The trouble with 4D chess arguments is that there's no falsifiability criteria. Literally anything can be explained to the satisfaction of anyone's preexisting bias, in the same way as an infinity of functions can fit any finite set of points. The best explanation is usually incompetence as someone once put more eloquently.
You aren’t wrong in the assessment that this could all be chalked up to incompetence. I don't rule that out.
As I state in the essay (and amplify my stance in the footnote), this is a theory I present, and that even if it is simply a momentous blunder on the part of NatSec, the effects of this leak fall in favor of US foreign policy objective messaging regarding Europe.
The idea that this was a controlled burn operation, or as I point out, a “Useful Idiot” technique to spread info, is not far-fetched.
The problem with the incompetence argument is in what preceded the chat. According to the article, Goldberg received an unanticipated connection request on Signal from Walz. He didn’t say anything at all once connected, and they had no further interaction until the group chat creation 2 days later.
Think about patterns of usage on Signal. It’s not like social media where you might connect with someone just to do so; if you add someone there it’s for a purpose and you’re going to say something once connected. Even if Walz messed up the number and invited the wrong guy, that he would do so without saying anything further isn’t how people use Signal. And then adding him to the GC without saying anything beforehand,or acknowledging or addressing him after, is also not how people operate. Not to mention that for such a small chat, that Walz didn’t notice that whomever he thought he invited was completely silent also seems far fetched.
In all seriousness you are correct. So either he KNEW ahead of time and was there to just syphon intel, or he thought this was his lucky break and was going to ride it out and be the next Woodward and Bernstein. I think it's the latter.
Yes I don't rule it out, it's strange if he was connected with and then invited, although a mistaken number of some assistant say would mean it's just the one mistake.
That’s exactly the beauty part. Have you noticed how well the incompetence excuse works when there’s no accountability? And no, a few politicians shouting and waving their arms trying to capitalize on the situation isn’t it. True and unexpected incompetence should lead to anger and retaliation. Haven’t seen much alarm or anger from those supposedly punked. Smells like an operation. However I must refrain from speculating on its objective because I have no idea what purpose it was meant to serve. But I’ll just note, again, as the author does, how unlikely is an accident of this nature.
I felt the same way upon hearing of the “leak.” The other alternative I considered is the deep state natsec community are trying to embarrass Trump and his appointees.
I like your thinking here. Particularly the language and grammar used in the group chat. We've all been there when we're in idea exchange and grammar, punctuation is set aside. These are policy sentences, not the back and forth responses. No acronyms? No side commentary with dark humor? Doesn't seem believable.
Well put, and I very much appreciate you opening with reference to old school "useful idiots" within the US media of another era who were playing lapdogs to communism. This "scandal" has controlled burn written all over it.
Fine minds think alike. Or maybe not. Maybe they simply have tin-foil hats attuned to the same frequencies.
The first thing that I thought when I learned of this by-now-wearying tale is that the 'leak' was willful and that Goldberg and the Atlantic were being, if not pranked, then being subjected to truly old school mischief.
Subsequently the leftist and the media (sorry, redundant) foaming at the mouth have sapped all the joy out of this episode. Alas.
Zero percent chance this communist Goldberg was added by accident. It’s pathetic that anyone can even think that. I got a bridge to sell anyone who believes that shit.
I find your theory interesting, but I don't think the writing styles count as evidence. We're talking about habitually professional people discussing a very serious matter with each other, while knowing that they're all very high status and should avoid embarassing themselves in front of each other at all costs. It's really no surprise that they type like this.
It is true that this Houthi GC contained a group of highly professional individuals, but that also strikes me as an interesting detail of note. They know these policy talking points, probably to the point of rote memorization after repeating them on cable networks, briefings, and the like.
So why expound the time to text them out again, sometimes multiple paragraphs, in a GC filled with NatSec personnel who know the material?
To your point: if they are knew the material, yet the GC was an exchange of ideas, there would be more acronyms, inside themes and jargon. A GC is different than a public forum where pretenses need to be maintained.
The convo seems too structured, as though they had to provide enough bait for Goldberg to take a bite.
I also considered that much of this was fabricated by the Atlantic as well. These are screen shots after all.
