A Study of Assassination Revisited
Referencing the "CIA's Assassination Manual" and its classifications in analysing the attempt made on Donald Trump's life on 13th July 2024.
This record was released in 1997 through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It is often referred to as the “CIA’s Assassination Manual” and was written in the early 1950s.
I shall cite a few sections of this document, which I obtained from the excellent treasure trove of a website - BlackVault.Com [consider bookmarking this site now]. I will apply the manual’s terminology, criteria, and classifications in relation to the assassination attempt made on President Trump’s life on 13th July 2024.
As the handwritten manual is difficult to read, a text version was reproduced by the National Security Archive, originally published here. Credit also goes to John Greenewald, for editing the text for easier reading and formatting in his post on 13th May 2021: A Study of Assassination – The CIA’s Assassination Manual, 1950s. The text version is 12 pages long, at 4,662 words.
Here are the opening excerpts from the manual [my emphasis added in bold]:
DEFINITION
Assassination is a term thought to be derived from “Hashish”, a drug similar to marijuana, said to have been used by Hasan-Dan-Sabah to induce motivation in his followers, who were assigned to carry out political and other murders, usually at the cost of their lives.
It is here used to describe the planned killing of a person who is not under the legal jurisdiction of the killer, who is not physically in the hands of the killer, who has been selected by a resistance organization for death, and whose death provides positive advantages to that organization.
EMPLOYMENT
Assassination is an extreme measure not normally used in clandestine operations. It should be assumed that it will never be ordered or authorized by any U.S. Headquarters, though the latter may in rare instances agree to its execution by members of an associated foreign service. This reticence is partly due to the necessity for committing communications to paper. No assassination instructions should ever be written or recorded. Consequently, the decision to employ this technique must nearly always be reached in the field, at the area where the act will take place. Decision and instructions should be confined to an absolute minimum of persons. Ideally, only one person will be involved. No report may be made, but usually the act will be properly covered by normal news services, whose output is available to all concerned.
JUSTIFICATION
Murder is not morally justifiable. Self-defense may be argued if the victim has knowledge which may destroy the resistance organization if divulged. Assassination of persons responsible for atrocities or reprisals may be regarded as just punishment. Killing a political leader whose burgeoning career is a clear and present danger to the cause of freedom may be held necessary.
But assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it.
CLASSIFICATIONS
The techniques employed will vary according to whether the subject is unaware of his danger, aware but unguarded, or guarded. They will also be affected by whether or not the assassin is to be killed with the subject hereafter, assassinations in which the subject is unaware will be termed “simple”; those where the subject is aware but unguarded will be termed “chase”; those where the victim is guarded will be termed “guarded.”
If the assassin is to die with the subject, the act will be called “lost.” If the assassin is to escape, the adjective will be “safe.” It should be noted that no compromises should exist here. The assassin must not fall alive into enemy hands.
A further type division is caused by the need to conceal the fact that the subject was actually the victim of assassination, rather than an accident or natural causes. If such concealment is desirable the operation will be called “secret” ; if concealment is immaterial, the act will be called “open”; while if the assassination requires publicity to be effective it will be termed “terroristic.”
I created the table below based on the manual’s classifications, along with the ‘visibility’ element, and the technique(s) applied - taken from a later section of the manual. I have highlighted the boxes that I interpret as matching the planning terminology used in the manual, reflecting the events of 13th July in Butler, Pennsylvania:
From the planning perspective of the attempted Trump assassination, it could be considered as:
Classification - ‘Guarded’ - Giving a speech on a podium in an open environment, with secret service agents covering the venue, along with local police and snipers, we can assume that Trump was aware that he could be in danger.
‘Lost’ - the assassin was killed quickly thereafter - and would have been killed alongside the subject, if not for that fateful turn of Trump’s head.
‘Terroristic’ - We can all reflect upon what has passed with a what if reimagining of an alternate reality, with the realisation that had the assassin been successful, we would have collectively witnessed extremely graphic, bloody, visceral scenes of Trump’s death, on live television, streamed around the world. This would have had maximum impact, spiking emotional states amongst both Trump’s supporters, as well as his enemies. The “publicity would have been effective” - to use the manual’s wording of a so called ‘terroristic’ assassination…
OUTCOME
What would the ‘effectiveness’ of the publicity mean, in such an attempted terroristic assassination against Trump? Judging from the disturbing outpouring of social media posts from people being emotionally triggered that the assassin missed, we can now see this reactive meltdown as the culmination of everything that “Trump derangement syndrome” has become. Ergo, deranged individuals filled with pure hatred to the point of wishing murder upon a Presidential candidate, openly, without fear of reprisals in expressing their rage.
A few examples cited in Jeff Childers’ post on 14th July:
Liberals, for their part, were busily posting and then deleting their various violent thoughts, and complaining when people pointed them out. For instance, Representative Steven Woodrow (D-Co.)’s now deleted tweet:
Or this now-deleted tweet from BBC reporter David Aaronovitch:
Many liberals were disappointed that President Trump survived. For one of many revolting examples, behold Dr. Karen Pinder, medical professor, University of British Columbia in Vancouver (account now deleted):
Those deranged souls with only malice in their hearts, would have likely celebrated on social media if Trump had been killed, then manifested into physical celebrations on the streets. That would have drawn the ire of Trump supporters, leading to unthinkable violent clashes; potentially sparking civil war.
Public perception of world events, in turn, curates reality itself. The collective will of the global populace majority can always supersede the malevolent intent of an evil minority. The curtain continues to slip away, revealing the real state of play and desperation. Old illusions can no longer be maintained, now that more people are seeing the world for the way it really is.
As per the CIA Manual:
But assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it.
