If Kash Patel Gets Fired, I Will Not Be Surprised
- john raymond
- 2 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Others might be surprised, but not me. The math I see isn’t the same “math” that President Trump and his goons want us to believe.
The core argument is simple: under any race-neutral, loyalty-neutral model of how a presidential administration operates, the probability that one of the very few people of color in President Trump’s inner circle would become the first major public firing is low—on the order of a few percent.
If you assume normal governance, normal incentives, and normal distribution of competence and risk, the roulette wheel almost always stops on a white official simply because nearly every seat in the room is held by a white official.
That is the naïve Bayesian prior. And if that were the real world we lived in, a Kash Patel firing would be a strange outlier—odd, eyebrow-raising, statistically uncomfortable.
But that is not the world we live in, and that is not the math that governs this administration.
To start with the base rate, imagine a Cabinet table with twenty senior figures and only two or three non-white appointees. If firings were truly random—or purely merit-based, responsibility-based, or performance-based—you would expect the first big, symbolic firing to hit a white loyalist nine times out of ten.
This is what the numbers predict when you strip politics away and pretend the system is functioning like a normal presidency. A Patel firing under that model is a five-to-ten percent event: possible, but unlikely enough that a neutral observer should blink when it happens.
And yet I don’t blink. I don’t flinch. There is nothing surprising about the possibility that Patel would go first. Why? Because the neutral model is a fiction—one President Trump and his allies depend on the public believing, even as their actual behavior repeatedly falsifies it.
The “math” they want you to believe is the math of randomness: anyone could be fired first, it just happens to be him. But the real governing logic is the logic of racism, hierarchy, and asymmetric loyalty enforcement.
When you incorporate the actual prior—the real structure of the regime—the probabilities shift sharply. President Trump has a lifelong pattern of racist conduct, racist statements, and racist political strategy.
His movement wages open war on diversity initiatives, multiracial legitimacy, and pluralistic norms.
Inside such a system, the handful of non-white officials do not occupy equal footing. They are not peers; they are props. Their presence signals optical diversity, their removal signals discipline, and their vulnerability is structurally baked in.
In Bayesian terms, the firing weights are drastically skewed: the white loyalists each keep a single firing slot, while the people of color carry triple-weighted target markers on their backs. The roulette wheel still spins, but the outcome is no longer remotely uniform.
Under this regime, the probability that the first big firing is a person of color is not the naïve 5–10%. It is, in fact, the dominant branch once you reweight the system according to how power is actually exercised: racism as governance, hierarchy as policy, and loyalty as the single criterion that outranks competence, law, or national interest.
That is why a neutral outsider might be shocked if Patel falls—and why I will not be.
Because the “math” being sold by the White House is a lie. They want you to believe events emerge from a fog of personnel chaos, accidental missteps, or meritocratic review. But the real math—the only honest math—begins with the correct prior: a regime defined by racial animus, grievance politics, and the selective sacrifice of expendable minorities to protect the white ideological core.
From that starting point, the Patel outcome ceases to be improbable. It becomes predictable. If he is fired, it will not be a random draw from a fair deck—it will be the expected output of a system whose governing algorithm is racism disguised as law, and loyalty disguised as professionalism.
Others may be surprised. I won’t be. The numbers have been telling us the truth from the beginning.