In light of the recent dark money-funded, manufactured protests we have seen pop up around the country—poorly attended and proffered as they were—a repugnant trend has metastasized within swathes of the American public, and the neo-Marxist far left stands exposed as the venomous architects behind it: the calculated normalization and perverse glorification of political violence, with Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and others as their prime targets.The attempted assassination of President Trump on July 13,...
In light of the recent dark money-funded, manufactured protests we have seen pop up around the country—poorly attended and proffered as they were—a repugnant trend has metastasized within swathes of the American public, and the neo-Marxist far left stands exposed as the venomous architects behind it: the calculated normalization and perverse glorification of political violence, with Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and others as their prime targets.
The attempted assassination of President Trump on July 13, 2024, wasn’t an anomaly—it was the opening salvo in what’s morphed into a meticulously engineered “assassination culture,” a term that barely scratches the surface of this ideological rot.
This isn’t a spontaneous eruption of discontent; it’s a structured, ideologically fueled offensive, orchestrated by the neo-Marxian American Fifth Column with a precision that demands both fury and dissection. It’s infiltrating digital networks and physical spaces, eroding political stability and public safety with a virulence that’s impossible to ignore. We’re not just witnessing chaos—we’re facing a deliberate assault that requires unrelenting scrutiny and a refusal to let these murder-advocating radicals slink away unchallenged.
The National Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) delivered a scathing indictment in a December 2024 report, wielding hard data to unmask the neo-Marxist far left’s role.
Drawing from a survey of 1,264 US residents—calibrated to Census demographics—and bolstered by open-source intelligence, the NCRI demonstrates how these neo-Jacobin ideologues are weaponizing social media narratives to sanctify murder. The numbers aren’t just alarming—they’re a call to arms against this insidious trend.
The assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was the neo-Marxist far left’s grotesque catalyst, laying bare their chilling tolerance for violence among their young, hyper-online acolytes. But their ambitions didn’t stop there—their sights have expanded to encompass political giants like Trump and Musk, revealing a broader, more sinister agenda.
The data cuts like a blade: 38% of respondents deem Trump’s murder at least somewhat justified, 31% extend that to Musk. Among the self-congratulatory left-of-center cohort—where Marxist sympathies fester—those figures surge to 55% and 48%, respectively. Nearly 40% even backed torching a Tesla dealership. These aren’t statistical blips; they’re evidence of a societal fracture engineered by the American Fifth Column’s relentless radicalism.
What fuels the rage here is the cold, systematic nature of this ideology. This isn’t a loose collection of unhinged outbursts—it’s a framework based in Marxist conquest, rigorously constructed to legitimize violence as a political instrument. The NCRI’s correlation analysis dismantles any pretense of spontaneity: support for murdering Trump, Musk, or Thompson clusters tightly with ideological and psychological markers, pointing to a coherent belief system rather than random malice.
At the core sits Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA), a neo-Marxist hallmark defined by moral absolutism, a vicious punitive streak against dissenters, and a readiness to impose their warped vision through force. The NCRI’s regression models show respondents with high LWA scores are disproportionately likely to endorse assassination and property destruction—statistical proof that this “assassination culture” is a deliberate neo-Marxist construct, not some organic uprising. These aren’t outliers; they’re the vanguard of a movement that cloaks its bloodlust in pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric.
The interconnectivity is stark. Survey respondents who justify Trump’s killing also tend to greenlight Musk’s murder and venerate Luigi Mangione—Thompson’s assassin—as a folk hero. Mangione’s name now adorns a perverse California ballot measure (“the Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act”), a grotesque monument to the murderous far left’s ability to spin a killer into a symbol. His “Deny, Defend, Depose” mantra, etched on a shell casing, isn’t just a slogan—it’s a statistical predictor of violent intent among those who see bloodshed as their righteous cudgel against perceived systemic evils.
This isn’t fringe—it’s the American Fifth Column clawing into the mainstream, with platforms like BlueSky as their accelerant. The NCRI’s multivariate regressions—controlling for age, gender, race, education, and party affiliation—pinpoint far-left identity, LWA, and BlueSky usage as the strongest drivers of support for assassinating Trump or Musk.
