SurrealPolitiks

In the practice of Realpolitik, it is typically considered ill advised to go out of one's way to antagonize the greatest possible number of political participants with one's speech. Today we break that rule with our episode title "Misesian Socialism". The phrasing derives from the name of one Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist of Jewish ancestry who rather famously held socialism in the utmost contempt. Thus at first glance, we might appear to be dealing with a contradiction of terms, and be presumed to have made a failed attempt at humor. Fail we just might, but humor is not the goal. In recent discussions, here and elsewhere, we've delved into economics at some depth. The manner in which we have done this has created substantial confusion in off air conversations, and one suspects this is because it does not seem to fall into the pre-defined categories most are familiar with. The approach we have taken is to apply the teachings of what are commonly considered "classical" or "free market" economics to the task of central economic planning, and the achievement of what are typically considered socialist ends. While it may strike the casual observer as bizarre, there's nothing actually forbidding this in economic thought. The classical economists have accurately described, for the most part, how an economy works. They make well reasoned complaints about inefficiencies created by government interference in the market, and go on to make suggestions of political reforms with the aim of eliminating those interferences. But the political programs are not economics. They are politics and, more to the point, they are ideological in nature. If a government program reduces the rate at which wealth is grown, or distributes it in ways an individual finds distasteful, that does not necessarily mean that the program should not exist. This is simply an observation upon which one forms a subjective preference. It may well be the case that the people of the country, or the governing authorities, find this forfeiture of economic efficiency a worthwhile trade-off for other economic or non-economic benefits produced by the program, or circumstances of the time require such forfeiture to avoid greater loss, with the most notable example being inflationary monetary policy to facilitate military objectives. The premise of our concept here is essentially that the classical economists are correct so long as they remain "value free". While their analysis tends to be scientific and accurately describe economic phenomena in past and present, the track record has been for them to to veer away from the scientific, and into the value laden world of politics and philosophy, once they begin talking about the future. Whatever preferences one may have as to the degree of government intervention in the economy, it is inevitable that intervention will occur. Since it is inevitable, calling for it to cease is an ideological masturbatory exercise. Consequently, this is not conducive to influencing the outcome, and since influencing the outcome is the whole entire point of Realpolitik, we must rule it out from our strategic repertoire. Simultaneously, we observe the phenomenon that since this has for so long been the pathology, the advocates of government intervention tend to be, at best, economic illiterates. All too frequently, they are brilliant students of economics who understand full well that what they are doing is catastrophically destructive. They pursue these wild schemes parading under the guise of economic policies anyway, either as a short sighted political strategy for the attainment and maintenance of their own power, or as a means of waging war against the societies they govern or aim to govern. From here we derive ideas like "health care is a human right" and absolute equality of economic outcome, regardless of behavior, as the object of all government activity. Our view could fairly be described as a third position. We aim to understand market forces and the science behind them. Then, to analyze and understand the distortion of market forces caused by government interference in the economy. Then, to intelligently guide that interference in ways that are at least less destructive than current and prior practice, and preferably, to aid in the advancement of the National interest, which it will be our task to define going forward. This, we acknowledge is itself a value laden exercise, but we do not pretend to be mere economic analysts. We are politically interested, and we begin with that built into our assumptions. You can, and should, pay me. Become a SurrealPolitiks Paying Subscriber https://SurrealPolitiks.com/join GiveSendGo https://GiveSendGo.com/spm Crypto Bitcoin: bc1qcg97hwdy8d463794wm0uq3np0px49acw6505gm Ethereum: 0xa29441bF858c529E374960A34e16f21abc0970E8 Litecoin: LQsN4hA761RPrUNTva58nQhJ4BYsAQgYet Bitcoin Cash: qplamajpkvhp2g53q4thnu4cakf882er4ge9pqvfdu Monero: 46Li94X1o95GaKPxMdsqds3FPJmc2tTvQi3zSuLHbttWTMLbtV9jHGU86wxqvKyVBVRUGhY78uA1HJ5aQn53zc7uRinB96q ZCash: t1cXJJsnohToMTukCNXBkcqNPDdwvwnfS3p Dash: Xu957ZZqY6ciMZKdUmu5vVUmyxu4jMWEto You can send me checks, cash, money orders, etc… at Christopher Cantwell 497 Hooksett Road Unit 312 Manchester, NH 03104 Find us elsewhere, and keep in touch! Entropy https://entropystream.live/SurrealPolitiks ChristopherCantwell.net Newsletter https://christophercantwell.net/subscribe/ SurrealPolitiks Newsletter https://surrealpolitiks.com/newsletter/ Chris on Twitter https://twitter.com/TalkRadioGod Chris on Telegram https://t.me/followchris SurrealPolitiks on Telegram https://t.me/surrealpolitiks All Cantwell Content on Fountain.fm Podcasts https://fountain.fm/show/1Lqmd1jltAvvw0Xvg1bC All Cantwell Content on Podcast Addict https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/3106093 All Cantwell Content on RSS https://christophercantwell.net/feed/podcast/ SurrealPolitiks on Fountain.fm Podcasts https://fountain.fm/show/iGn8lVloyYswtye00Jsa SurrealPolitiks on Podcast Addict https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/4329471 SurrealPolitiks Podcast RSS https://surrealpolitiks.com/feed/podcast/surrealpolitikspodcast Gab https://gab.com/realChrisCantwell Truth Social https://truthsocial.com/@realChrisCantwell Gettr https://gettr.com/user/realchriscantwell Substack https://surrealpolitiks.substack.com/ Chris on Locals https://locals.com/member/ChrisCantwell SurrealPolitiks on Locals https://surrealpolitiks.locals.com Parler https://parler.com/Cantwell Odysee https://odysee.com/@ChrisCantwell:9 DLive https://dlive.tv/SurrealPolitiks JoshWhoTV https://www.joshwhotv.com/plugin/Live/?c=RadicalAgenda Rumble https://rumble.com/surrealpolitiks Brighteon https://www.brighteon.com/channels/cantwell BitChute https://www.bitchute.com/channel/mr8b7UVzfOLH/

Next month marks the 20th annual Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire. This event was in no small part what inspired me to move to the Granite State more than a decade ago. Hosted by an outfit calling itself the Free State Project, it has been in precipitous decline since my expulsion nine years ago. It used to be a Ron Paul fan club of sorts, but not so much these days. Vices were indulged. I myself partook, but the event was by no means centered around this. Most political events I've attended serve alcohol, and it just so happened that this one also had a great deal of marijuana and mushrooms and that sort of thing. It was not made hostile to families by this, the libertarians I knew then understood that with freedom comes responsibility and that to corrupt children was no way to get along with one's neighbors. Gays were of course tolerated, and treated with the same respect as everyone else. Perhaps just slightly more, since they did have one event during the week specifically geared toward them. Titled "Buzz's Big Gay Dance Party" the eponymous event was conjured from the mind of a lesbian calling herself J Buzz Webb, and at the time nothing foreshaodwed the bitter enmity that would later emerge between us. I had struck up a conversation with a pretty girl who was no lesbian, and we got quite friendly. She asked me to come with her to the big gay dance party and I adamantly refused. "I'm not gay" I told her. "Are you?". She assured me she was not, in more ways than one. But it was sort of deemed that this was expected of me. That by refusing to go, I was somehow expressing disapproval, and as it turned out, I was, which I did not think to be such a big deal. Live and let live, seemed to me the libertarian way. You go have your big gay dance party over there, and I'll keep on doing my hetero thing over here with the pretty girl. Not such a big deal at the time. But I did meet some social disapproval, and while I thought this curious, I didn't much care. Later years would come to feature panels on polyamory, a degenerate sex cult which only thinly disguised its contempt for the family. "Ethical non-monogamy" they like to call it, or "Consensual non-monogamy" or ENM or CNM, all the jargon that make up the indicia of a cult. It's a form of statism to demand your partner be faithful to you, they say. Freedom is the freedom to penetrate and be penetrated without consequence. Birth control has in the snap of the fingers abolished all the human drives and realities that once came with the burden of pregnancy, which is now seen as a harmful side effect of failing to take one's medication. It might go without saying that gender, being an oppressive social construct, in their view, had to be abolished along with the State, and inevitably, this leads to transgenderism. I was informed not long ago that this year's Porcupine Freedom Festival would feature one or more of the much talked about "Drag Queen Story Hour" events which have caused so much trouble in recent years. That inspired today's theme. I went to check the event schedule, and hadn't spotted anything officially sponsored, but if I was sexually grooming children I might make some effort to disguise the activity myself. PorcFest still markets itself as "Family Friendly" you see. It's right there on the front page of the site. You wouldn't want the parents who buy the tickets for that beautiful White child in the image to think she'd be told to sterilize herself and cut off her breasts once they arrive, so you would have to keep this sort of thing under wraps. Not that they have been sworn to secrecy. A woman calling herself Bonnie Freeman, who purports to be married to a friend of mine, announced on Twitter that "Also you might not want to go to Porcfest because a ton of us are planning kid-friendly drag shows on our spots." The Tweet was in reply to another Tweet, from an account that is now suspended from Twitter, because that's what happens when you come up against the lobby of the Rainbow Mafia. Freedom of speech today includes sexually grooming children, but not criticism of this behavior, even under the tutelage of Elon Musk. The good news is, Mrs. Freeman's announcement met near unanimous hostility from the ensuing comments. I should emphasise the near part... Dennis Pratt was a notable exception. he is prominently featured throughout the event's schedule on the website and describes himself as "designer (and Chef de Village) of our most recent (and most successful!) versions of PorcFest." He states, in relevant part, "This year some folks are "very concerned" because there might be - somewhere on the 116 acres of PorcFest - some guy dressed in drag reading Tuttle Twins to a small group of kids (whose parents consent btw.)" Mr. Pratt assures us that nothing of the sort is on the schedule, yet, but if one were to be announced, "it would be dutifully included in the Schedule - along with hundreds of other attendee-created events." And if you don't like that, Mr. Pratt has some advice for you... "If the idea that someone somewhere within a mile radius of you might be doing something that you personally don't like, PorcFest is just not the festival for you." My guest this evening, disagrees. He calls himself "N of 1" and he is the founder of something called "Liberty+". I stumbled across it browsing the PorcFest schedule, and he'll be hosting a talk titled Good Night Alt-Right and Hello Liberty+! You might guess an event titled "Good Night Alt Right" with an alternative reminiscent of Atheism+, this would be the perpetrators of many a drag queen story hour, but my investigation turned up a decidedly different result. Intrigued I reached out to the website operators, and the founder graciously accepted my invitation. I expect this to be an intruiguing discussion, and I do hope you'll join us for the live show at 9:30pm US Eastern time. Watch live, chat, and tip on our Rumble stream. Other options include Entropy Odysee DLive Our own audio/video feeds on this site

I recently had occasion to view a speech given by an Australian gentleman by the name of Joel Davis, which he gave at a meeting of the Patriotic Alternative in the UK. You can find the speech in full on their website, and I encourage the listener to give it their consideration so that I cannot be accused of taking the man out of context, because I found the talk more than a little bit disagreeable, and mean here to use it as an example to describe a broader pathology plaguing what has been called the "Dissident Right". Mr. Davis is hardly alone in his view that race is the central question of our politics. To whatever extent this may be in error, you could easily forgive a man for making it, given the hysteria surrounding the subject in our discourse these days. Mr. Davis, however, is altogether less forgiving of those who disagree with his view, describing, for example, Germans who do not vote for AfD as "politically retarded", along with the rest of the "broad masses", without much effort to understand or articulate their motives. Met with this realization that the political parties he supports do not win elections, Mr. Davis seeks different and altogether less precise measurements of success. His talk was titled "Activist Politics and White Advocacy" and "The Amazing Joel Davis" as he was described, was introduced as "an identitarian commentator and activist with a focus on white advocacy and political strategy". As he begins to speak himself, he states that he is to share his thoughts on the subject of "political strategy" that have evolved for him over the last few years. But if Mr. Davis has a focus on political strategy, it was not presented here. Mr. Davis would go on to make no subtle suggestion that electoral politics was a futile endeavor, though he was careful to state that it is "not bad". Specifically stating that "unless we can raise billions of dollars" White advocates cannot compete in this realm. He describes "activism" as a different category of action, the purpose of which is to "change what's popular", whereas "electoralism", as he calls it, makes use of what already is popular. The flaws in this are many. Some quite subtle, some quite glaring. None at all rare. The talk has value in his articulating these flaw ideas in a manner more befitting a response than much of the less articulate hurling of insults and subterfuge common to this phenomenon. I have much to say about this, plus your calls at 217-688-1433. SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern.

