German Navies were battling for a naval blockade in the area, that Germany had been making increasing threats about ships breaching the blockade (e.g., merchant ships had been given a brief notice to abandon ship and then blown up) and that the Lusitania (which had been warned not to travel the route) was carrying 173 tons of war supplies intended to be used against Germany (which may have provoked the German attack). In short, this attack was treated as an unprovoked and unjust attack against America (1,197 lives were been lost, including 94 children and roughly 128 Americans) when it was in fact an open question if by the rules of war, Germany could legitimately carry out these attacks.

2. Like the previous great war, the American public was resistant to entering World War 2, so the US instead indirectly supported the war effort (e.g., by supplying Britain). At the same time, the US did a series of provocative actions towards Japan (e.g., cutting off Japan’s access to resources). Shortly after Japan conducted a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and in response the US entered the war Following this, many argued that President Roosevelt had allowed the attack to happen so he would have a justification to bring the US into the war, and a variety of investigations were conducted, which found countless examples of warnings being missed and preparations for an attack that should have been conducted at Pearl Harbor not having been done. Having read through all the evidence in detail (much of which is summarized here and which a briefer version of which can be found here), I am honestly not sure if Pearl Harbor was deliberately left unguarded or if a series of errors had occurred which resulted in the critical warnings being delayed or not addressed until it was too late to prevent the attack.

3. At the time the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, the American public was again opposed to becoming militarily involved in Vietnam. At the time of the incident, United States forces had chosen to carry out covert amphibious operations in North Vietnamese territorial waters, which (likely due to recent previous naval attacks against them) led to North Vietnam dispatching three torpedo boats to intercept a US destroyer. It fired warning shots, and the North Vietnamese responded with torpedos and machine gun fire. In the brief battle that ensued, one US aircraft was damaged, while all three torpedo boats were damaged, 4 North Vietnamese soldiers were killed and 6 were wounded. Following this, the United States falsely claimed a second confrontation happened two days later (which was later blamed on erroneously communicated intelligence—something the NSA was likely complicit in). On the basis of these “unprovoked attacks” President Johnson and the Secretary of Defense McNamera were able to overcome public objections to the war, an anti-war candidate Johnson was running against, and secure permission from Congress to send US troops to Vietnam. Existing records now show Johnson clearly deceived the American people and Congress over what happened there so he could have a justification to go to war.

4 . In 1997, a Neoconservative think tank (Project for a New American Century) was founded which argued that America needed to increase its military spending so it could maintain its dominance as the sole military superpower, and in September of 2000, authored a document on rebuilding America’s defensive capabilities which stated:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Many of its leading members went on to join President Bush’s administration, including those who had actively called for removing Saddam Hussein from power (e.g., doing so in the New York Times). They also appeared to be strongly interested in invading Afghanistan, as on September 18, 2001, a Pakinstan diplomat told the BBC that American officials had told him in July that America would likely begin military operations against Afghanistan by October of that year and he hence was doubtful the USA would not invade Afghanistan in the immediate future even if the Taliban surrendered Bin Laden—an account that was corroborated 4 days later by The Guardian.

On 9/11, a variety of strange events happened, but before the day was over, the media had transformed over into a war on terror, we rapidly mobilized for the war on Afghanistan (with many Americans enlisting because of the attacks), and before long, we also moved to invade Iraq as Bush was also somehow able to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 (despite there being no evidence of it).

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. — George W. Bush, September 20, 2001.

While books have been written on the peculiar events of 9/11, in my eyes, the greatest issues were:

•Whistleblowers and court revelations emerged showing that the CIA oversees, the CIA in America, the FBI, army intelligence, numerous foreign intelligence agencies, airport security personnel, and flight instructors were aware of the 9/11 hijackers, but in each case, they were blocked from being able to pass the information on to prevent the attacks (either by their superiors or the agency they contacted), or somehow failed to follow up on it the reports. This helps explain for example how the FBI was “taken by surprise” by the hijackers, yet immediately knew where they had been trained to fly.

•The day 9/11 happened, NORAD (which coordinates America and Canada’s air defense) was running a large exercise which included simulating airlines being hijacked by terrorists. In turn, when the hijackings happened, the military initially thought the hijackings were a simulation and not actually happening. This in turn may explain why 51 minutes elapsed between the first tower being hit, and the third plane hitting the Pentagon without the plane being intercepted or the Pentagon being evacuated (despite testimony from the Secretary of Transportation that the military was aware the plane was en-route to the Pentagon long before it hit).