BlueSky’s ecosystem, where Mangione’s image is gamified and violent calls are veiled in irony, isn’t just permissive—it’s a radicalization engine. X amplifies this further, with viral threads racking up tens of millions of views, serving as both a gauge and a multiplier of the far left’s toxic influence on public attitudes toward Trump, Musk, and Tesla.
Reddit offers a parallel lens. Subreddits like r/FreeLuigi (37,000 members) and r/LuigiMangioneJustice (14,000 members) evade moderation to function as neo-Marxian incubators, where coded glorification of violence escalates into explicit threats against Trump, Musk, and government targets—often parroting Mangione’s rallying cry. These aren’t isolated echo chambers; they’re data-driven breeding grounds for real-world escalation, as the California ballot measure starkly illustrates.
Psychologically, the neo-Marxist far left exploits a potent variable: “external locus of control”—the belief that life’s outcomes hinge on outside forces. The NCRI’s analysis ties this to support for violence, with coefficients showing a clear link—when paired with economic volatility and institutional distrust, it’s a combustible mix.
These individuals, primed by neo-Jacobin narratives to see themselves as victims, view assassination and destruction as agency reclaimed—a hypothesis borne out by their disproportionate LWA scores. Platforms amplify this grievance, ideology rationalizes it, and psychological fragility weaponizes it.
The raw figures are a gut punch: 55.2% of left-leaning respondents, where neo-Marxist influence runs deep—see Trump’s murder as at least somewhat justified, with 13% fully endorsing it. For Musk, 48% agree, 9% unequivocally so. The July 2024 attempt on Trump’s life wasn’t a one-off—it was a data point in a trend line. The American Fifth Column’s growing comfort with targeting figures like Trump and Musk—embodiments of power and resistance—signals a deliberate unraveling of civic norms.
This assassination culture, birthed by the neo-Marxist far left—and fueled by rhetoric spewed forth by the likes of Jasmine Crockett, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rachel Madow, and the gorgons of The View—is a statistical and existential threat to American democracy and a direct threat to the well-being of our Republic. They’ve taken political violence—once a universal taboo—and recast it as a legitimate tactic, with data showing a clear ideological footprint. Their tolerance—hell, their advocacy—for bloodshed undermines the bedrock principle that disputes are settled through discourse, not death.
Trump and Musk aren’t random targets; they’re lightning rods for neo-Marxian manufactured resentment—symbols of wealth, influence, and defiance. The California ballot measure is a quantifiable spillover, and with 40% shrugging at Tesla dealership arson, the gap between intent and action is shrinking fast.
The NCRI’s predictive models warn that without a forceful counter, this Marxism-driven trend will escalate—probability estimates rise with each unchecked data point. In an era of economic instability and eroding trust, the conditions are primed for their digital radicalism to ignite physical chaos and death.
This demands more than outrage—it demands analysis and definitive action. The American Fifth Column’s assassination culture, with Trump and Musk as its focal points, is a structured, data-backed menace—fueled by ideology, amplified by far-left social media platforms, and rooted in psychological vulnerabilities. It’s not a fleeting anomaly; it’s a growing threat that could fracture our Republic if we don’t dismantle it now.
The time to confront it is now, before the rhetoric of justification becomes the reality of bloodshed. The numbers don’t lie, and neither should our resolve. We must crush this evil before it’s too late.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Forcing the White House to Play Press Equalizer
In a ruling that can only be described as a grotesque example of judicial overreach marinated in constitutional illiteracy, a federal court has decided that the White House must grant the Associated Press (AP) perpetual access to its press briefings, citing the First Amendment’s hallowed “freedom of the press” provision. This decision—indicative of today’s climate of entitlement masquerading as rights—twists the Founding Fathers’ words into a pretzel of modern progressive dogma.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom, not favoritism; it protects the press from government censorship, not from the government’s discretion to choose its interlocutors. To argue otherwise, as this court apparently has, is to invent an obligation where none exists, and we must dissect this travesty with the scalpel of reason.