Augustus Invictus returns to the program to discuss a variety of issues. Mr. Invictus is an attorney operating out of Florida, and has become familiar with a courtroom in the capacity of a Defendant more than once. He is currently awaiting trial in Charlottesville, Virginia for these ridiculous "Burning to Intimidate" charges brought by a Soros backed Left wing fanatic parading as a prosecutor in Albemarle County. A number of interesting things have happened in those cases since we last spoke to Mr. Invictus. Jacob Dix managed to get the entire Albemarle County Circuit Court system thrown off his case, as well as the Prosecutor's office. Whether these rulings will apply to all the other defendants, remains at present an unanswered question. Thomas Ryan Rousseau is the latest to be snatched up in those charges. The reputed leader of a group known as Patriot Front, Rousseau is among the more noteworthy Defendants thus far charged. The late timing of his arrests adds to mounting evidence that the aim is to keep this story in the news as a means to influence the 2024 Presidential Race. With Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer still uncharged thus far, there is cause for speculation that these indictments will come down at politically opportune moments. Is that legal? We'll ask our lawyer friend. Another interesting legal case comes out of California, in the case of Robert Rundo. Mr Rundo, as we've discussed, was a founding member of an outfit known as the Rise Above Movement, which has since spawned spin off groups all over the world, notably in the form of what have become known as "Active Clubs". Mr. Rundo was charged with conspiracy to violate the riot act, and his charges were dismissed by a US District Court Judge in 2018. The 9th Circuit overturned that dismissal upon the government's appeal, but not before Mr. Rundo could leave the country. The feds hunted him as he mocked them online for years, until he was finally captured in Romania, and extradited to the United States to face the charges. Upon review by the same Judge who dismissed the charges as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the charges were yet again dismissed on the grounds of selective prosecution. Once again, the government appealed, and the 9th Circuit reversed Judge Carney's release order for Mr. Rundo, pending their decision on the dismissal. This time, feds were on top of Mr. Rundo and snatched him up before he had any chance to run. Mr. Rundo is now in federal custody, but is charged with no crime. Is that legal? Judge Carney says it is not, and has issued another release order for Mr. Rundo, but that order is stayed pending a decision from the 9th Circuit. We'll discuss the implications with our lawyer friend. SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern.

Tonight's guest requires no introduction for many of you. He has been in political media far longer than your humble correspondent, and has earned no shortage of notoriety. For those of you so deprived as to not know who Ian Freeman is, I look forward to introducing you to this man, without whom you might never have heard of me. Born Ian Bernard, Mr. Freeeman adopted the moniker turned legal name during his adventures in libertarianism, a school of thought to which he still adheres. He founded an open phones talk radio show while still living in the state of Florida, and for a brief period I was a co-host of that nationally syndicated show. That production served in no small part as the inspiration for the format you today enjoy on SurrealPolitiks. Inspired by activism he saw in this state, Mr. Freeman moved to New Hampshire and joined the Free State Project, a libertarian political migration wherein adherents pledge to commit the maximum possible effort to ensuring the maximum role of government is the protection of person and property. Maximum being an important part of this phrase. Mr. Freeman has described himself as a voluntaryist. Last I checked, he would prefer there were no government to speak of, and that all human interaction was voluntary. A noble enough goal, whatever its feasibility. In pursuit of this ideal, Mr. Freeman started the Shire Free Church, and through this spread the gospel of Bitcoin as a means by which to remove the coercive element of government currency from our economic dealings. For this he was hunted by the FBI, hauled before a jury to answer for preposterous allegations of money laundering and tax crimes, and convicted. At the time of this writing, he faces more than 800 months in federal prison at a sentencing date imminently before us. Ian Freeman is a dear friend of mine. He has stood by me when it was not easy to do. I am deeply troubled by the challenge he has ahead of him. It is my honor to present to you tonight his fascinating history, and his cautionary tale. SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern Join us https://SurrealPolitiks.com/start