•When each tower went down, they collapsed instantaneously in a manner similar to a controlled demolition—including a third tower (roughly half the size of the others) which was never hit by an airplane. As far as I know, there has never been a case of a similar collapse happening after a tower was hit by an airplane (rather the buildings burn and expose the steel skeleton of the skyscraper), and for decades, a large group of architects and engineers have provided the evidence that the collapse was far more consistent with a controlled demolition. Finally, at the time the towers collapsed, many people reported hearing explosives within the building consistent with demolition charges being detonated (including one person I spoke to), and after the events, residue of commercial explosives were found in the debris that could be accessed (whereas much of it was shipped out of the country).

In turn, despite these peculiarities and the families of victims continually requesting an official investigation into the events, they were continually blocked from it by the Bush administration and the attacks were used to justify multiple highly misguided wars in the Middle East which lasted for decades, cost America trillions of dollars and provided no benefit to either America or the invaded country. When a commission to investigate the attacks eventually happened, significant efforts were made to cover up the numerous questionable details of the attacks, and while many were nonetheless exposed, ultimately, no one was ever held accountable for the gross intelligence failures that led to 9/11.

Note: many other curious anomalies exist with 9/11. For example, the pilots performed poorly at flight school yet all were able to execute extremely difficult maneuvers expert pilots with years of practice could not have necessarily done)—something somewhat analogous to how the Trump assassin got as far as he did with no previous training. Likewise, a series of unusual large investments were made before the attack (e.g., investors bet on the stocks of the hijacked airlines crashing), something also seen the day before the attempted assassination (investors made a sudden huge bet on Trump’s media company crashing—something quite unusual given Trump’s recent boost in the race due to Biden’s poor debate performance). Of those many issues, my greatest focus was on the government covering up how toxic the WTC dust was and the thousands of first responders who developed permanent disability or death from breathing in that “safe” air without respiratory protection.

5. Near the end of Trump’s presidency (as Al-Qaeda and ISIS had essentially disappeared), I began to see increasing numbers of reports (some of which were widely publicized) stating that “white supremacists” represented the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. In turn, once January 6th happened, that narrative went into full bore, and the same apparatus which was wielded against suspected islamic terrorists after 9/11 was mobilized against alleged right-wing terrorists (e.g., Glenn Greenwald illustrates many of the parallels here).

At the time January 6 occurred, I was initially taken aback by the media coverage as the narrative provided (that a violent insurrection had happened which almost destroyed our government) was not at all congruent with what I’d seen on the livestreams of the events or what people at the event told me was happening (as they thought it was a peaceful protest and that they were doing exactly what law enforcement had asked them to).

Note: recently a detailed timeline of the day which was created from the available footage was released which showed that the media portrayal of the day was incorrect.

However, it rapidly became clear I was seeing a repeat of 9/11 as a single very dark narrative about the events was instantaneously disseminated on every major network, which then created a climate where it was not possible to question any of what we were being told (e.g., a few people I knew quite well cut me off permanently when I pointed out why what they were saying didn’t make any sense), and before long, I heard the same things professed towards the Trump base I had heard said after 9/11 and before long, I again saw people put into indefinite detenition under very questionable circumstances that were unconstitutional, and the “either you are with us or the terrorists” narrative play out.

After a bit of digging, the same playbook again emerged. It turned out that prior to January 6th, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the military had intelligence indicating violent protests would break out and were considering locking down DC. However, due to “intelligence failures” all of them never communicated this to the public or to the chief of police for the Capitol, even on a conference call he did the day before (see this Congressional testimony and this interview). In turn, the Chief of Police (who was worried something might happen on January 6) was repeatedly denied requests for additional support (e.g., from the national guard—which could have easily prevented January 6th) both prior to January 6th, and throughout the day as the events unfolded. In turn, despite lengthy investigations into what happened on January 6th, no one was held accountable for these gross failures (except the Chief of Police who complained about them).

The Changing Field of Propaganda

Over the years, I’ve read various planning documents which stated that to control a population, a “war” needs to be created, as the nations focus could be diverted to the war rather than protesting how the government was treating them. Since large scale wars are inherently risky (e.g., they can destroy the industrial base of the nation or spiral out of control), a few alternative options are repeatedly chosen. The common options I, in turn, see repeatedly cited are: a limited oversees war that poses no threat to the country, an environmental issue, a disease or terrorism.