We are dealing with people and forces that cannot have clear consciences, as they are entirely bereft of conscience.
I find the study of assassination fascinating. I do not buy the ‘lone wolf’ gunman story for what went down in Butler. I am surprised by how many alt-media pundits have outright called the whole event ‘staged’, by pointing out the strange behaviour of the secret service, the reportedly pre-warned police officers from eye witness accounts spotting the shooter on the roof, the lack of blood on Trump’s ear before he knelt down at the podium, the lack of blood on his shirt after he arose, and many other factors.
I look forward to more forensic analysis of the video footage and the audio streams available, for which internet sleuths are scrutinising at miniature level. This is important work and is still developing.
The purpose of this piece is to highlight the “CIA assassination manual” for a different perspective, whilst speculating on the intended outcome that a successful assassination would have had on the public psyche, as well as the (unintended?) outcomes to date.
Further quoting from the CIA manual:
Following these definitions, the assassination of Julius Caesar was safe, simple, and terroristic, while that of Huey Long was lost, guarded and open. Obviously, successful secret assassinations are not recorded as assassination at all. [Illeg] of Thailand and Augustus Caesar may have been the victims of safe, guarded and secret assassination. Chase assassinations usually involve clandestine agents or members of criminal organizations.
THE ASSASSIN
In safe assassinations, the assassin needs the usual qualities of a clandestine agent. He should be determined, courageous, intelligent, resourceful, and physically active. If special equipment is to be used, such as firearms or drugs, it is clear that he must have outstanding skill with such equipment.
Except in terroristic assassinations, it is desirable that the assassin be transient in the area. He should have an absolute minimum of contact with the rest of the organization and his instructions should be given orally by one person only. His safe evacuation after the act is absolutely essential, but here again contact should be as limited as possible. It is preferable that the person issuing instructions also conduct any withdrawal or covering action which may be necessary.
In lost assassination, the assassin must be a fanatic of some sort. Politics, religion, and revenge are about the only feasible motives. Since a fanatic is unstable psychologically, he must be handled with extreme care. He must not know the identities of the other members of the organization, for although it is intended that he die in the act, something may go wrong. While the Assassin of Trotsky has never revealed any significant information, it was unsound to depend on this when the act was planned.
The official narrative of the Trump assassination attempt is very sketchy. We are asked to believe that a 20 year old - Thomas Crooks, loaded up a rifle, drove to a Trump event, parked up, carried the long gun, somehow found a ladder, all while evading scores of police officers and bystanders. Then he climbed the mystery ladder, laid down on a white roof with dark clothes, bystanders shouted for help for minutes, and somehow he got off a few shots…
My suspicion is rogue elements within intelligence agencies cultivated that shooter and the profile, letting it happen. I don't think it was expected for the shooter to miss. Trump’s last second head movement saved his life.
With this outcome leading to so many people speculating on the event being staged - it inadvertently feeds into another goal of the parasite class. The parasites are not content with merely having power over life and death, our food supply, our freedom of movement, the global money supply, and all of nature’s resources.
Their ultimate goal is to have control over reality itself - as in, our perception of reality.
What is real? What is fake? Questioning everything we see or hear is always warranted, especially in this age of false flags, deep-fakes, generative AI, and crisis actors all being readily available to carry out propagandised tasks with maximum publicity reach.
Questioning motives and asking, cui bono? - can help us in our discernment, through process of elimination, verifying sources, and scratching towards the truth.
Strangely, we are reaching a point whereby some people seem resigned to believe that everything is fake and scripted 100% of the time. That we are watching a fake show with fake people and fake or tampered with photography and video footage without exceptions. In which case, one would become a passive, nihilistic, cynical consumer of the world stage propaganda; never expecting anything to go ‘off-script’, refuting any kind of spontaneity or unexpected results as simply ‘staged’.
CUI BONO?
This is interesting:
If these “soon-to-be unmasked entities” were looking to cash out on Trump’s anticipated untimely demise, wouldn’t they have taken out massive short positions against Truth Social Stocks, as indicated above? If the suspected insider traders were predicting a theatrically staged Trump assassination followed by his defiant, scripted survival, wouldn’t the trades have been to long Truth Social Stocks instead?
**Edit** The unmasking has begun:
**Edit**
The claim that they had a huge short on DJT is true:
https://fintel.io/i13f/austin-private-wealth-llc/2024-06-30-0 (file date: 2024-07-12)
https://fintel.io/i13f/austin-private-wealth-llc/2024-06-30-1 (file date: 2024-07-16, amendment to the earlier one, i.e. "error correction").
Let us continue self-educating ourselves, so that we may see the world a little more clearly each day. Only when we fully understand the level of rot, can we begin to curate the world that we truly want to live in. We cannot be passive nihilistic spectators of reality and unreality alike to accomplish this. Neither should we be gullible normies who lap up every morsel thrown our way by the fake-stream-media.
Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok based writer. All content is free for all readers, with nothing locked in archive that requires a paid subscription. Any support is greatly appreciated. If you are in a position to donate a virtual coffee or crypto, it would mean the world of difference.
Bitcoin address:
bc1p0eujhumczzeh06t40fn9lz6n6z72c5zrcy0are25dhwk7kew8hwq2tmyqj
Solana address:
Ds6QpUxaWB6bJ8WF4KAazbuV25ZhPRdZh4q4BXutj4Ec
Ethereum address:
0x42A7FA91766a46D42b13d5a56dC5B01c153F1177
Monero address:
86nUmkrzChrCS4v5j6g3dtWy6RZAAazfCPsC8QLt7cEndNhMpouzabBXFvhTVFH3u3UsA1yTCkDvwRyGQNnK74Q2AoJs6