Incompetence and Deniability

The concept, combining Intentional Incompetence and Plausible Deniability, is a sophisticated form of manipulation. In this scenario, decision-makers deliberately hire the least competent or mentally unfit individuals, knowing they will inevitably make errors or poor choices. This incompetence is not accidental but intentional, designed to serve as a shield against accountability. The incompetence provides cover—since the inevitable mistakes can be blamed on human error or lack of experience, those in charge can claim innocence and avoid repercussions, maintaining Plausible Deniability.

This strategy can be used to further hidden agendas, allowing the architects of these actions to claim no direct responsibility for any negative consequences that arise. For example, if a controversial policy fails due to the incompetence of those executing it, the people at the top can blame the failure on the team, rather than admit to a flawed policy or malicious intent. It’s a way to offload blame while benefiting from the chaos or failures created by the incompetence.

The second part involving post-hypnotic suggestions introduces another layer of control and exploitation. In this scenario, individuals are manipulated into performing actions that may be against their own self-interest, including acts of violence or other unethical behaviors. These actions are triggered through deep psychological manipulation, such as post-hypnotic suggestions. Once the manipulated individual commits these acts, those who orchestrated the manipulation can claim that the person acted on their own free will, further protecting themselves from accountability.

This dynamic could be used to orchestrate violent events, scandals, or sabotage while remaining in the shadows. The manipulated individual, already chosen for their mental instability or lack of competence, becomes the perfect pawn in this strategy. Once the act is committed, the real perpetrators can point to the individual’s history of incompetence or instability as an explanation, further reinforcing the idea that it was all due to their personal shortcomings and not part of a larger plot.

In both cases—whether through hiring incompetent individuals or using psychological manipulation—the result is the same: those in power can achieve their objectives while maintaining an air of plausible innocence. This tactic can be particularly effective in highly hierarchical or bureaucratic environments, where it’s difficult to trace responsibility and where public perception is easily managed.