In my eyes, a central component to these “wars” is that someone can profit immensely off them (e.g., the military industrial complex or the COVID cartel), as that profit then funds paying off the media and politicians to continue supporting the war’s narrative. In turn, I suspect one of the key reasons why the current narrative (the threat of white supremacists) has not done as well as the previous ones is because, relatively speaking, there’s very little money to be made from it.

More importantly however, the internet has completely upended the traditional propaganda paradigm as it’s made it harder and harder for the government and the mainstream media to have a complete monopoly over the existing information—which in my opinion encapsulates one of the most profound changes of the current era and is a key reason why things now can so rapidly morph into possibilities no one previously imagined.

This change essentially started around 9/11, and in turn, unlike previous suspicious catalyst events, a dedicated contingent of people were able to work together to compile the inconsistencies in the official narrative. While these individuals were never able to gain mainstream traction, they were able to become visible enough for people interested in hearing an alternative narrative to find them, and as the years have gone by, their numbers have increased.

In the case of COVID-19, since the internet’s ability to disseminate information into the society was leaps beyond what it had been 19 years prior, doubts about the official narrative quickly emerged, and before long (despite robust efforts to suppress them), they became mainstream views of the Republican party and we are now having heated Congressional hearings about it. In contrast, I am relatively certain that if COVID-19 had happened 20 years ago, the official narrative would have dominated the airwaves, and conversely, had 9/11 happened now, it never would have been able to gain the traction it got then.

Most recently, Elon Musk’s decision to “free Twitter” has amplified this trend, and made it far harder for official narratives to stick. For example, I do not believe if something like January 6th were to happen today that it would be possible for the previous narrative that stuck 3 years ago to be accepted now. This is because videos showing the peaceful behaviors of the protestors going viral on there would have rapidly dispelled the narrative being presented on television, and Trump’s tweet calling for his supporters to remain peaceful would not have been deleted (along with other things like the outside agitators who were never charged being immediately identified through the video footage).

The best proof of this argument was what happened on July 13. When the attempted assassination happened, numerous security failures occurred that allowed something completely inconceivable to occur—someone with a visible rifle to climb onto a nearby roof (that in all normal circumstances would be the number one priority to secure) and then be left alone (despite members of the crowd trying to alert police) until the shooter had time to fire. For context, this represented by far the worst failure in the history of the Secret Service, and had this not actually happened, it would have been inconceivable for most that it could have ever transpired.

Immediately once the event happened, the media tried to spin a narrative about it, that like many of the past narratives was patently absurd, but rather than sticking as they often do, it was made fun of and almost instantaneously dispelled over Twitter.

Likewise, before the narrative had had time to stick (that a lone gunman somehow penetrated security), dozens of holes were found in the official story, and before the day was over, Congress scheduled an immediate hearing for the Head of the Secret Service to explain what could have happened (something which in contrast took years for 9/11 and an immense of protest from the victim’s families—and ultimately lead to no accountability).

Note: the initial statement from the head of the Secret Service avoided admitting any culpability, while in a follow statement blamed their lack of attention of the roof on it being “too slanted” and hence not safe to put agents on—an absurd claim that also was rapidly dispelled by platforms like Twitter.

Since then, independent investigators have been able to show the security failure was even worse than imagined (e.g., the local police chief testified that his officers were saying on an open line everyone had access to that the shooter was there but Trump was kept on stage and that much of Trump’s Secret Service protection had been withdrawn by the Biden administration despite many requests to not do so). While all of that is egregious, the point I feel I must emphasize is that had it not been possible for the information to freely distribute on Twitter, a very different narrative would have set in and there would have been no accountability for what happened.

Note: like each of the previous incidents, the three competing narratives have now emerged. One group has argued that the Biden administrations push for DEI in the Secret Service has left them to do their job unable to protect critical targets. Another group believes they wanted an attack like this to happen, and both tried to encourage a shooter to appear (through the media’s Hitler rhetoric) deliberately made the Secret Service unable to prevent it once it happened. Finally, many believe enough unexplained anomalies exist that this had to have done on purpose. Ultimately, I don’t know if we will ever know which it was, but, at the same time, regardless of the option, the leadership of the Secret Service was at fault and must be held accountable, and that something must be done to redesign the service so that its leadership cannot be politicized.

