These Are Not Normal Lies: Trump's Response to Renne Good's Murder

Winston Meier
Jan 11
5 min read

Updated: 1 day ago

There are three uses of obvious lies by the state, and they're all on display here.

After Trump’s second inauguration, Elon Musk made a hand gesture to a crowd of supporters that was identical to a Nazi salute. We were then told that it was not a Nazi salute, even though if you had asked someone to explain what a Nazi salute is, they could have shown you that video as a useful demonstration. So, that means either (A) it was coincidentally the same muscle movements as a Nazi salute but was not one only because that was not Musk’s intention, or (B) it was a Nazi salute and we were lied to about, importantly, something we can see right in front of us.

Notice how different this lie would be from, say, Bush's "Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction," or, Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." In the former case, there's a lie told in the absence of confirming evidence, and in the latter, there's a lie told against (what was at first) weak-confirming evidence—both to achieve political ends. These are normal political lies. What we see increasingly with Trump are lies in the face of strong disconfirming evidence, or, in other words, obvious lies.

There are at least three functions of obvious lies: fire-hosing, gaslighting, and, most presciently for the current moment, secret language. I'll discuss all three.

“Fire-hosing”[1] is the use of telling obvious lies to demonstrate an authoritarian’s grip on a public’s performed epistemology—what beliefs the public will (be coerced to) play out despite what they might privately believe. In other words, it's a tyrant flexing their ability to shape what supporters and detractors alike ultimately take to be reality. The telling of obvious lies can also function, for a solipsist like Musk, as an attempt to make reality itself (or, at least, to mold the literal epistemology of the public at the most obvious and fundamental level, like the climax of 1984 where 2+2 is “made” to equal 5).

That’s one aspect of what’s at work when someone says a gray sky is blue, or when someone does a Nazi salute and says it’s otherwise. A second function is gaslighting, making the public feel crazy for saying the obvious, for having to argue the obvious, and finally, for having to second-guess themselves.

So, fire-hosing and gaslighting. But there is still a third function of obvious lies, and that is to develop a secret language to a group of supporters, on the one hand, while giving themselves plausible deniability for moderates, on the other (while gaslighting and enraging leftists). We saw this when Trump sent the National Guard into cities because of crime,[2] even while crime was on the decline nationwide.[3] Leftists and hardcore MAGA supporters both know this is not why he sent in the National Guard. Both know it is to prime the public and practice the military in occupying blue cities,[4] in advance of the 2026 and 2028 elections,[5] especially. His MAGA base knows that Trump cannot yet say this publicly, because of the vestiges of democratic institutions that retain some slippery grip on policy, and a party that is not yet entirely perfectly aligned under him, though almost. His supporters speak his secret language, so they know, “Oh, he has to say that.”

It's for moderates on both sides of the spectrum that such justifications grant plausible deniability. We see this when Western media defends Israeli carpet bombing by saying that Hamas has tunnels under hospitals and schools. The implicit assumption, or lie, is that this could ever be a moral or legal justification for the wholesale butchering of civilian life. The lie is that targeting Hamas tunnels (or cameras, or weapons caches) is their objective in the first place, [6] and not the annihilation of Palestinian life in Gaza[7]. Yet, these lies give moderates and liberals something to argue with, allowing Israel to carry on with their colonial project while pundits waste time on red herrings. Moderates who disagree with bombing hospitals to strike a Hamas camera, or disagree whether there was a camera to begin with, or disagree that crime is on the rise and that we need the National Guard on the streets of American cities—engage these governments and their media as if they’re good-faith actors, giving them the plausible deniability that they want in being “wrong.” They will say that Trump is wrong, stupid, or crazy. They will not see him as lying, and lying obviously, on purpose. They will buy into the illusion that there is a debate to be had, one they can even easily win.

Level 1 – the language to leftists: “You’re crazy for seeing the obvious”

Level 2 – the language to moderates: “This is our position. Do you disagree?”

Level 3 – the language to loyalists: “We have to say this. You know what we really mean.”

Hamas had a tunnel under that school/hospital
Israel gives warnings before bombing an apartment complex
Crime is on the rise, and democratic governments aren’t doing anything to stop it
She was trying to run him over with her car

The most horrendous recent example of this third function of obvious lies was the murder on January 7th, by an ICE agent, of Renne Good. Shortly after, Podcast Podsave America[8] hosts debated why JD Vance said that Good had weaponized her car and the driver had shot in self-defense, when the NYT analysis clearly showed otherwise.[9] One host said that Vance was wrong, that he’d been misinformed by his being too online. Another host argued that Vance was lying to appeal to his base, to build power. That is closer to the truth, but it’s still not the whole story.

There is a story that involves the third use of obvious lying: to speak a secret language to Trump’s base (while placating moderates). It is telling a lie so obvious that, in Vance (as well as Noem’s and Trump’s) secret language, they are saying to their supporters: “We don’t care that he killed her. She was the internal enemy after all. We have to say this, though. For now. But soon we won’t have to.”

It is because the lie is so obvious that it works this way, that it works as a secret language. The moderates can be baffled that the trump admin can believe that in the face of clear contradictory evidence, while his base can see the nod, the wink, and understand that this is normal now. After all, according to Vance, ICE has absolute immunity. This is what they are allowed to do now.

If anything is different about Renne’s example, it’s what’s being said to the left this time. It’s not just gaslighting and fire-hosing them, the secret language is also being spoken to the left. Of course we’re lying, you know we’re lying, and you know now what we will do to you when you oppose us.

We can’t afford to be in disbelief by the Trump Administration’s lies. These lies are not normal, they are not merely saving face. We have to believe that they are not only lying, but that they are saying multiple things at once, to different segments of the public. We have to listen on every frequency. We also have to be heartbroken, and we have to be furious, and we have to be ready.