SurrealPolitiks Members Only Content

Assassinations – Thoughts for Tonight’s SurrealPolitiks Member Chat 20240117

On Radical Agenda Stage Six Episode 49 I talked about US Attorney General Merrick Garland discussing increased threats against public officials. I stated then that it was sadly no mystery why this was occurring, and all the more sadly, that we could expect it to continue and to escalate because people like Mr. Garland seem intent on making matters worse.

Today at The Hill, Jacob Ware notes a still more troubling trend which extends beyond the borders of the United States. He notes that actual assassination attempts on politicians are on the rise all over the world.

Given the current political climate and the terrible habit our enemies have of twisting our words, we here at SurrealPolitiks must begin by stating the obvious. Assassinating politicians is unwise in the extreme, and outside of the rarest of circumstances, deeply immoral. Anyone who tries to do such a thing is, in the best case scenario, trading their life for that of the target, and in all likelihood will forfeit their life without even succeeding in their mission. Accordingly, we do not endorse this activity. We condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

And since we condemn it in the strongest possible terms, we likewise condemn the foolish suggestions made by Mr. Ware in equal measure to those made by Mr. Garland.

Mr. Ware asserts that this is the fault of Donald Trump, it might almost go without saying. He, clearly being an avid consumer of Leftist propaganda, recalls some of the more hysterical claims made by the CNN types, twisting Trump’s mundane expressions of dissatisfaction as threats of violence. He goes on to say that these are all symptoms of a weakening Democratic order, and that the obvious solution is to strengthen what he describes as democratic norms.

There is an understandable aversion in society toward “letting the terrorists win”. America has an official policy, more or less adhered to depending on the hour of the day, to “never negotiate with terrorists”. This results in plenty of negotiating as to who is and is not a terrorist, and that designation can change quite rapidly depending on the interests of the decision makers in the moment.

All of that might be reasonable. In some cases, it certainly is. What is not reasonable is declining to understand or take into account the stated motives of terrorists and assassins. It is one thing to refuse to give into a terrorists demands, it is quite another to refuse to hear them.

Worse than this refusal, is to feign it for spectacle. One can be certain the intelligence agencies are reading every manifesto. They become aware of threats because they monitor “chatter”. It defies explanation to think they are not conveying this data to decision makers, and for the decision makers to then act as if ignorant thereof, signifies deception.

It is, above all, deception that leaves people devoid of hope in political solutions. When there is an honest conversation about a subject, reasonable people conclude that so long as negotiation is possible, violence is an unacceptable solution.

By contrast, the most reasonable people in the world understand that when there is no honesty, there is no communication, and without communication, force is inevitable. A political program that requires the public to be lied to is appropriately viewed as a bad program by those being deceived. A program that insists the lies it purports to be based on are true, when everyone knows they are not, hardly even counts as a deception. It is more accurately described as outright violent coercion of the population.

Imagine if you will an exaggeration to draw out our point. The government of a Nation says that in order to stop the spread of disease, all the males of a given ethnic group must be castrated. The politicians trot out respected experts to say that this policy is not made with any hostility toward that ethnic group, and offers as evidence of this the fact that they do not propose to sterilize the females. They insist that it is not, properly understood, a genocide, since those females will still have ample opportunity to reproduce with other males.

Of course, members of this ethnic group, and everyone else who considers the genocide of an ethnic group distasteful, will understand that this is, in fact, genocide. They will likely begin by asserting this obvious fact. They might go so far as to recruit their own experts to state this publicly, and draw up reports on what happens when there are no males of a given ethnic group to reproduce.

The genocidal regime would obviously describe this as a conspiracy theory. They would say that anyone who repeats the conspiracy is a dangerous extremist. They would launch terrorism investigations into those who dared to utter such subversive ideas, and if those investigations were to come up short, then the next step would be to entice members of the ethnic group into plots designed as much for newspaper headlines as for indictments.

In this situation, members of this ethnic group, and anyone else opposed to their being exterminated by official policy, would quickly come to understand that “democracy” provided them with no hope of survival. For them to exist beyond the current generation, they would have to stop the policy before the sterilization program made much progress. Each individual, facing the prospect of his own lineage being cut off, would have all the more urgency pressing against his conscience. For them, individually and collectively, violence is, in fact, the only answer.

And while our example is an exaggeration, it is not a total fiction. When a government abandons all semblance of immigration controls, subsidizes what it calls “birth control”, encourages what it calls “abortion”, promotes sexual experimentation on children, wages ideological warfare against that ethnic group’s cultural norms, treats as suspects anyone who describes these patterns as genocidal, and generally exhibits a design of eradicating every trace of their presence in society, it is not unreasonable that those so targeted are filled with a similar dread to that of our above exaggeration.

Deprive them of the opportunity to discuss this honestly, remove all measures of accountability for public officials, abolish all fraud protections in the democratic process, assert implausible fictions as incontrovertible facts, and assert that the obvious response to every act of violence that predictably results is to hasten and accelerate the policies which gave rise to the violence, and the most reasonable people will soon conclude that the acceleration will become a two way street.

It is certainly arguable that extremism and terrorism are to some extent facts of life in any human society. Not everyone can be made happy when competing interests are involved, and even in the most homogenous of societies, not all interests can always be made to align. Not all people are reasonable. Not all reasonable people make the same conclusions. Any civilization requires harsh punishments for terrorism and specialized law enforcement and military and intelligence operators to deal with these threats.

But when reasonable people make reasonable demands, those demands are ignored, and reasonable people resort to violence as a consequence, policy makers need to take note of the problem and adjust policy accordingly. That is not “letting the terrorists win” it is not “negotiating with terrorists”. It is, as noted above, a routine process of deciding who is and is not a terrorist, and bringing public policy into alignment with plainly observable fact.

Given the gravity of the above, we’ll be limited in discussing it on the member chat this evening. I usually try to put out these thoughts as fodder for conversation, and I apologize for whatever extent this is impossible this evening. I’ll pull up more news stories and have more to say by the time we gather at 9:30pm, as we do every Wednesday for our SurrealPolitiks Member Chat, but I wanted to submit this for your consideration in any case, because it completely occupied my attentions as I was preparing for this evening.

Recall that we are now hosting the chats on Discord!


You can link your SurrealPolitiks Member account to your Discord account using the links provided either on the Member Chat Page or on the Your Profile page on This integrates a Discord Bot with our membership software to control access to member areas.

If you are having trouble connecting your account, there is a link to the Discord Server on the member chat page and you can join the server without your account being linked. From there someone can try to help you get things sorted out. If you don’t have a Discord account, you can create one on You can get the app for Windows, Linux, Mac, iOS, or Android fairly easily by searching their respective app stores or getting it directly from

If you’re not a member yet, you can become one at for just $6.70/month if you use promo code agenda33 at checkout.

Once you’re a member, you can join us every Wednesday at 9:30pm Eastern on our Discord Server, and you can find these instructions on our Member Chat here

If you miss the live show, you can always catch the replay in the member content section here

Those of you with Odysee content subscriptions can find the Odysee stream here

Leave a Reply

Skip to toolbar