What is political power? One way to think about it, is as the capacity to alter the behavior of others. In this sense, the formal acquisition of such power, as in the assignment to a position within the government, or political party, is merely the acknowledgement of a previously existing state of affairs. One obtains the assignment, by having influenced the behavior of the person or group responsible for such a designation, and so he has necessarily already displayed the power at issue. The title only bestows a sense of officialdom. Though, of course, this officialdom does have the impact of amplifying the power in question. See the full show description, and join other members on SurrealPolitiks.com https://surrealpolitiks.com/2023/03/24/surrealpolitiks-s01e002-choice-architect/ In more shallow analyses of government and politics, there is a tendency to think political power derives from office, rather than the other way around. This confusion of the order of operations is no less vexing in politics than it is in mathematics. If one does his math from right to left, ignores parenthetical equations, or subtracts before he multiplies, he is fortunate to fail in his education. Should he make such errors later in his career, he could cause airplanes to fall out of the sky, or create any other manner of tragedy that may ensue from miscalculation. When men believe that they "deserve" political power, and consider it an unnatural state of affairs that they do not hold office, similar frictions apply. The most vivid example of this is terrorism. Men believe it is "unfair" that they cannot access the levers of power, and they go on to demonstrate why they are unfit to the task, by harming the innocent. None of us are entirely devoid of power. Some have more than others, to be sure, but each of us influence people every day. Even if one chose to live a life of solitude, hiding in the wilderness and living off the land, his choice ultimately has no less an effect on the price of goods and services by refraining from their purchase than if he made it his life's work to acquire all that he could. In one case he subtracts from demand, in the other he adds, but the fact of his existence is going to be part of that equation, whether he likes it or not. Socials Entropy https://entropystream.live/SurrealPolitiks Telegram https://t.me/followchris Fountain.fm Podcasts https://fountain.fm/show/1Lqmd1jltAvvw0Xvg1bC Podcast Addict https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/3106093 RSS https://christophercantwell.net/feed/podcast/ Gab https://gab.com/realChrisCantwell Truth Social https://truthsocial.com/@realChrisCantwell Gettr https://gettr.com/user/realchriscantwell Substack https://surrealpolitiks.substack.com/ Locals https://locals.com/member/ChrisCantwell Parler https://parler.com/Cantwell Odysee https://odysee.com/@ChrisCantwell:9 DLive https://dlive.tv/SurrealPolitiks JoshWhoTV https://www.joshwhotv.com/plugin/Live/?c=RadicalAgenda Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ChristopherCantwell Brighteon https://www.brighteon.com/channels/cantwell BitChute https://www.bitchute.com/channel/mr8b7UVzfOLH/ I am a student of persuasion. By listening to this show, you too will become one, if you are not already. On another production I recently spoke at some length about a behavioral psychologist named Robert Cialdini, and his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. While a recap of that discussion will be beyond the scope of our task today, we can briefly say that Cialdini and others who study persuasion, make the case that our decisions are largely subconscious processes. These are influenced by identifiable factors, upon careful observation, but are generally unknown to the decider. For example, a voter typically convinces himself that he supports this or that candidate for prudent reasons pertaining to policy positions, but studies show that decidedly non-policy-oriented factors like physical appearance can be decisive in elections. People tend to favor political slogans more if they were eating something they enjoyed when they heard them, and liked them less if undetectable levels of a putrid odor were circulating in the room at the time. I titled today's show "Choice Architect" as a nod to Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, from whom I heard the term for the first time recently as I listened to the audio version of their book, Nudge: The Final Edition: Improving Decisions About Money, Health, and the Environment. Sunstein and Thaler coined another term in the first edition of the book, which drew a great deal of justifiable criticism. The phrase "Libertarian Paternalism" drove their fellow Leftists insane, because they hate freedom and cannot bare to hear the word libertarian mentioned absent some derisive comment. It should almost go without saying that the libertarians did not much care to be associated with paternalism. The book garnered controversy among those less concerned with terminology as well. Like most Leftists, Sunstein and Thaler lack faith in their fellow man. They view the average person as something of a pinball bouncing off the components of his environment, and see it as the responsibility of an elite to shape that environment in ways that will convince the poor dupe that he is making his own choices, though they doubt this is really even possible, much less desirable, and certainly not actually the case. If the reader detects in this description a tone of contempt, he is not conjuring this in his own imagination. Your humble correspondent considers these men dangerous and malicious, though more because of how they apply this view of mankind, than because of the view itself. Clearly, there is some truth to the idea that environmental factors inform a person's decision making. This is almost too obvious to need stating. Less obvious, but no less true, is the fact that these environmental factors are in no small part shaped by intentional actors, who hold the awesome power and responsibility of directing people's behaviors. It is quite prudent that a book should be written to describe this phenomenon, and one might hope that responsible people would read such a book. Let us consider a rather mundane example used in the text. The authors ask the reader to imagine a woman named Catherine who is the director of food services for a large city school system. Catherine is responsible for the cafeterias in hundreds of schools, and hundreds of thousands of children will have their dietary choices informed by Catherine's decisions. It should almost go without saying that Catherine can impact the dietary options of the students by changing the menu, but this is not the only decision she will make. Will the French fries be the first thing on the line? Or will carrots be made more salient? Will cookies and other sweets be at eye level, or will the student need to request one? While taking the French fries out of the school might be described as a shove, Thaler and Sunstein refer to intelligently choosing their placement as a nudge. They purport a desire to preserve the perception of free will, and to avoid coercion, but to guide people toward decisions the authors deem preferable, through what they refer to as choice architecture. As the authors point out, so long as Catherine maintains her position as the director of food services, she cannot help but make these decisions, and those decisions unavoidably influence the decisions of the students. Even if she abandons the post, she is choosing to put someone else in charge, and thus she chooses all the same. It is not a question of whether or not she will inform the dietary choices of the students. It is not even a question of degree. The question is what she will do with the power. She could, at least in theory, choose to place food items at random in an effort to avoid transmitting her subjective value judgements to the students, but that is itself a value judgement, and one doubts this would improve anything save perhaps Catherine's opinion of herself. She could try to maximize profits or cut costs, depending on whether most of the students in the school district paid for their meals or were receiving them at taxpayer expense. She could take bribes from food vendors and try to improve her own material situation. She could maliciously try to feed the children unhealthy food out of some kind of ethnic or other animus. Considering the full range of all Catherine's options, I hope you will agree that the most reasonable thing that Catherine can do with the power of her position, is to intelligently arrange the cafeteria in a way that will gently guide the students toward a healthy and enjoyable meal. In this, your humble correspondent agrees with the authors. So why the contempt? Sunstein and Thaler demonstrate during the text that they are not fools. Thaler is an economist. Sunstein, a legal scholar. They understand better than most the fundamental principle of their respective fields of study, which is that human beings respond to incentives. Moreover, they articulate their comprehension of the fact too many libertarians overlook, which is that those incentives are not always measurable in dollars. From this we may infer that they understand what they are advocating, and are capable of contemplating the long term effects of such advocacy. Yet the authors specifically disavow any such contemplation. They call this "bathmophobia" - a technical term for an irrational fear of falling down an incline - which they invoke to deride the concept of the "slippery slope" argument. They bring up gun control as their featured example, as I quote from the book; Slippery slope arguments are popular in the United States among those who are opposed to gun control. In this case, X is any restriction on an individual’s right to own a gun (say, a ban on the ownership of assault weapons), and Z would be the government comes and confiscates all weapons, including steak knives and water pistols. Well, that is an exaggeration, but you get the idea. The problem with most slippery slope arguments is that they do not provide any evidence of an actual slope: that is, a reason to believe that doing X makes it more likely, much less inevitable, that we will get Y and Z. This has not stopped people from making such arguments that on their face are rather dubious. For example, there was a Supreme Court argument about the Affordable Care Act in which the issue being discussed was whether the government could constitutionally require citizens to purchase health insurance. Justice Antonin Scalia famously argued that if this requirement were legal, nothing would stop some future government from requiring people to eat broccoli. Talk about scare tactics! The student of persuasion, or for that matter, anyone who has read Saul Alinsky, can clearly discern here a deceptive tactic being deployed. Most glaringly, there exists no shortage of examples in which governments gradually chip away at the liberty and property of their citizens. That this gradual process would accelerate subsequent to their being disarmed hardly needs stating, much less the predictive powers of a fortune teller. The authors mockingly point to the absence of a thing every student of history knows is anything but lacking, and and on this basis invite the reader to conclude that their critics are unthinking fools. The informed observer of the Supreme Court of the United States must doubt that Antonin Scalia was ever an unthinking fool, or that his greatest fear was an act of congress instituting compulsory broccoli consumption. His example was obviously not chosen out of lachanophobia (a clinical term describing an irrational fear of vegetables), but rather to illustrate the absurdity of a legal argument in which the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the power to do whatever it thinks might conceivably improve the health of the citizenry. Politics inevitably involves disagreement over what is and is not "good" for the country, and this is by no means lost on Sunstein and Thaler. Notably, the authors invoke, in the final edition of the book, the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision, which conjured from the penumbras a heretofore undiscovered constitutional right to same sex marriage. And at that, one notably less subject to infringement than the explicitly stated second amendment which they just finished mocking. In the first edition of the book, they had been advocates of so called "civil unions" because they had not predicted the public ever being willing to accept such a thing. This was itself a "nudge" in their view, designed to normalize homosexuality among a people who would reject it, given the choice. They were right, of course, in that the population never did accept it. This was forced upon them by the Court through the vote of five unelected Justices who had uniformly been nominated by Presidents who insisted they believed marriage was between one man and one woman, including Barack Obama. Whatever your thoughts on gay rights, it is not in dispute that certain health problems plague the gay community. If Congress has the power to do whatever it deems may improve the health of its citizens, then it hardly makes sense that they and the States under their jurisdiction would have no say in something so consequential as marriage. One also doubts Sunstein, a legal scholar, had any trouble discerning the distinct absence of any such right being mentioned in the Constitution of the United States. The authors deride another supposed slippery slope argument, pertaining to opponents of women's suffrage, from whom we sadly hear little today. Quoting from the book; The track record of slippery slope forecasts in the political domain is not exactly stellar. An opponent of women’s suffrage once predicted that giving women the right to vote would create a “race of masculine women and effeminate men and the mating of these would result in the procreation of a race of degenerates.” Another opponent, noting that women represent more than half the population, predicted that allowing women to vote would mean that all our political leaders would soon be women. For the record, in 2021, women held only 26 percent of the seats in Congress. We only wish that slope had been a bit more slippery! We might consider ourselves fortunate that most women have not seen fit to degrade themselves by becoming legislators, whatever the authors may wish. And, one might have difficulty drawing a straight line from women's suffrage to the transgender craze plaguing our public schools. But anyone with a familiarity of voter demographics would have a hard time making the case that anyone would even be capable of imagining this situation, had the electorate remained entirely male. Examples abound, but I'll let those suffice to illustrate this point. Sunstein and Thaler are Left wing fanatics whose malice is demonstrated by their hypocrisy. They dress up their fanaticism in social science jargon, and describe their scheming as being born of a libertarian impulse, but they celebrate each opportunity to transition from nudge to shove. On this subject, they make another mocking comment, which one suspects they realize is more confession than denial. Quoting again from the book; We bring up slippery slope arguments because critics have used them to criticize nudging and libertarian paternalism. “First it’s nudge, then it’s shove, then it’s shoot,” as they say. (But why? The whole point of nudging is to avoid shoving, let alone shooting.) Which is to say, they have a loose preference not to shoot you, but it's an option. So, take the hint, or else. So, why bring this up on SurrealPolitiks? I imagine some of you may recall a controversy that emerged during the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary, in which former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who was then seeking our Party's nomination, told David Gregory on Meet the Press, that "I don't think Right wing social engineering is any more desirable than Left wing social engineering." The remark was in response to a budget plan proposed by Paul Ryan, and it involved some controversial changes to the Medicare program which might more accurately be described as libertarian-ish than Right wing, but the substance of the issue is almost besides the point. Here, Gingrich expressed a view that pervades among conservatives to this day, and is costing our Party and our Country dearly. Whatever one's views on the desirability of social engineering, it is a fact of life, and most certainly it is among the defining characteristics of government policy, second only to its coercive element. Like Catherine deciding where to place the French fries, government decides, whether through action or inaction, where to take money, where to give it, who to put in prison, and who to kill. One who seeks to abstain from this decision making has no place in politics. If Republicans abstain from social engineering, they do not free their citizens from its influence, they simply forfeit the influence to people like Cass Sunstein, and Richard Thaler. I might be overstating matters just a bit to say that the entire point of this show is to stop that from happening, but it closely enough approximates my point, that I ask the reader to infer all appropriate caveats and accept the gist. Thaler and Sunstein get what they want politically, and not because their fanaticism is uncompromising. The whole entire point of the concept of nudge is distinctly progressive in its effort to unravel society in stages. Though they mock the concept of a slippery slope, they explicitly aim at bringing about precisely such rapid declines, celebrate their coming to fruition, and make only the most meager effort to dress this fact in a thin layer of plausible deniability. Wikipedia provides a flattering illustration of Sunstein's life and career, and I beg the reader's pardon for my using this Antifa blog as a source, but I think for our purposes it will serve just fine. Sunstein was born in 1954. He reportedly said he was influenced in his early life by Ayn Rand, but quickly turned Leftward politically, before graduating high school. He didn't declare the system he hated corrupt and bow out. He didn't pick up a rifle and embark upon a suicide mission. He didn't try to start a new political party. He went to Harvard Law School. He was never shy about his political views, but he made efforts to dress them up in respectable terminology, exemplified to some degree by the citations above. Same sex marriage used to be something only extremists talked about, as a noteworthy example, so Sunstein proposed civil unions and compared it to the now uncontroversial position of supporting women's suffrage. This allowed him to advance rapidly in law and in education, culminating in his 2009 nomination by Barack Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. His nomination was not without controversy, but after a robust debate in the Senate, he was confirmed 57-40. In 2014, studies of legal publications found Sunstein to be the most frequently cited American legal scholar by a wide margin. This despite, or perhaps because, he advocates legal theories that are a direct attack on the very concept of law and order. If you're anywhere near my age, it's probably a little late to go to law school, but that's hardly dispositive of the point I mean to make. Just like Catherine can choose to ban French fries from the cafeteria, you can choose to demand radical political changes that almost nobody supports. You can impress a small group of people with your uncompromising stance on some unpopular position, and you may derive some psychological benefit from doing so. But Catherine is a lot more likely to positively impact the dietary choices of the students if she is less overt in her guidance of their decisions, and you are far more likely to influence people's political thinking if you are not chasing away those whose ideas you seek to influence. For all the hysteria surrounding Donald Trump, it is a popular and moderate position to say that illegal immigration is illegal, and should accordingly be prevented and punished. Leftists tried to make him out to be the second coming of Adolf Hitler, because they reasonably anticipated this would not be the end of the story. Addressing this very real and serious problem is a nudge toward recognizing that, however the laws may be organized, a society that ceases to reproduce, and replaces itself with foreigners, is a dying society. That realization carries implications that cannot help but shatter the Leftist narratives which plague us today, and there is literally nothing they would not do to stop that little bitty nudge from taking hold. Conservatives warn us that "First it's nudge, then it's shove, then it's shoot" and from this conclude that one ought not nudge. They would do far better in politics if they nudged a little harder, while looking for the opportunity to shove, instead of impotently cursing the nature of politics, and waiting for the pronoun police to blow their brains out. Recall from episode one that progressivism emerged not in contrast to conservatism, but to revolution. It was a question of means, not of ends. While the Weather Underground were waging a campaign of terror, Cass Sunstein was finishing law school. Today, if you search "Weather Underground" your first results will be from the Weather Channel. You'll have to specify that you're talking about a terrorist organization to find any reference to Bill Ayers. He narrowly avoided prison for his crimes, when it was discovered that the FBI had acted in ways it sought not to brag about, and federal prosecutors dropped the charges which had kept him on the run as a fugitive for years prior. Given that many leftists are closeted or not so closeted revolutionaries, and as such hold Ayers in high regard, it would be overstating matters to say is has no power. He has more than me, and likely more than you, but only to the extent that he is an inspirational figure for fanatics with violent plans or fantasies. Sunstein, by contrast, would go on to influence pubic policy through scholarly citations, authorship of influential books, and formal employment with the Obama administration in a Senate confirmed position. Long after he is dead, those citations and books will continue to deform our society. Even if none of us ever achieve anything resembling Sunstein's success, we would still do well to learn from it. Moreover, we have a choice to make, as to whether we nudge the people around us toward that kind of influence, or toward mere infamy. Nudge is a vital text for people seeking to understand progressivism. I encourage you to it, or listen to the audiobook. The way it is structured does not permit the sort of analysis we've made elsewhere of Cialdini, and though it contains valuable insights into the subject of persuasion, the book is more about policy than psychology, which in our view, renders it less interesting as podcast fodder. The authors' tendency to put forth extremist Left wing political ideas as obvious and objective social goods, we warn will grate against the sensibilities of the sane, but keeping one's enemies closer than one's friends is a cliche for the truth it conveys, and we think good people are well served to understand their opponents. Recognizing the scarcity of time, we offer this briefest of summaries before ending this segment, and taking your calls. You can extrapolate much of the book's premise from the story of Catherine and the cafeterias. She will influence the people in her sphere whether she likes it or not, and so the best course for her is to understand that influence and wield it responsibly. The same goes for anyone involved in business, politics, media, or anything else. The idea that any of us can be neutral is nonsensical, and can only lead to miscalculation. You don't have to agree with Paul Ryan to see the problem with Newt Gingrich's disdain for Right wing social engineering. Social engineering is the norm, not the exception. It can be Right wing or it can be Left wing, but it cannot be neutral. A lot of what would now be deemed Right wing social engineering used to be considered obvious. Encouraging healthy families, and productive enterprise. Discouraging vice, and communism. Protecting the country from invasion, and instilling in the population the love of country that makes men willing to sacrifice their lives in service of that protection. This is what we have abandoned, in the misguided pursuit of free will, and what we have obtained is something that does not bear one bit of resemblance to greater freedom. It has been replaced by hookup culture, abortion, gender ideology, inflation, bank failures, and rampant drug addiction. We watch on television as millions pour in to our country illegally. We empty our weapons stockpiles into a foreign country, and our military fails to meet its recruitment goals. As the consequences of these things inflict suffering on the population, the government moves to silence and disarm and imprison its critics. This is not organic. It is not the outcome of revolution. It is the consequence of Left wing social engineering. A nudge here, a shove there, every now and then, a shot. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Right wing social engineering is, indeed, more desirable than this. The perceived restrictions it imposes, are akin to prohibiting a child from playing in traffic. Done skillfully, it will, over time, not be recognized as social engineering. It will once again be accepted as the expected and desirable behavior of responsible Statesmen, educators, and media personalities. With any luck, this unfortunate period of our history will be mocked by future generations. They will appreciate their freedom to tell the truth, and view the freedom to change one's gender or kill one's offspring, in the way most today view the freedom to own slaves. But we are very far from that point today, and if we hope to get there, we'll have to nudge a little faster.