Trump’s “Luck”

One of the many unusual things about this event was that mainstream networks (e.g., CNN) decided to livestream Trump’s Rally (whereas typically they don’t), which in turn would have led to Trump being shot dead in a widely publicized manner (in essence reenacting the societal trauma that happened to Kennedy 61 years ago when a lone gunman [who was under CIA surveillance] somehow penetrated the president’s security). This then likely would have been followed by the assassination either being blamed on white supremacists (as that is how they initially attempted to paint the shooter) or Iran (as “intelligence” was recently released claiming Iran was planning to assassinate Trump), and either another Middle Eastern or Civil War breaking out (e.g., World War I was also started by an assassination).

However, right at the moment the shooter shot, Trump (who typically looks forward) instinctually turned his head to the right, putting his head in the only position that could have avoided the bullet.

Following this, Trump then on instinct ended up positioning himself so that an iconic picture could be taken that I noticed matched the composition of one of the most famous ones in American History.

Note: something many people don’t know is that at a last minute campaign rally in Reno days before the 2016 election, Trump was alerted by the crowd to a shooter at the front. Trump stared the shooter down (even as Trump was being rushed of stage), creating a pivotal moment that may have tipped the 2016 election to him.

In turn, I watched two very different interpretations of the recent event take place. Many understandably felt it was an act of God, and Trump appears to have taken that to heart as well, as his tone has completely changed to a more humble and emotional one seeking promote national unity.

Conversely, because of how improbably it was, many who hold a bias towards Trump instead believe it was a “false-flag” Trump staged (e.g., the moment it happened, a trend emerged on Twitter from many users comparing it to the Reichstag Fire Hitler used to take over Germany). In the following days, videos then emerged showing how many people believed this:

This in turn illustrates why it is so important to eliminate biases from how you interpret world events (e.g., I am relatively certain the people who believe Trump staged his assassination are simultaneously unwilling to ever question the previous catalyst events that conform to their narratives such as January 6).

Note: since so many things aren’t what they seem, I immediately considered this possibility as well. However, I was also almost immediately certain it wasn’t as the degree of precision that would be needed to ensure only Trump’s ear was hit at the moment he turned his head (rather than him being killed) is not realistic for an expert sniper to do consistently, let alone someone without advanced military training who was not using a sniper rifle.

Trump’s Instinct

I however have a slightly different interpretation of why Trump was able to make a few split decisions that changed history. This theory originally emerged when I watched Trump during the 2016 primary and noticed that he was able to take kill-shot questions designed to end someone’s campaign and instead turn them around into something that boosted his poll numbers—something which is extraordinarily difficult to do and gives one a massive advantage while campaigning (e.g., after I saw Trump say this at the initial primary debate, I realized the betting odds for him winning were far too low and I told that to numerous friends).

I then queried my network and found a few people I was close to had two degrees of separation from him—all of whom told me their relative who knew Trump (in the distant past) observed that in private Trump demonstrated a high degree of emotional and intellectual intelligence alongside an exacting attention to detail (which was later demonstrated by him waiting for Ben Carson at a primary debate after Carson’s name was called, and unlike the other candidates refusing to walk on stage until Carson walked on).

Note: in full disclosure, the individuals I’ve spoken to who knew someone who was close to Trump (either now or in the past), had a variety of positive and negative (but relatively consistent) things to say about him—all of which I tried to summarize here).

Since I enjoy games which require being able to think multiple moves ahead or making the best choice off of uncertain information, since the end of 8th grade, one of my hobbies has been to study the news and see if I can guess what is going to happen (as from a young age, I began to grasp how the same things were done again and again by the media). Because of this, I kept on being surprised at how frequently Trump would make what ultimately was appeared to best choice in a situation, often doing it in a very small amount of time when the correct answer was difficult, if not impossible, to see.

From this, I then put together two theories. First, in a recent post, I stated that there are many different forms of intelligence (all of which matter), and that much of people’s success and happiness comes from developing these neglected types of intelligence. There, I argued that one of the primary purposes of emotional intelligence is to provide the power that drives the intellect, as both I and many of my teachers have observed that individuals (e.g., successful CEOs) who can rapidly make the correct decisions in a short period of time utilize the intuitive (subconscious) capacities their emotional intelligence creates (as emotions allow the brain to process a large amount of information in a very short period of time). This I believe describes how Trump is able to quickly make many of his decisions.

Note: two people I know (who are gifted intuitives) previously worked as security personnel for individuals at a high risk of being assassinated (and later in active war zones). Both of them told me that in many cases, the only reason they or their client avoided dying was because they had a feeling or a premonition of an upcoming danger they correctly acted on. Likewise, I know someone who survived the Rwandan genocide who said that as he was fleeing through the jungle, that same capacity awakened in him and repeatedly guided him on what to do so he could avoid being killed.