Great analysis. As much as Europeans bitch and moan about being abandoned, it is GOOD for them. They'll have to once again do all the important things they've long since abandoned, like maintaining serious militaries.
You’re really going with “they did this on purpose“? Come on. Think for one fucking second. They ARE that incompetent. That is the story. And you’re being a pretty fucking useless idiot for thinking that this line of defense is a good one. Everything about the first two months of this administration shows it to be staffed with numerous people with insufficient experience, wisdom, or judgment to do their jobs well. Including of course, the president himself. If you are a true conservative, this should bother you more than anyone. All these clownish illegal incompetent things they’re doing will eventually spark a backlash and lead to much of this being undone.
I DO think the Biden administration had moments of severe incompetence and dishonesty! And that did indeed turn voters against them and lead to all the
If it was 'fabricated' by the Atlantic to make these guys look like fucking retards, then why are the fucking retards agreeing that it actually happened?
This is the most idiotic thing I've read in 2025. The claim is that they intentionally included Goldberg? This is a level of rationalization that is borderline insane. This is basically saying 'what they did was so fucking dumb that of course they did it on purpose.’ But that makes zero sense. If you wanted to ‘communicate’ this type of thing, there would be one million ways to do it that would make more sense than ‘accidentally’ including the Editor of The Atlantic.
Really? What are the one million other ways you get the Atlantic and every other leftist rag to push this info into their reader's info bubble? Or are you going to tell me that the Guardian has suddenly started relaying Trump administration press releases to their readership?
The trouble with 4D chess arguments is that there's no falsifiability criteria. Literally anything can be explained to the satisfaction of anyone's preexisting bias, in the same way as an infinity of functions can fit any finite set of points. The best explanation is usually incompetence as someone once put more eloquently.
You aren’t wrong in the assessment that this could all be chalked up to incompetence. I don't rule that out.
As I state in the essay (and amplify my stance in the footnote), this is a theory I present, and that even if it is simply a momentous blunder on the part of NatSec, the effects of this leak fall in favor of US foreign policy objective messaging regarding Europe.
The idea that this was a controlled burn operation, or as I point out, a “Useful Idiot” technique to spread info, is not far-fetched.
If incompetence didn’t work as a cover story it wouldn’t be very useful now would it?
The problem with the incompetence argument is in what preceded the chat. According to the article, Goldberg received an unanticipated connection request on Signal from Walz. He didn’t say anything at all once connected, and they had no further interaction until the group chat creation 2 days later.
Think about patterns of usage on Signal. It’s not like social media where you might connect with someone just to do so; if you add someone there it’s for a purpose and you’re going to say something once connected. Even if Walz messed up the number and invited the wrong guy, that he would do so without saying anything further isn’t how people use Signal. And then adding him to the GC without saying anything beforehand,or acknowledging or addressing him after, is also not how people operate. Not to mention that for such a small chat, that Walz didn’t notice that whomever he thought he invited was completely silent also seems far fetched.
Yeah like "Hey guy, thanks letting me join in!"
In all seriousness you are correct. So either he KNEW ahead of time and was there to just syphon intel, or he thought this was his lucky break and was going to ride it out and be the next Woodward and Bernstein. I think it's the latter.
Stupid or complicit? Surely one of the most common questions of our time.
Yes I don't rule it out, it's strange if he was connected with and then invited, although a mistaken number of some assistant say would mean it's just the one mistake.
That’s exactly the beauty part. Have you noticed how well the incompetence excuse works when there’s no accountability? And no, a few politicians shouting and waving their arms trying to capitalize on the situation isn’t it. True and unexpected incompetence should lead to anger and retaliation. Haven’t seen much alarm or anger from those supposedly punked. Smells like an operation. However I must refrain from speculating on its objective because I have no idea what purpose it was meant to serve. But I’ll just note, again, as the author does, how unlikely is an accident of this nature.
I felt the same way upon hearing of the “leak.” The other alternative I considered is the deep state natsec community are trying to embarrass Trump and his appointees.
I just treat everything like a PSYOP these days! 😆😆
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/psyop-until-proven-otherwise
I like your thinking here. Particularly the language and grammar used in the group chat. We've all been there when we're in idea exchange and grammar, punctuation is set aside. These are policy sentences, not the back and forth responses. No acronyms? No side commentary with dark humor? Doesn't seem believable.