Here I come to save the day! Well, not exactly, but I did what I could. Today I decided to give OmeTV, the apparent successor to Omegle, a shot. I recorded the session, and I'll edit out the worthless segments to provide you with an enjoyable viewing experience this evening. I'll begin the show live, play the video, and then come back to take your calls and read some news. I have about an hour of video, most of which will remain after editing. You may recall I had some aversion to doing this before because Omegle had as part of its terms of service that one was not to record or rebroadcast the chats. There is nothing to that effect in the rules for OmeTV. Unfortunately, me restraining my use of profanity does nothing to restrain the people on the other side, so this is probably going to be much more useful for the uncensored production going forward, but I'll make a few edits before showtime so this is suitable for SurrealPolitiks this evening. What I saw was not very nice. It was very sad, in fact. Almost everybody was smoking marijuana and/or contemplating suicide. One girl, sixteen years of age, described herself as a female to male transgender soon to begin hormone treatments for her sick delusion. I tried to provide them all with sound counsel and it was nice to see them pause to consider what I said, but uniformly they all punched out of the conversation before they would allow reason to set them straight. This is very unlike what you're accustomed to seeing other producers do with this sort of content. It was very serious and not at all funny. That might change going forward, but I think you'll appreciate the gravity in some of these conversations. I'll have much more to say about this, and much else, plus your calls at 217-688-1433 when SurrealPolitiks airs live, as we do every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern, on Rumble, and on Odysee, and on the GetMeRadio App for smartphone, Roku, and FireTV.

In geopolitics, when one country challenges another, this is a phenomenon known as "war". It is only in the last few years that I have developed an appreciation for what is known as "Country Music". I used to hate it. My father listens to country music, and with some notable exceptions, I found it intolerable as a child. "Dad's music" was the genre in my mind, back then. It might go without saying, that my father considered my music "noise". As I understand it, these generational gaps in taste are not terribly unusual. It might also be a familiar phenomenon that as I grew older, my tastes changed. In particular, as I became disgusted with all that is pop culture, I looked for entertainment options which did not glorify drugs and promiscuity and crime and generally aim to participate in the destruction of civilization. With, again, some notable exceptions, country music served me well here. And Country music, as the name might seem to imply, is near universally patriotic. Among the most popular songs ever produced is Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American". Country music is packed with cultural references that appeal to conservatives; guns, work, family, self reliance, community, honoring military service. Even in what has been dubbed as "Outlaw Country" there's a respect for American institutions. Take for example Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues" in which, though he has "shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die" and is "stuck in Folsom prison" where "time keeps draggin' on" he recognizes that "I know I had it coming, I know I can't be free" and because of this, when he hears that whistle blowin', he hangs his head and cries. In Merle Haggard's "Fightin' Side of Me" he laments; I hear people talkin' bad, About the way we have to live here in this country, Harpin' on the wars we fight, An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be. An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides, An' standin' up for things they believe in. When they're runnin' down my country, man, They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me. Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me. Runnin' down the way of life, Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep. If you don't love it, leave it: Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'. If you're runnin' down my country, man, You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me. And Country music is in no way short on sadness. There's the old joke "What happens when you play a country song backwards? The guy stops drinking and gets his wife back". But they don't blame their country for their sadness. They are, on the contrary, very grateful to live in America, and are quite certain that whatever their woes today, they would be far worse had it not been for their good fortune to have been born in America, and for the service of military personnel who protect the freedoms they curse themselves for not taking advantage of. So it was an interesting phenomenon to me, as a casual observer of this genre, the back to back releases of two songs which indicated people have just about had it with the state of affairs in America. First there was the much talked about "Try that in a small town" which was dubbed as racist violence by Left wing fanatics, because Jason Aldean questioned the virtue of robbing liquor stores and old ladies. But even here, Mr. Aldean grouped "Stomp on a flag and light it up" in with these violent criminal acts, indicating that his patriotic streak had not been diminished by the ubiquitousness of the scenarios he laments in the song. Then came Oliver Anthony's "Rich Men North of Richmond". This song by a man described as an "Off Grid Farmer" was recorded and promoted by Radio West Virginia, and quickly shot to number 1 on iTunes and has been trending on Twitter for days. I myself have listened to it maybe a hundred times. One rendition I listened to came as he played for a live audience in North Carolina, his first live show since becoming famous. One line stands out in the context of our theme today. "Young men are putting themselves, six feet underground, because all this damn country does, is keep on kicking them down". In the live performance, he takes his hand off the guitar, points to the audience, they sing the line, enthusiastically, and he allows it to hang in the air for what seems like an eternity, before he finishes the song. Not a boo, not a moan, not a single hint of disapproval from an audience near universally accustomed to their favorite artists praising America no matter how much they themselves are suffering. On the contrary, the audience was positively charged by the recognition that their government has turned against them. They shouted that line as if they had been waiting their whole lives to say it. One imagines some of them, in fact, have been waiting their whole lives to say it, and now, they are hyper aware that they are not alone. "Rich Men North of Richmond" likely marks one of the more important moments in our country's history. What it signifies will of course depend in large part on who writes that history, and this will be determined by the victors of a war that rages quite independently of foreign factors, though they certainly play some role. The most patriotic people in this country have just about had it, and there is no certainty about what that portends for the future. This is not a cost free unalloyed good. It may be described as necessary, in the vein of Howard Beale's famous line in Network "First, you've got to get mad." If people do decide "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore" then they are likely to change the current state of affairs. But what comes next? SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern

In the constant rush of information dumped upon us by the Internet and modernity more broadly, it can be easy to get caught up in the distractions of the day and speak endlessly about the news or whatever ultimately inconsequential fluff is fed us by the people who do not want us to make any progress. Here at SurrealPolitiks we aim to rise above this, and we consider ourselves ahead of the game when we say that the results have been mixed. The news of the day is not without consequence. One must be informed to be involved in discussions, and discussions are ultimately second only to physical force in terms of political importance, but it is among our aspirational goals to cut past the minutia and get down to the Realpolitik. In keeping with this I spent many hours last night on what may at first glance appear a frivolous exercise. For more than 12 hours I was arguing with subhuman intellects on a discussion forum about the merits of promoting homosexual propaganda through advertisements in the web hosting industry. As one might expect from that description, most of my opponents were not up to the task. They resorted to slander, personal attacks, making inaccurate critiques of my physical fitness, and generally behaving like a bunch of poorly raised children on a playground. So why would I bother to get in the mud with these wretches? Have I nothing better to do with my time than to try and convince fools that they are in fact fools? What benefit could there be to enduring slanderous personal attacks all night long from people who are wholly invested in their own ignorance? Well, clearly, if this is what I had done, this would be a waste of my time. Fortunately, this is not what I was doing. The forum in question is known as LowEndTalk. It is the discussion forum for a blog called LowEndBox, and this is themed around discounted web hosting. It is not a place where politics is generally the topic of discussion. I have been a participant there for many years and I read their newsletters with some frequency because I was in the web hosting business prior to becoming a media personality, and because I need to stay apprised of what goes on in that industry to stay ahead of deplatforming efforts and other disreputable behavior by our political opponents. You can read what I was able to save of the discussion thread on my other website, but the content of the discussion there is not so much what I mean to get at today. I have titled today's episode "Pressure Points" because this is a meaningful lesson in Realpolitik. The people I was arguing with made no effort to address the point being raised because they did not have a leg to stand on, and real debate would not suit their agenda. They understand as well as anyone that the transgender agenda cannot actually exist without a great deal of help. It is an extremist political movement parading as civil rights. They require the assistance of governments and corporations to inculcate their ideology into the minds of the people, because this is not an actual thing outside of the propaganda. The culture war does not begin when the drag queen starts reading "Lawn Boy" to the kindergarteners. It begins well prior to this, and in no place more prominently than in the advertising industry. It is a parasitic relationship between these activists and the ad industry. The activists want to tack their message onto the advertisements of businesses, so as to get a free ride into the minds of their victims. The advertisements are supposed to be selling products, but instead they are made to sell projects. This comes at the expense of the companies being manipulated by activists who parade as marketing professionals. The incident in question came at one of the more crucial intersections of our economy. This was an advertisement, for web hosting. Web hosting is what makes the Internet work. If you can get your message into the infrastructure of the Internet, then you are functionally a part of the central nervous system of society, and this has profound implications well far from the wires and the electrical signals in the air. I will have much more to say on this when SurrealPolitiks airs live this and every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern on Rumble, Odysee, and the GetMeRadio app.

Ukraine is back in the news after former prosecutor Viktor Shokin made an appearance on Fox News's One Nation with Brian Kilmeade. Kilmeade, normally among the most shameless of pro-Ukraine propagandists, aired the interview last weekend, during which Shokin stated what is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention "Yes, they were being bribed" referring to the Biden family. But Kilmeade, as you might expect, skilfully danced around the relationship this has to the war ongoing in the region. He has to, since he keeps on trying to convince us that Zelensky is the next Winston Churchill. Tonight I will go over some history of Ukraine, and the SBU intelligence agency which worked with the US State Department to overthrow the elected government of Viktor Yanukovich and set the stage for the war that is currently destroying the US economy and standing on the world stage. SurrealPolitiks airs every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern.