Secondly, I became convinced Trump had to be using some type of an advanced intuitive capacity, as, based on the information that would have been available to Trump at the time the decisions were made, I could not see any other way to explain how he’d made some of the choices he made. Later, I got my answer after hit pieces began circulating about this remark Trump made:

They’re making a mistake because I have a gut and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.

Those hit pieces understandably took the position that Trump was being “anti-knowledge” and engaging in “willful ignorance.” However, what it simultaneously ignored was the fact that many decisions leaders make simply go beyond what knowledge and experts can ever deduce, and that those who rely on the established means of decision making frequently make significant mistakes.

Conversely, many of most successful people I know have done an excellent job of calibrating their intuitive capacities and then applying them into their work. For example, in medicine, the most successful integrative doctors I know utilize a method described as “applied kinesiology” (muscle testing) to discern, when in the face of ambiguity, which therapeutic intervention is the best for the patient. In turn, since that approach often yields the correct result (provided it is done correctly), they get much better outcomes than standard clinicians (but at the same time, it’s always done within the context of their medical knowledge and used when the answer is uncertain—those I know who eschew logic and medical knowledge to instead primarily rely on muscle testing get marginal results for their patients{.

Note: I am of the opinion that many of the big mistakes Trump made during his presidency resulted from him ignoring his gut and instead doing what everyone told him he needed to do (e.g., in Dr. Scott Atlas’s memoir where he describes his time in the White House as an advisor to Federal COVID-19 response he cited many instances of this in regards to how Trump mishandled the pandemic).

I mention all of this, because after I read Trump’s gut comment, I realized he was describing a variant one of the most effective forms of muscle testing I’ve come across (described further here). In turn, I believe “Trump’s gut” was what saved him from getting shot.

Note: exactly where this ability comes from is a matter of debate (e.g., many of the best muscle testers I know are devout Christians and believe it is a divine gift to us from God). My observation has been that many people are born with the capacity to do it (provided they are willing to listen) and that to some extent, the skill can be trained (all of which I tried to explain in this article on the subject).

Conclusion

While I expect it to happen, I am continually astounded at how quickly the world around us is changing. For example, a week ago, very few of us could have imagined the events of last weekend would come to pass, and now, in the blink of an eye, we are entering a radically different political reality from the one we’ve been in for the last 8 years. In my eyes, this is both due unique spiritual epoch we live in, and how technology (e.g., what Elon Musk did with Twitter) has allowed it to rapidly manifest into our physical reality.

A century ago, as the modern science of propaganda emerged, a vigorous debate took place on if was ever appropriate to utilize propaganda against the people. One camp argued that since the complexity of society (largely due to technology) was advancing so rapidly, it was simply no longer possible to have a well-informed electorate that could be relied to vote for what was in the best interest of the nation. The other camp believed that a small group of “experts” using propaganda to make the public to vote for what the experts believed in was the antithesis of Democracy, and that the society’s resources should instead be focused upon advancing the knowledge of the society so that the electorate would have the capacity to decide what was in everyone’s best interests.

Sadly, the propagandists won (with a lesser known fact being that in 2012, Obama overturned the last vestige of the anti-propagandists—a law which forbid government propaganda from being used against the American people). In turn, we’ve seen countless events such as COVID-19 which clearly demonstrated that the expert class cannot be relied upon to make the correct decisions for society, and that when they are enabled by a monopoly on propaganda, the harm and cost to society greatly increases.

Fortunately, due to an usual conflux of events, we appear to now be moving towards an era where that model doesn’t work anymore, as there are thousands if not millions people who regularly produce persuasive messages that rapidly outcompete the costly and cumbersome propaganda campaigns the mass media relies upon—and as time goes on, that trend is only accelerating.

Because of this, while there is still a real potential for things to turn disastrous (e.g., if Trump had not turned his head, I can only imagine where things would have ended up), I also believe that we are at an epoch where our society has the ability to fix a lot of things that have needed to be addressed for centuries. In turn, I thank each of you from the bottom of my heart for giving me the ability to be one of the people moving things in the positive direction, and more importantly, for what each of you has done in your own lives to help bring about this unprecedented political era.

To learn how other readers have benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their feedback can be viewed here. Additionally, an index of all the articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here.