Well put, and I very much appreciate you opening with reference to old school "useful idiots" within the US media of another era who were playing lapdogs to communism. This "scandal" has controlled burn written all over it.
Fine minds think alike. Or maybe not. Maybe they simply have tin-foil hats attuned to the same frequencies.
The first thing that I thought when I learned of this by-now-wearying tale is that the 'leak' was willful and that Goldberg and the Atlantic were being, if not pranked, then being subjected to truly old school mischief.
Subsequently the leftist and the media (sorry, redundant) foaming at the mouth have sapped all the joy out of this episode. Alas.
Zero percent chance this communist Goldberg was added by accident. It’s pathetic that anyone can even think that. I got a bridge to sell anyone who believes that shit.
Yeah, these geniuses added ‘the communist’ Goldberg on purpose! Brilliant!
Why would they do that?
I think you're right. Everyone is so...unupset. Everyone was so articulate. There was no profanity from Hegseth. Good for them for trolling.
I've been pondering this same thing since this "story" broke.
https://substack.com/@peternaylandkust/note/c-103818438
There's no question that Goldberg is a dupe. The only question is whose?
I find your theory interesting, but I don't think the writing styles count as evidence. We're talking about habitually professional people discussing a very serious matter with each other, while knowing that they're all very high status and should avoid embarassing themselves in front of each other at all costs. It's really no surprise that they type like this.
It is true that this Houthi GC contained a group of highly professional individuals, but that also strikes me as an interesting detail of note. They know these policy talking points, probably to the point of rote memorization after repeating them on cable networks, briefings, and the like.
So why expound the time to text them out again, sometimes multiple paragraphs, in a GC filled with NatSec personnel who know the material?
To your point: if they are knew the material, yet the GC was an exchange of ideas, there would be more acronyms, inside themes and jargon. A GC is different than a public forum where pretenses need to be maintained.
The convo seems too structured, as though they had to provide enough bait for Goldberg to take a bite.
I also considered that much of this was fabricated by the Atlantic as well. These are screen shots after all.
Great analysis. As much as Europeans bitch and moan about being abandoned, it is GOOD for them. They'll have to once again do all the important things they've long since abandoned, like maintaining serious militaries.
Fully agree. The tell for me was the detailed sentences and full paragraphs. Nobody does that. Literally nobody
The most likely answer is that Michael Waltz was adding someone to the chat and mistype the phone number.
Fucking DUH.
The actual Occam's Razor
You’re really going with “they did this on purpose“? Come on. Think for one fucking second. They ARE that incompetent. That is the story. And you’re being a pretty fucking useless idiot for thinking that this line of defense is a good one. Everything about the first two months of this administration shows it to be staffed with numerous people with insufficient experience, wisdom, or judgment to do their jobs well. Including of course, the president himself. If you are a true conservative, this should bother you more than anyone. All these clownish illegal incompetent things they’re doing will eventually spark a backlash and lead to much of this being undone.
Charlie has perfectly described the Biden administration 👍
I DO think the Biden administration had moments of severe incompetence and dishonesty! And that did indeed turn voters against them and lead to all the
huge backlash against them! You’re only proving my point.
It’s a fabricated lie by The Atlantic.
No way did this happen.
You're making no sense.
Go away retard
You're a dumb person.
If it was 'fabricated' by the Atlantic to make these guys look like fucking retards, then why are the fucking retards agreeing that it actually happened?
You are the dumbest motherfucker on Substack.
Huh? No one is denying Goldberg was on the chat.
So lack of denial means it happened? Are you always this retarded?
This is the most idiotic thing I've read in 2025. The claim is that they intentionally included Goldberg? This is a level of rationalization that is borderline insane. This is basically saying 'what they did was so fucking dumb that of course they did it on purpose.’ But that makes zero sense. If you wanted to ‘communicate’ this type of thing, there would be one million ways to do it that would make more sense than ‘accidentally’ including the Editor of The Atlantic.
Your brain is ruined. Log off.
Really? What are the one million other ways you get the Atlantic and every other leftist rag to push this info into their reader's info bubble? Or are you going to tell me that the Guardian has suddenly started relaying Trump administration press releases to their readership?