Wow, is today a packed day or what? To begin, I'll be joining Tim Murdoch of White Rabbit Radio at 4:30pm US Eastern, before this evening's live airing of SurrealPolitiks at 9:30pm US Eastern, as we do every Monday. It is Martin Luther King Day, of course. A celebration of communism and the destruction of White America. This is no longer quite so taboo to say either, thanks in part to, of all people, Charlie Kirk? Yes, indeed. Kirk, it turns out, is the current employer of Blake Neff, whom you may recall parted ways with Fox News where he had been one of the writers for Tucker Carlson before his crimethink was discovered in the form of online forum posts. Neff has been preparing today's episode of the Charlie Kirk Show, and Kirk last week teased that he would be laying into MLK full force today, dropping Neff's name in the process. Tonight in Iowa, the Presidential race is officially underway, as the first votes will now be cast in that state's caucuses. The Presidential Race is the focal point of American politics. There are arguably more important political events happening all the time, but none that attract the attention of the general population in the way the Presidency does. Even if you don't think Trump is any good, even if you think the whole thing is a sham, participation in the Presidential race, and participation in American politics, are synonymous. Those who blow off this election, blow off politics altogether. Our focus on the top executive is powerful evidence that Man's natural state is monarchy. The Courts and the Legislative branch, though more assertive under some administrations than others, tend mainly to serve as accoutrements of the President's legitimacy. Only the Executive acts, the other branches merely provide opinions that support or conflict with his acts. Democrats will only be handling Party business, since the Leftist Party's anti-White racial animus has deprived them of their first in the Nation status, and in any case there is no primary challenger to Joe Biden worth mentioning. Republicans are involved in a more animated contest. Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, and Ron DeSantis constitute the players worth mentioning there. Other Republican contenders, notably Tim Scott and Chris Christie, have suspended their campaigns. Others still haven't gotten the message, but are likely to shortly after this failure is cemented tonight. Trump is favored to win, but Iowa has proportional representation as opposed to a winner take all contest. All of the contestants will have something to gain if they can obtain enough votes for even a single convention delegate. The Caucuses begin at 7pm local time, or 8pm US Eastern. According to the AP, the 2016 results were completed by midnight US Eastern. We'll aspire to stay on the air until the races are called tonight. Give us a call at 217-688-1433 SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern on Rumble, and on Odysee, and on the GetMeRadio app for smartphone, Roku, and FireTV.

Here at SurrealPolitiks, we do not aspire to make of ourselves a gossip column.Nor do we take a libertarian approach to people's personal lives. So, we were met with a bit of a challenge as the news was flooded with remarks about South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem carrying on an extramarital affair with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who is also married. On the heels of this, video emerged of US House Member Lauren Boebert getting handsy with her boyfriend in a crowded theater. Leftist hypocrisy was predictably on full display at both announcements. The people who tell you that gender is a social construct and that marriage is an oppressive patriarchal institution that should be destroyed through promotion of homosexuality, suddenly found themselves very upset at the lascivious conduct of these elected officials and their associated lust interests. A casual observer might celebrate the news that marriage was once again sacred sayeth the moral authority of the Democrat Party, but the inevitable subsequent all ages drag show would quickly dispel such a myth. We might first note that this demonstrates amply a thing we've long said about the Left. They are adept political strategists who make keen observations about the political battlefield, and act on them with reliable and ruthless efficiency. This clashes with the often aired image of them as well meaning if misguided participants in our national discourse, since such savvy observations would not present from people so disconnected from reality as to believe that children benefit from pornography and transgender propaganda in elementary schools. What the Left does to destroy families is not misguided. It is ruthless and calculating and malicious and intentional. They are at war with the civilizations that host them, and they operate without any of the standards of conduct which usually apply to soldiers on a battlefield. Their wanton pursuit of chaos and destruction is slowed only through force, and no moral premise, law, contract, treaty, or concern for internal consistency may stand in their way. From the Right, the response was substantially more mixed. Some took the approach that so long as our fellow Republicans hold the line against the Democrats, it is of little consequence how they obtain erotic stimulation. Others were quick to call for resignations and condemn the elected females as bimbos. In our view, there is no reason to choose between these positions, save for the bit about the resignations. I read Noem's book "Not My First Rodeo" in 2022. It was a pathetic joke of a text. Noem had designs to run for President and was clearly instructed by consultants that it would be prudent to first publish a book. She seems to have taken this instruction to mean that any book would do, and strung together a bunch of embellished stories from her childhood as life lessons that prepared her to lead the country. She is fortunate so few bothered to read it. The real scandal is less that Kristi Noem is cheating on her husband, than that South Dakota elected an idiot for their governor. Fortunately for South Dakotans, if Noem decides to prudently fade into obscurity, they are unlikely to be ruled by Democrats in the foreseeable future. It is a solidly red state, and it is unlikely whoever replaces her will be any dumber than she. For Lauren Boebert the calculation is more difficult. There is a legitimate question as to who would replace her as the representative for Colorado's third Congressional District. The seat has gone back and forth a few times between Republicans and Democrats and whatever you think about her vaping and dating habits, these are of little consequence next to the prospect of Democrat control of the House. Better a vaping Republican bimbo voting for Biden's impeachment, than a Drag Queen Democrat voting for Trump's. Still, we might aspire to choose better people to represent us in government. It is hardly irrelevant to politics whether a politician is the sort of person to cheat on their spouse. If one cannot abide by the vow of their marriage, there is little reason to expect they will abide by their oath to the constitution, and still less to expect they will make good on promises made on the campaign trail, which are in all cases decidedly more ephemeral. In the case of Ms. Boebert, there was ample warning she would make a mess. She was born to a single mother who insisted for over 30 years that a professional wrestler had sired her daughter. Two paternity tests disproved this myth, and this leaves one curious as to what sort of woman continues to insist on such a thing after the first should have proven so thoroughly embarrassing. Her lack of shame might be explained by her voter registration records, which show she was a Democrat. This may also explain why Boebert says she was raised on welfare, and why she got pregnant in high school in the year 2004, and subsequently dropped out. In 2006, at the age of 19, Boebert registered to vote for the first time, as a Democrat. She changed her party affiliation to Republican two years later, but not before marrying her husband, Jayson Boebert, in 2007. She got her GED in 2020, shortly after entering the Republican Primary that would see her enter the US House for the first time. Plenty more to say about this and other matters, plus your calls of course, when SurrealPolitiks airs live this and every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern on Rumble, Odysee, and the GetMeRadio App

Artificial Intelligence has been in the news a lot lately, it is the latest weapon in an information war which has been going on for a very long time, and is only starting to heat up. I'll riff about this, then take your calls. You can, and should, pay me. Become a SurrealPolitiks Paying Subscriber https://SurrealPolitiks.com/join GiveSendGo https://GiveSendGo.com/spm Crypto Bitcoin: bc1qcg97hwdy8d463794wm0uq3np0px49acw6505gm Ethereum: 0xa29441bF858c529E374960A34e16f21abc0970E8 Litecoin: LQsN4hA761RPrUNTva58nQhJ4BYsAQgYet Bitcoin Cash: qplamajpkvhp2g53q4thnu4cakf882er4ge9pqvfdu Monero: 46Li94X1o95GaKPxMdsqds3FPJmc2tTvQi3zSuLHbttWTMLbtV9jHGU86wxqvKyVBVRUGhY78uA1HJ5aQn53zc7uRinB96q ZCash: t1cXJJsnohToMTukCNXBkcqNPDdwvwnfS3p Dash: Xu957ZZqY6ciMZKdUmu5vVUmyxu4jMWEto You can send me checks, cash, money orders, etc… at Christopher Cantwell 497 Hooksett Road Unit 312 Manchester, NH 03104 Find us elsewhere, and keep in touch! Entropy https://entropystream.live/SurrealPolitiks ChristopherCantwell.net Newsletter https://christophercantwell.net/subscribe/ SurrealPolitiks Newsletter https://surrealpolitiks.com/newsletter/ Chris on Twitter https://twitter.com/TalkRadioGod Chris on Telegram https://t.me/followchris SurrealPolitiks on Telegram https://t.me/surrealpolitiks All Cantwell Content on Fountain.fm Podcasts https://fountain.fm/show/1Lqmd1jltAvvw0Xvg1bC All Cantwell Content on Podcast Addict https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/3106093 All Cantwell Content on RSS https://christophercantwell.net/feed/podcast/ SurrealPolitiks on Fountain.fm Podcasts https://fountain.fm/show/iGn8lVloyYswtye00Jsa SurrealPolitiks on Podcast Addict https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/4329471 SurrealPolitiks Podcast RSS https://surrealpolitiks.com/feed/podcast/surrealpolitikspodcast Gab https://gab.com/realChrisCantwell Truth Social https://truthsocial.com/@realChrisCantwell Gettr https://gettr.com/user/realchriscantwell Substack https://surrealpolitiks.substack.com/ Chris on Locals https://locals.com/member/ChrisCantwell SurrealPolitiks on Locals https://surrealpolitiks.locals.com Parler https://parler.com/Cantwell Odysee https://odysee.com/@ChrisCantwell:9 DLive https://dlive.tv/SurrealPolitiks JoshWhoTV https://www.joshwhotv.com/plugin/Live/?c=RadicalAgenda Rumble https://rumble.com/surrealpolitiks Brighteon https://www.brighteon.com/channels/cantwell BitChute https://www.bitchute.com/channel/mr8b7UVzfOLH/