Let’s start with the text itself, because apparently, the court couldn’t be bothered to read it with any precision. The First Amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That’s it. No footnotes, no hidden clauses, no secret handshake promising every outlet a front-row seat at the White House podium. Freedom of the press means the government cannot silence journalists, jail them for their words, or shutter their printing presses—historical abuses the Founders knew well from British tyranny. It does not mean the government must fling open its doors, roll out a red carpet, and hand every self-proclaimed reporter a microphone and a chair. Yet here we are, with a court apparently convinced that “freedom” translates to “mandatory inclusion,” as if the Constitution were a participation trophy for the media class.
The White House press pool has always been a curated affair, and for good reason. The Executive Branch, like any entity, gets to decide who it engages with directly. If the president wants to talk to FOX News one day and CNN the next—or, heaven forbid, snub the AP because it’s been a thorn in his side—that’s his prerogative. The press isn’t entitled to equal airtime in the briefing room any more than I’m entitled to a private dinner with the president to air my grievances.
Freedom of the press protects the AP’s right to publish whatever it wants about the administration—criticism, praise, or conspiracy theories aplenty—but it doesn’t mandate that the White House play nice or play fair. The court’s ruling, however, seems to conflate a constitutional shield with a battering ram, forcing the government to cater to the press’s every whim.
This isn’t just a misreading; it’s a deliberate distortion.
The First Amendment’s history screams restraint on government power, not expansion of media privilege. When the Founders enshrined press freedom, they were thinking of pamphleteers like Thomas Paine, not sprawling corporate behemoths like the AP demanding VIP access. If the AP wants to report on the White House, it’s got the internet, public statements, leaks from disgruntled staffers—plenty of avenues that don’t require a judicial edict shoving it into the briefing room. To claim exclusion violates the First Amendment is to pretend the amendment’s purpose is to level the playing field, when it’s really about keeping the government’s hands off the field entirely.
And let’s talk precedent, because this ruling—if it stands—opens a Pandora’s box of absurdity.
If the AP gets a court-ordered seat, what’s next? Does every outlet, from The New York Times to some guy with a blog and a webcam, get to sue for access? The White House briefing room isn’t infinite; it’s not a magical TARDIS that expands to accommodate every journalist with a byline. The administration has to draw lines somewhere, and courts have historically deferred to that discretion.
Look at Sherrill v. Knight (1978)—a reporter denied a press pass didn’t win a constitutional jackpot because the Secret Service had security concerns. The DC Circuit said the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee “unrestrained access”; it requires only that denials not be arbitrary or viewpoint-based. If the White House has a rational basis—say, the AP’s track record of hostile coverage—it’s within its rights to say, “Not today.” But this court, in its infinite wisdom, seems to think “freedom” means “everyone gets a turn,” turning a constitutional principle into a kindergarten rule.
The aggravated irony here is that the press itself should recoil at this decision. A free press thrives on independence, not on court-ordered handouts. If the AP needs a judge to prop it up, what does that say about its clout or the public’s trust in its reporting? The First Amendment isn’t a crutch for media outlets too lazy or unpopular to fend for themselves.
And what happens when the pendulum swings? Imagine a future administration using this precedent to force inclusion of fringe outlets—say, a state-backed Pravda-like propaganda machine—under the same “equal access” logic. The court’s ruling doesn’t just overreach; it sets a trap for the very freedom it claims to protect.
Critics might argue that excluding the AP stifles public discourse, that a major outlet’s absence leaves us all in the dark. But thinking people know that is a nonsensical point. The AP isn’t the sole arbiter of truth; it’s one voice in a cacophony of media options. If the White House freezes it out, it can still investigate, publish, and scream from the rooftops—all rights the First Amendment fiercely guards. The public won’t wither without the AP’s briefing-room soundbites. What’s really at stake here is ego, not freedom of the press—the ego of a press corps that thinks it’s owed a seat at the table rather than earning it through grit and ingenuity.
In short, this court has butchered the First Amendment, turning a bulwark of liberty into a whining demand for equality of outcome. Freedom of the press is a right to speak, not a right to be heard by the government on your terms. The White House isn’t a public utility obligated to serve every journalist equally; it’s a branch of government with its own voice and choices.
If the AP doesn’t like being sidelined, it can do what the Founders intended: sharpen its quill, fire up its presses, and fight back the old-fashioned way. Anything less is a betrayal of the very freedom this ruling pretends to uphold.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