Among the most embarrassing moments in this Country's history, perhaps even in the history of humanity, were those pertaining to the canonization of Saint George Floyd. Saint Floyd, the Patron Saint of Fentanyl, Armed Robbery, and Counterfeiting, was beatified in the year 2020 following his death of a drug overdose. Since our country has given up on the concept of truth, and allowed itself to be ruled by force and fraud, the undisputed nature of this cause of death was allowed to be cast aside, and instead replaced by a narrative conjured in the minds of the most violent and dishonest people in the world. You see, Saint Floyd had died of this drug overdose while he was resisting arrest, near certainly as a consequence of his effort to avoid a possession charge by swallowing the drugs which were supposed to last him into the next day. He was, moments prior, caught passing a counterfeit bill to a small business owner in order to steal cigarettes, and when this had the predictable result of attracting the attention of law enforcement, Saint Floyd set himself on the path to Martyrdom by fighting the officers. Video showed Saint Floyd complaining that he could not breath well prior to being pinned to the ground. Whether this was because the fentanyl had already begun to suppress his respiratory function, or because he believed this would make his escape easier, we can only speculate, but we do know that by the time he was on the ground beneath the merciful hands of Derek Chauvin, the complaints had long since begun. On account of this, and since Saint Floyd was a large man with a history of violence who was still struggling with police, the officers taking him into custody did as their training commanded, and continued to restrain Saint Floyd while he continued complaining about his capacity to breath. When Saint Floyd ceased to fight them, they loosened their restraint, but by then, he was unconscious and soon to die. It might go without saying that those who find themselves gleefully at war with civilization immediately blamed the officers. Clearly, they would have us believe, that as soon as a criminal says he cannot breath, the officers have a moral and legal obligation to set him loose upon the citizenry he had victimized just moments ago, and habitually over the course of his criminal career. The ordered liberty characteristic of Western Civilization, requiring force as it does for its maintenance, cannot be allowed to stand, in their view. Violence must only be exercised in the most chaotic and dangerous manner possible, by the least responsible people in our society. Any notion of controlled and reasonable force is what they call "White Supremacy" and this organized system of control is the only form of oppression they will not abide. So it was not at all surprising that these people set to their routine of rioting, looting, and burning down buildings, prior to any investigation of the incident. What was slightly more surprising to all but the most well informed, was the rapidity with which supposedly responsible authorities, joined with the forces of chaos. The cause of Saint Floyd's Martyrdom was never in dispute. He had consumed a lethal dose of fentanyl, and this was discovered quite early in the investigation. No injury attributable to the officers that could have caused his death was discovered in the autopsy. Saint Floyd was just another dead junky criminal, so far as the science was concerned. But trusting the science has limited utility in post truth America. If by "the science" you mean, Dr. Fauci, it is doctrine and to contradict this is blaspheme. If it disproves racist police murdering blacks for sport, it is "White Supremacy" and must be discarded. So began America's hazing ritual as she entered the fraternity of the third world. Monuments were built, politicians kneeled, shoplifting was legalized, riots and arson and even murder were considered "mostly peaceful", all who dissented were subjected to ritualistic torture of various sorts, all in service to one more dead junky criminal. The officers were, for all intents and purposes, crucified. The city paid the dead junky criminal's family $27,000,000. And with this, the total inversion of our legal system was all but complete. For the rest of that year, as Americans were prohibited from attending church, locked in their homes, laid off from their jobs, put out of business, and conscripted into the black bloc with mask mandates in the name of COVID-19, the one sort of public gathering that was permitted, were race riots. These, we were told, were the cure to the only public health crisis more serious than COVID-19, that being, White Supremacy, of course. You might recall, the virus was so dangerous, and the racism, so pervasive, that these were the excuses offered by Mark Elias and his band of licensed subversives as they set about on a "sue and settle" scheme to abolish all fraud protections in our elections. While race riots were good clean fun for the whole family, and liquor stores, abortion clinics, and marijuana dispensaries were considered essential services, polling places, by contrast, joined with churches in being far too dangerous for human beings to be found near. And so every name and address ever entered into a voter registration database, and a few not so registered, received ballots in the mail. Signature verification, obviously one more relic of a racist past, was necessarily abolished, and with no regard for legitimacy, Democrats demanded, quite literally, that "every vote be counted" - in some contrast to those days now long forgotten when there was such a thing as eligibility for the privilege. To the casual observer, this subversion of all anti-fraud measures might have seemed odd for the Democrats, who had warned with some hysteria that Donald Trump and every villain willing to vote for him were lawless criminals who would do anything to maintain their grip on power. Were they really so concerned about this, they might have taken measures to make our elections much harder to cheat, but they assured us through their friends in the press that the racism and the sniffles simply made this impossible, and that while Donald Trump would collude with foreign powers and sell out his country for the simple joy of being admired by an Eastern European dictator, and while his supporters were willing to risk prison and death for the simple rush of assaulting vulnerable demographics, surely democracy was just so sacred that none would dare to take advantage of this opportunity to steal the most powerful elected office on the planet. And with this narrative so pervasively echoed through all the proper channels, the 2020 election was conducted. Despite the danger, record numbers of voters appeared at their polling places, and all new records were set for use of the postal service to deliver votes subject to no verification whatsoever. With this tremendous flood of public opinion being so overwhelming, as the counting went on into the night, leaky toilets were reported as water main breaks, and all manner of other excuses were made to stop the counting and exclude observers. With all these anomalies, accepted by our masters in the press as a "new normal", it is perhaps unsurprising that a man who barely campaigned, excited nobody, and offended even his core constituencies routinely, became the most popular president in our Country's history. At which point, the race riots, came to a rather anticlimatic conclusion. Those appropriately skeptical of the veracity of these claims, were deemed thought criminals. They were banned from social media, fired from their jobs, ostracized socially, and ultimately hunted down by federal authorities and thrown into prison should they have been so bold as to register their skepticism at the Nation's Capitol. All in the name, of one more dead junky criminal, Saint George Floyd. Peace be upon him. But not upon you. Your reward for this, was crime at home, and war abroad. All for a lie. SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern.

I had occasion early this morning to chat with a White female smoker of retirement age. I had a long overdue issue to address, and made my way to do it at what might be described as the last minute. This had left me in the unenviable position of operating an electric scooter during a December hale storm in New Hampshire, pre-dawn. As a brief aside, my electric scooter has many benefits, most notably as a conversation starter. When I found myself lacking Internet access in the year 2020, I was deprived of a very nice car as a consequence. That upset me for a time, but the chats I've had since might well make up for the loss. The woman was appropriately nervous to see me approach her at the hour I did, given the neighborhood. It wasn't always like that in New Hampshire, but it makes perfect sense today. Our conversation began as I departed the other building and she realized I was not a threat to her safety. The woman had remarked about the unpleasantness I must be facing, as she smoked what was likely her 5th cigarette outside her apartment building, which I gathered was something of a retirement community. She said something to the effect that she hoped I was carrying a firearm to be traveling by these means in this city in the dark. Having been wrongly deprived of the means to do so lawfully, this triggered, no pun in intended, an emotional reaction in me. I looked at her and saw that she was fearful of a place I moved to 11 years ago precisely to escape these thoughts. This had followed, serendipitously, my having had occasion earlier that morning to listen to a piece I had released some time ago titled "Beauty Revisited", wherein I discussed at some length the sadness of witnessing New Hampshire's decline. I heard my own voice simultaneously with hers in my mind. I saw the lines in her face convey all that her words failed to mention. Doing my best to appeal to a global audience, I don't catch much local news. I came to know this morning that this is likely for the best. She remarked that in the last six months, there have been many rapes in my city, and this elderly smoker feared she might well be next if she dared to leave her porch after dark. It is a terrible shame I was not carrying a recorder with me at the time. I suppose I could have used my phone, but in any case I'm sure she'd have found it offputting had I began recording, whatever the equipment involved. I disclosed to her that I was not long out of prison, and that the circumstances which found me there, my offense at something said of a woman I cared deeply for, had left me deprived of my carry permit, but that I was more than capable of defending myself. The fury I felt at hearing her words, and seeing the fear in her eyes, left me in a position where, I might well have gone looking for the opportunity to test that capacity. Our conversation about the intentional effort to change this state's demographics went on for nearly an hour as the ice pellets pummeled the ground nearby. She was no extremist, but her age had not yet taken her sight. She knew what was going on. Everyone in this city does. They're doing this to us on purpose out of an anti-White ethnic animus, and the only thing anyone finds curious at this point is why they hate us so much. I thought better than to try and explain that under the circumstances, but invited her to check out my podcasts, and as I departed I thanked her for the opportunity to hear her speak of her concerns. This city has some odd traffic patterns which can be confusing at times. The municipal government has a deal with some company to make electric scooters publicly available using a smartphone app, so their use is quite common in this area. I wanted to make sure I operated mine lawfully of course, so when I obtained it I had spoken to an officer at the local police department, who explained to me that I was to obey the same laws as a bicycle essentially. Drive on the right side of the road, use the bike lanes where available, don't go the wrong way down a one way street, most pertinently to our story. Where I found myself at that hour there is what I suppose could be described as something of a plaza. As a consequence of this unusual circumstance, there are several blocks where one cannot, by vehicle, reach Elm Street, where most of the shopping and restaurants and bars are located. I needed to cross Elm Street to get home, and I was not used to being on this side of Elm Street. From what I see in my neighborhood, I tend to think I live on the wrong side of the proverbial tracks, though there is no train here, but as the ice bounced off my face while I tried to find my way in the dark, I began to wonder if things may be worse this side of Elm Street. That seemed a reasonable assumption, since the woman mentioned to me there was a methadone clinic mere feet from her front door. I was thrown off by several blocks all going one way, the same way, opposite of the direction I needed to go. Consequent of the confusion this caused, I traversed a parking lot, and in that parking lot I saw two young girls wearing pink. Soaked though they were from the weather, I was sure the two of them together weighed less than I. Fresh off chatting with this elderly smoker who feared she might be raped feet from her own porch, I damn near grabbed them both and asked them why their parents shouldn't be in prison for allowing this, assuming they were not already there for pimping them out, which I don't suppose is an entirely safe assumption. Intuition told me my probation officer would disagree with this approach, so I did my best to ignore it. I'm forced to do too much of this in recent months. Among those things I've had to ignore were a series of domestic disputes in which it was clear to me by the sounds penetrating a thin shared wall, that a black man, high on drugs, was beating his White girlfriend. The first time I heard it, mere days out of prison myself, I plotted the man's murder in my mind. By the third, I blamed the woman, and this of course caused me to hold myself in greater contempt than I had for the two of them combined. Quite the monster must I be to think such a thing. Had I only not been a coward when I heard this the first time, she'd be just fine, I told myself, knowing full well the opposite was true. I remark from time to time that I am grateful to have suffered in life. It borders on a catch phrase that I say "there is opportunity in suffering" and this has never been more true than as I have witnessed what has become of this city. I like to think I am in touch with what these people are going through, and whether or not that is accurate, I know that I at least feel their pain. This brings me nothing that could be described as comfort, but I am very grateful for it. I don't think most political actors have this benefit. Whether or not this elderly smoker feels safe is less important than per capita crime rates and comparisons with comparable districts. The fear of a retired woman that she might be raped by drug addicts can be offset by the good they tell themselves they have done by saving those drug addicts from overdose with cheap and abundant Narcan. The woman told me that she was planning on leaving the city, and though I remarked to her "they are eventually going to leave us with nowhere to run" I knew this was a sound choice for her. She could surely head North and avoid the worst of it all in a more rural area, passing of natural causes before they get around to leveling whatever mountain she opts to reside upon and turning the area into low income housing and methadone clinics. I imagine the people who run this city view this mathematically. The loss of one retiree is a small price to pay for an increase in overall population through refugee resettlement and the subsidies that accompany this. I do not know all the details of the mechanics, but it is very clear to me that Massachusetts is dumping their drug addicts in this city, and the federal government is releasing prisoners here who were not New Hampshire residents at the time of their arrests. It is as unambiguous as any government program ever has been in its effort to change the demographics of this once nearly all White state. They went so far as to brag about this in the New York Times several years ago. I archived and bookmarked the piece for its staggering audacity. The July of 2018 headline reads "New Hampshire, 94 Percent White, Asks: How Do You Diversify a Whole State?". It seems they've found a way. Several, as it were. Refugee resettlement. Abundant services for out of state drug addicts. Becoming home to federal prisoners down on their luck. These are just a few of the methods deployed. Southern New Hampshire University is very near to me also. I remember on a trip to Walmart in September, noticing that the store was busier than usual, and near all of these extra shoppers were black. I asked my friend who drove me there what the hell was going on, and she informed me that it likely had to do with the kids arriving for college. But I have known more than a few black people in my 43 years. They do not aspire, generally, to migrate to colder climates. If the University has a dramatic overrepresentation of black students, this is because they have gone to some expense making this so. I am aware that to notice this makes me some kind of dreaded racist, but I was somewhat relieved to know that this retiree saw it near as clear as I did. Should she and I end up the same side of the afterlife, I'll tolerate the heat if I must, but I have a difficult time imagining a Just God would punish this woman. I'm another story, obviously, but I'll consider my sins forgiven if I bump into her after I die. SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern.

I am very proud of the opening monologue I have prepared for this evening, it is very moving. I also have a couple of really great reads from other outlets which I'll share with you. Here's a teaser from the open, and I'll plan on seeing you tonight at 9:30pm on Odysee, Rumble, or our other platforms. Today being Memorial Day, it might be fitting to speak a bit about military service. Of course, the martial character of human conflict emerges elsewhere besides the military, and perhaps it would be still more fitting to speak in such a broader generality. There exists no shortage of bold men who will not be hailed as heroes, despite courageous sacrifice, be their names known or not. Some, the news records as villains, and our task is in some measure to see history do them greater justice. The United States is not the only country with a monument known as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. No culture survives without reverence for its warriors. Some do a better job than others of recovering their dead, but whatever their military prowess, combat is unpredictable, and people go missing. It is both fitting and important then, that there be some shrine to their sacrifice. In the United States, ours is at Arlington National Cemetery. It is guarded, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, by soldiers from the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, known as “The Old Guard.” They perform a visually impressive routine when changing guard, and Sentinels, as they are known, have a creed which reads; “My dedication to this sacred duty is total and whole-hearted. In the responsibility bestowed on me never will I falter. And with dignity and perseverance my standard will remain perfection. Through the years of diligence and praise and the discomfort of the elements, I will walk my tour in humble reverence to the best of my ability. It is he who commands the respect I protect, his bravery that made us so proud. Surrounded by well meaning crowds by day, alone in the thoughtful peace of night, this soldier will in honored glory rest under my eternal vigilance.” While there are over 4,000 unknown soldiers buried at Arlington, the monument contains the remains of but three. One from World War I, another from the second World War, and one from the Korean war. An empty third crypt represents missing service members from Vietnam. When power changes hands, perhaps it would be best to leave the Arlington Memorial to those who died in uniform overseas, but it might also be fitting to establish a new one for those who died, or otherwise had their lives destroyed, right here. The menace we face has surely left more than 4,000 corpses in its wake almost entirely unremarked upon. Many millions more yet walk, but are no less dead, disappeared, and forgotten. I don't want to give the rest away, so please tune in for the live show at 9:30 pm Eastern. If you can't catch the live broadcast, be sure to catch the podcast. Other ways to listen https://SurrealPolitiks.com/start Become a member https://SurrealPolitiks.com/join GiveSendGo https://GiveSendGo.com/spm Newsletter https://SurrealPolitiks.com/newsletter Twitter https://Twitter.com/TalkRadioGod Telegram https://t.me/surrealpolitiks

There's some weeks when you don't know what to say, and others when you don't know where to start. Today begins the latter sort. Happy Monday...

Freedom of speech is axiomatic to most Americans. They reflexively say they support it whether they actually believe they do or not. It is sort of understood, as a cultural matter, that there are few ways to more rapidly make a pariah of oneself than to renounce this central feature of the American psyche. Nobody actually supports "free speech" though. We all have our limits. The most comical people in American politics are not the censor happy PC crooks who ruin everything, it's the "free speech absolutists" who are occasionally compelled to confront the contradictions of their own Utopian fiction. Though, this is surely due in some part to the fact that it is increasingly difficult to find the menace of Leftism humorous, while the naivete of well intentioned free speech advocates still manages to pass for cute, in a sense. This is one of those areas that best illustrate the point I made at the beginning of this production. The Left, disconnected though they may be from reality, make better assessments of the political battlefield than what passes for the Right these days in America. For the Left, the capacity to stifle their political opponents is axiomatically evidence that they should do it. The idea that they might forgo the opportunity to expand their power is preposterous to them. The only answer you hear from the Right on this is "free speech". This is not only far from reciprocal, it's silly, at best. The Right used to understand that free speech is supposed to be a means by which men of good character say what they believe to be true, and engage in discussion to discover error. It is not, contra popular superstition, the right to host a drag queen story hour at a public school for kids. William F. Buckley understood this. His first book, God and Man at Yale, bore the subheading "The Superstitions of 'Academic Freedom'". Published in 1951, Buckley had become quite frustrated with his alma mater's habit of denigrating religion and promoting communism. He thought it preposterous that a prestigious university would platform such harmful ideological poison, and he called on his fellow alumni to pressure them to stop it. That Buckley and his cohort failed to stop Yale from doing this has led to the state of affairs we see today. The Left had freedom of speech. They used it. Then they gained power. Then they began to crush the opposition. Such is the product of "free speech". Now you can teach kids about deviant sex acts, but you can't criticize those teaching it. Had people listened to Buckley 72 years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with "Pride Month". I've got plenty more to say on this subject, and I think you'll find the growing list of LGBTP holidays quite amusing, so I'll go over that tonight. Your calls are welcome, of course. We do this every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern. Become a member https://SurrealPolitiks.com/join Get on the email list https://SurrealPolitiks.com/newsletter Other ways to watch/listen https://SurrealPolitiks.com/start Pay me https://GiveSendGo.com/spm https://SurrealPolitiks.com/donate Cash App $EdgyChris Bitcoin bc1qcg97hwdy8d463794wm0uq3np0px49acw6505gm

When a transgender mass murderer walked into a Christian school and began gunning down the young and the elderly, it did not take much imagination to discern that the maniac's political views could charitably be described as Left of center.The announcement that a manifesto had been left behind, and the conspicuous effort to keep its contents a secret, left no room for doubt. This was certainly a Biden voter going off script. Nearly 8 months later, someone appears to have gotten fed up with the secrecy, and three pages have been leaked to non other than Stephen Crowder, a once famous conservative media personality now best known for sending photographs of his genitalia to male staffers. The killer, born Audrey Hale, surprisingly enough, says nothing about religion in the pages thus far leaked. Nothing about "politics" from a party or policy perspective. Hale, who appears to be White, is instead exercising a racial animus against White people. The female killer, whose minds was this point warped by taking male sex hormones, aimed to deprive these "little crackers" with their "mop yellow hair" of their "white privilege" by gunning them down before they were even old enough to pick their gender. Then going by the name of Aiden, Hale walked into the school with an AR-15 with the hopes that she would "have a high death count" and fully expected to die. She took six lives before police granted her own death wish. Democrats, you might have guessed, alternated between pretending the shooting didn't occur or blaming the gun. There was no mention of "hate" or really any discussion of motive at all outside those darkest recesses of the Internet and briefly on the Tucker Carlson show. With the motive exposed, you might think the constant beat of war drums against White America would get a second look, but you would be wrong. The reaction was captured well by one Twitter account called DC Draino, who said, as if in parody; It shows how Leftist ideology radicalized a Trans shooter to murder Christian children This was political terrorism & the Biden regime tried to cover it up We will not be silent after these children were slaughtered That's amusing in the extreme... "We will not be silent". My friend, there are worse crimes than silence, you know. Sometimes, if you have nothing true to say, you should just say nothing at all. There is no mention of a religious animus in the manifesto thus far released. It might be a safe assumption, but this is not the news of the day. There is no mention of politics, and though this may too be a safe assumption, that the killer was not a participant in many Republican Primaries, the headline is, this killer was racially motivated to murder White children.

Given that the SurrealPolitiks audience is, comparative to their fellow citizens, so well informed and appropriately skeptical of the nonsense they are fed by less credible sources than we, it might be described as less than newsworthy for us to say that Ukraine blew up the Nordstream pipeline. What warrants mention here today, is that the Washington post has deemed this to be the case, and while we would hardly deem a thing confirmed just because the personal plaything of Jeff Bezos deigned to say it, we do consider it a newsworthy event for such a publication to utter a truth from time to time. The Washington Post made its bones, in some measure, under the Nixon administration. You may hear in your news consumption about a thing called "The Pentagon Papers" now and again, and if you had not heard the story referenced, you might say to yourself "I imagine the Pentagon has many papers, which documents do you here reference?" Back in those fairy tale times, it was considered the duty of people who called themselves journalists to challenge the powers that be, and when the paper, and their colleagues at the New York Times, came to possess documents which shed some negative light on the conflict in Vietnam, they stood defiant and fought the government through the courts. In the end, they were legally vindicated, but this was by no means the certain outcome of their gambit at the time. These days, you may have noticed, there is less appetite in the Press for this kind of challenge. If they do not like the President of a given cycle, they might go so far as to call for him to be executed, and they would then tout this as some sort of brave act worthy of approbation. Yet the media establishment does not seem to have the slightest curiosity about the National Security State or what has been known as the Military Industrial Complex. They have "sources" within these branches of the apparatus, and they dutifully report as fact whatever these anonymous "sources" wish for the public to believe in the course of a given day. For this reason, when the likes of Tucker Carlson called attention to the obviousness of the fact that Ukraine had blown up the Nordstream pipelines, with certain knowledge of the US government, the Post and others dutifully dismissed this, as they do all truth, as a "conspiracy theory". A "conspiracy theory" is newspeak for "truths which must not be spoken". To be sure, there are such a thing as "crackpot conspiracy theories" which may consist of frivolous dot connecting exercises of the sort a caged schizophrenic might engage in without the benefit of medication. There is also the subject of many a legal controversy, called conspiracy, wherein people do in fact conspire, and one must first form a theory of that conspiracy to prosecute or otherwise hold accountable the conspirators. Much of what are called conspiracy theories are of the latter sort, and the likes of the Washington Post makes them out to be the former, because they are themselves conspirators in the plots of our time. And so, when they spill the beans it is a newsworthy event. When Jeff Bezos goes "full Sammy the Bull" on his War Party partners, the discerning reader must question the motives. In case you haven't heard, the impetus of this diatribe is a a headline in the Post that reads "Ukrainian military officer coordinated Nord Stream pipeline attack". In it, Roman Chervinsky, described as a "decorated 48-year-old colonel who served in Ukraine’s special operations forces" and who has "deep ties to the country’s intelligence services" is said to have managed "logistics and support for a six-person team that rented a sailboat under false identities and used deep-sea diving equipment to place explosive charges on the gas pipelines". This follows five months after the Post reported, based on the Discord leaks of Air National Guard member Jack Teixeira, that the US had "intelligence of a Ukrainian plan to attack the Nord Stream project". It also comes nearly a full year after the Post described as "shoddy" Tucker Carlson's case that the US or Ukraine had anything to do with the bombing, repeatedly. We were all supposed to believe the completely ridiculous theory that the Russian government did this, to themselves, because they are after all Russians, and Russians are always doing crazy things that no sane person would do, according to the Biden administration and their loyal scribes at the Post. If you said otherwise, you were not just stupid, you were evil. A Siberian Candidate doing the bidding of Vladimir the Terrible. In attempting to discern the motives for this change of heart, arguably, all that has changed is that the story can no longer be ignored. The Ukrainian government has, after all, arrested the man. But the Post has also cited numerous anonymous sources within the Ukrainian government, to say, for example, that Chervinsky "did not act alone, and he did not plan the operation" instead that he "took orders from more senior Ukrainian officials, who ultimately reported to Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking military officer". The Post further claims that Zelensky was intentionally left out of the loop, and the revelation came as news to him. And so, the Post is not just dutifully reporting on things they can no longer keep secret. Their spies in the Ukrainian government are leaking to them, and likely have been leaking to them, all along. The Post likely has some motive for relaying this information to their readers, and it is obviously not because they feel any obligation to tell the truth. SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern

The United States Supreme Court, predictably, sided with the Biden administration today against Texas Governor Greg Abbot. Abbot had kicked Border Patrol out of Eagle Pass because they were being instructed to cut razor wire that Texas had put up to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol, to the shock of many, endorsed Abbot's decision. Turns out they do not like being the facilitators of an unlawful invasion of the country they are sworn to protect. But the Administration is less interested in protecting the country. They are a hostile entity embedded in the Nation's central nervous system like a brain parasite. Rather than protecting America, they are working tirelessly to destroy it, and the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 Decision that almost seemed designed to discredit the institution, insisted that federal control over immigration is a sacrosanct unquestionable absolute subject to no interpretation at all, regardless of the circumstances. At the time of this writing, Border Patrol has not retaken control of the area. There is a non-zero chance this will be the start of America's next civil war. If Border Patrol goes in to remove the wire, and Texas enforces the local rule in defiance of the Supreme Court, the shooting will have begun and people will be forced to begin taking sides. Undesirable though that may be, it may be preferable to the alternative. Choosing between civil war and foreign invasion, one is left with no good options. In either case, life as the society once knew it is over. One or more new societies replace the old. But in the case of civil war, the Nation remains. This is not so with invasion. In revolution and civil war, the people replace the government. With invasion, the government replaces the people. I'll have much more to say about this, and tomorrow's New Hampshire Primary, and Ron DeSantis dropping out of the race, and much more, plus your calls at 217-688-1433 when SurrealPolitiks airs live, as we do every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern, on Rumble, and on Odysee, and on the GetMeRadio App for smartphone, Roku, and FireTV.

I am proud to announce that your favorite Podcaster has just published his first of what are sure to be many books! Most of you will be familiar with the text of the work published. It is the transcript of the monologue I titled "Beauty Revisited". At a mere 26 pages, it is shorter than I had expected my first book to be, but if you are as I expect familiar, you can be certain its quality is not in question. The Kindle eBook is currently FREE until February 15th. After that promotion ends, it is $0.99 or you can read it free with your Kindle Unlimited subscription. You can pick up a paperback from Amazon for just $5.75, and I'll note that these make great gifts for prisoners, and loved ones outside the walls alike.If you would like a signed copy, you will have to purchase this directly from me. I cannot sign books before they are shipped from Amazon. These will be prominently featured at https://SurrealPolitiks.com/shop by the end of the day, but I will not be able to ship them right away because I do not actually possess any copies myself just yet. This will be for pre-order and I will ship your copy just as soon as I get them. Please note in advance that I have terrible handwriting, and it seems a pity to mark up such a beautiful book this way, but I'll do it if you wish. The announcement of this publication is less significant than the broader implications. I had looked into having a book published back in 2019, and as I spoke to various publishing outfits it appeared to me that this would be a fairly significant investment if I was not able to get a publisher to take on the expense themselves, which seemed the most likely scenario. Amazon makes this remarkably easy, with zero up front costs to me, and though I despise the company in many ways I feel foolish for not taking advantage sooner. With the ease and affordability of publishing this way, I do not have to be quite so concerned about the expected sales volume for what I publish. I had not wanted to make a significant investment and store books on a shelf if I had no certainty of how many would sell, and I wanted whatever I made that investment in to be nothing short of a masterpiece. Amazon prints to order, and delivers eBooks to Kindle readers quite easily. With this tool at my disposal, publishing collections of selected writings with a bit of fresh commentary is a very viable project. There is a folder on my computer titled "My Book Projects" and several works are in various stages of completion, with thousands of pages of text more or less ready to go. Among them, last night I blew the dust off something I am calling "Adventures In Libertarianism". This is a compilation of much of my old libertarian stuff, including never before seen emails from, among other things, my run 2010 run for the US House of Representatives. It vividly illustrates my ideological trajectory from Bill O'Reilly superfan, to radical constitutionist, to anarcho-capitalist, into the Alt Right movement. The final post shared (spoiler alert) in the compilation is a post titled "Why I Consider Myself Alt Right" which I published just prior to turning myself into Virginia authorities in August of 2017. There's still significant editing to do on this work. If I were to simply publish all of my publicly available blog posts until that time, in 12 point font on 6"x9" paper, the text would be over 3,200 pages, without added commentary. Apparently the page limit for a paperback published to Amazon is 828 pages. There exists no shortage of utter garbage in that compilation which I must prune substantially prior to publishing. I have many more pages of emails and drafts to add. And I do wish to add meaningful remarks as one traverses the timeline. I put several hours into this last night, and find myself motivated to invest more time in it in the days ahead. As another example, though would have to consider the implications, I have many old love letters as well. These make for very interesting reading. My blog posts from May 2012 to October of 2019 amount to 5,430 pages in 12 point font on 6"x9" paper. I've produced 1800 pages at 8.5"x 11" since my release from prison alone. This does not include podcast transcripts, which, as I noted on the New Year special episode of the uncensored production; Not including my other brands, just the Radical Agenda, I’ve produced no fewer than 648 episodes including this one. Assume that’s 2 hours an episode, we’re talking 1,296 hours of audio. I recently had all of those episodes transcribed by an AI application. Working with one sample transcript that came out to 29,242 words, let’s round down and say 29,000 words an episode, that’s 18,792,000 words. The average single-spaced book manuscript typed in the 12-point font has roughly 500 words per page. That’s 37,584 pages of text in my audio transcripts, just from the Radical Agenda. The average adult non-fiction book is somewhere between 250-400 pages, according to Penguin Book Writers. Going with the high side of that, we’re talking 94 books in ten years. Not bad… I've solicited assistance with this project a few times, to little avail. If, having seen me actually get a book on Amazon, you might care to assist me in sorting through some of this, I'd appreciate the help, but even without it you can expect to see much more from me in this fashion very soon. For the first year since I was released, I did almost nothing except work on these productions. This had the effect of burning me out if I am entirely honest with you.Since mid November, I have made a point to take some time for myself and try to work on life outside of the shows. That was much needed, and has been rewarding. I don't think I could have kept up at the pace I was keeping for most of 2023, and the last thing any of us want me to do is crash and burn. This prospect is very exciting to me though, and I have gotten some things out of the way I needed to deal with in the last few months. Expect to see much more of me on Amazon than my Wish List from now on. There's plenty more to get to, of course. I did not watch the Super Bowl last night. I still have not seen the ads. How about some live reacts? Somebody tried to shoot up Joel Osteen's Church. Politico says it's a woman. Fox News knows better. Formerly known as Jeffrey Escalante, the Hispanic transgender nutcase had "Free Palestine" written on his rifle. He is dead, which one expects was the goal all along. Trump says he'd tell Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to NATO countries who don't pay the bills, and people in the habit of failing to live up to their obligations are apparently outraged.

It's clearer than ever that what I've been saying about Ukraine is absolutely correct. We now have admission of this from none other than the New York Times, citing numerous named and unnamed sources in a lengthy piece title "The Spy War", which was summarized also by ZeroHedge. According to the New York Times, during the Obama administration, the CIA formed close intelligence ties with Ukraine. This was done under the auspices of espionage against the Russian Federation, following Nuland's 2014 coup against Viktor Yanukovych (Though we all know that they were behind the coup, so it actually started much sooner). Those ties grew much closer in 2016, under the auspices of preventing and disrupting Russian election interference, a myth no longer uttered by serious people. Prior to the outbreak of present hostilities, the CIA had built and equipped and trained staff for 12 top secret spy bases in Ukraine. It trained and equipped a Ukrainian intelligence team known as the "Fifth Directorate". Since the outbreak of current hostilities, two more bases have been built, and all of the rules allegedly limiting the partnership have been eliminated. Whereas once the CIA refused to do anything that could foreseeably result in fatalities, though that terminology was always inherently subject to a great deal of interpretation, under the Biden administration, the "gloves were off". Now the CIA is helping the Ukrainians kill Russians on a routine basis. The New York Times also notes that, after Trump's election, his presidency was subverted from within. They were "tip toeing around Trump" as they put it, trying to keep this operation a secret from him. But what is left out by the New York Times, and ZeroHedge, perhaps for lack of direct evidence, yet still an obvious inference, is that this was no less for the purpose of waging domestic political warfare in the United States. An intelligence agency can be expected to do no less when losing a war is the consequence. If the Ukrainian intelligence services are reliant upon foreign political support, and that support is threatened by a change in the political winds, then the survival of that country and that agency depend upon altering those political winds. The Obama administration, John Brennan, and the neocons all understand this quite well. Even if such agreements were never explicit, they were certainly implicit, and there is certainly no question about the corrupting influence this has had when we see how much money went to Hunter Biden. Now the Biden administration is risking a nuclear war with Russia, not to protect Ukrainian Democracy, but to prevent the lid being blown off of this entire thing and everybody involved going to prison.

With some merit, it has become something of a cliche to say that "change is hard". Of course, one could as easily say the opposite. For things to remain stable actually requires a great deal of effort. Chaos is the default setting, and in chaos, things change uncontrollably, often at an overwhelming pace.In the hysterical debates over "climate change" it is often said that the only thing constant about the climate is change. This being but one of the reasons people need to stop freaking out about the weather. But, to be fair to the cliche, it is more often applied to people trying to change themselves. It is often said that "people don't change" or "once a so and so always a so and so". I suspect there exists scant data to support this, but it may be and has been said that "the best predictor of future behavior is prior behavior" and this is about as close as we can get to an accurate axiom on the subject. People tend to do what they have done before. Our capacity to survive and to succeed is in no small part dependent on our ability to make reasonable predictions about the future, and so we have a certain inertia to repeat behaviors, since we know what the results are most likely to be. Then again, a still more notorious cliche is that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results". I checked the dictionary. This is fake. Moreover, it would indicate that the whole world had gone insane, and plausible though that theory may be to you, this is not how we tend to define insanity. What everyone does is by default considered sane, whatever the merits. Insane people are different from the rest of us, otherwise we would not pathologize their behavior. But perhaps the best explanation for the difficulty of changing oneself is their own perception that they are being inauthentic. No less frequently, the fear that they will be perceived as inauthentic by others. One can be forgiven a near infinite number of sins by both God and Man so long as they are honest. But a deceiver is not trusted. His repentance is unbelieved. Better perhaps an authentic sinner than to be perceived inauthentic with all the trappings of righteousness. If you have always dressed a certain way, and all of a sudden you adopt a certain new style, are you wearing a costume? There are those who would say yes.And as surely as one is what they eat, they are no less certainly what they do. So, if you change your behavior, are you someone else? Or more to the point, are you pretending to be someone else? As one who has changed his behavior, and his clothes, a few times, I understand this thought process quite well. I have much more to say on this. I have already written twice as much as you see here, and I have some audio clips that are VERY funny which we will have a good time with. Be sure and catch the live show, tonight and every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern time on Rumble, Odysee, or the GetMeRadio app for Smartphone, Roku, or FireTV.

I recently had occasion to consider a subject too often overlooked, which forms in no small part the foundation of all politics. It does so because it is at the heart of all human motivations. One might say, without it, there is no such thing as motivation. It is the question of value. While this is in some portion closely related to our talk from Episode 6, it ought not be mistaken for a purely economic phenomenon. Value is central to all human relationships, not the least of which are those we define as political. Value is often mistaken as money, or objects exchangeable for money. Services, as well. though too often too narrowly defined. I'll bring some examples of why so much thinking about value is flawed, and how we can better understand this concept to improve our political discourse and economics and personal relationships. SurrealPolitiks airs live every Monday at 9:30 pm US Eastern time. Join us https://SurrealPolitiks.com/start GiveSendGo https://GiveSendGo.com/spm Cash App $EdgyChris Bitcoin bc1qcg97hwdy8d463794wm0uq3np0px49acw6505gm Ethereum 0xa29441bF858c529E374960A34e16f21abc0970E8 Monero 46Li94X1o95GaKPxMdsqds3FPJmc2tTvQi3zSuLHbttWTMLbtV9jHGU86wxqvKyVBVRUGhY78uA1HJ5aQn53zc7uRinB96q