6 Reasons Why A New Civil War Is Possible And Terrifying – It means the End of Liberalism and piles of dead bodies in Every City

Over the last few weeks a growing number of people have started wondering, “Is it possible the United States is heading for a new civil war?” Granted, most of those people are writers for sites like Russia Today or the Huffington Post, and thus slightly less credible than a handful of Bazooka Joe gum wrapper comics. But Donald Trump has made a few tinpot dictator-ish statements recently.

From http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2403-6-reasons-why-new-civil-war-possible-terrifying.html

And we did just see an anti-government militia get off scot-free for occupying a federal building and pooping just, everywhere. And we are seeing shit like this in our pre-election headlines:

Every time I wanted to dismiss those headlines I thought about my visit to Ukraine last year, to cover their ongoing civil war. The most common sentence I heard was, “It’s like a bad dream.” Up to the minute the shooting started, almost no one thought civil war was a serious possibility.

So instead of waking up one day and screaming, “Holy shit, I can’t believe I didn’t take this possibility seriously,” I decided to take the possibility seriously. I talked to David Kilcullen, former Chief Strategist in the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator of Counterterrorism. He helped plan the successful “surge” in Iraq, and he’s seen a lot of civil wars in his time. He didn’t consider a new U.S. civil war likely … but he was also pretty damn far from ruling it out: “I think what we’re seeing now is, what I would describe as a proto-insurgency situation … the ingredients are out there, if somebody knew what they were doing, [they could] pull together an effective movement.”

So in the unlikely (but possible) event the U.S. broke out in a new civil war, what would it look like? I rounded up every civilian and military expert I could find and asked them that question. To my surprise, they all got back to me, and with the terrifying thought of me now definitely being on a U.S. terrorist watch list for doing this research, I learned …

6 The Beginning Looks A Lot Like Where We Are Right Now

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Since 1972, the General Social Survey has collected data on how many Americans think “most people can be trusted.” A guy named Josh Morgan graphed it, and while the south has always taken a more “we don’t like your kind ’round here” position, most of America started the 70s in a pretty good place:

Josh Morgan

Now fast-forward to 2012:

Josh Morgan

“Trust” isn’t just an intangible concept when we’re talking about the potential for civil warfare. Sinisa Malesevic is a professor who studies the sociology of civil wars and a survivor of the Yugoslavian civil war. He’s someone Marvel really should’ve reached out to for script advice, and he noted the breakdown of trust was one of the first traumatizing steps to war, “… in a very short period of time, there is a complete sense of fear, you do not know who is who, who is supporting which side … that fear spreads.”

Sinisa also pointed out that most civil wars start after a loss of trust in the government, particularly law enforcement: “One of the defining features of any state is a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence.” In other words, if we trust the police to handle bad guys better than armed groups of vigilantes, we’ll probably trust the government more than armed groups of insurgents.

“And if police are not seen as doing their job … I think that certainly has an impact.”

Colonel David Couvillon, a Marine Reserve officer who governed the Wasit province of Iraq after the start of the occupation, pointed out that insurgents can win without convincing anyone that they’re “right.” It’d be enough to push most Americans into the “both sides are evil” camp, which … isn’t an unfamiliar place for most of us to be:

“If you undermine the moral authority that the government or the military or the police forces have, you win. Then they become the enemy to everybody … it may not goad you into armed insurgency, but it will goad you into a certain acceptance. And once the guerrillas reach acceptance, they have a path to win.”

And so a big part of any hypothetical U.S. rebellion’s job, undermining public confidence in the police, has already been accomplished by the deadly alliance of “our police acting the way they’ve always acted” and “smartphones.” This isn’t just happening on the left wing, either. David Kilcullen is worried that the FBI is nearing a legitimacy crisis among American conservatives: “That’s why I think the politicization of the FBI via the Hillary emails … is very dangerous. People now start to see the FBI as a political secret police … there’s always been a belief that this is the case but that hasn’t been [widespread].”

This is important because it’s the FBI’s job to deal with domestic terrorism, including all those right-wing militias, and they can only do their job if people on the extreme right trust them … which now that I think about it, sounds like one of the really crappy episodes of Heroes back when it first started to dip into “this sucks” territory. Daryl Johnson, a former Homeland Security analyst who specialized in the militia movement, pointed out that “militia members turning on other militia members” is how the FBI gets a ton of its information. After the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Bureau started “setting up communications channels” with members of the militia movement “to try and defuse some of the paranoia.” But, he added, “Definitely since Ferguson there’s been an erosion of public trust in law enforcement in both the far right and far left.” And as for the public’s trust in the American government well, this Pew graph says more than I could without just making fart noises with my mouth.

Pew Research Center

So, how’s our hypothetical civil war likely to kick off?

5 The Violence Could Start With Farms Choking The Cities

Alex Wong/Getty Images

David Kilcullen was bullish on Deliverance country as the site for the start of our hypothetical Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo, “… Southern Appalachia.”

He noted that he wasn’t yet seeing “the organization out there” that might portend a bubba-dominated insurgent movement, but also noted that, “… it’s like a gathering series of storm clouds and it’s yet to get to a lighting strike”.

Colonel Couvillon also thought any conflict was likely to start in a rural area, “…people talk about, is it gonna be class warfare, race warfare … is it gonna be north versus south? Personally, I think it’s gonna be urban versus rural.”

It’s easy to imagine the basic scenario. Some Cliven Bundy-like stand-off on a ranch or in a small town sets up our Hollywood-loving brains for a Swayze-led shootout between folksy ranchers and imperial fucking stormtroopers:

Stephen Brashear/Getty Images

Ammon Bundy and the other militia who occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge were acquitted by a jury of their peers. That should give you an idea of how much support the American militia movement has in certain parts of the country. Daryl Johnson, our former Homeland Security analyst, worried that many rural police departments would be unable to effectively suppress their militia because, “… a lot of these rural police departments are outmanned and outgunned by the militia … you have a small department, in some areas there may be twice as many or three times as many militia members.”

During our talk David Kilcullen brought up something called the boomerang effect, where “… colonial powers go overseas, and apply techniques to suppressing colonial foreign subjects which then again come to their homeland.” In other words, “… techniques pioneered in Iraq and Afghanistan … being brought to the United States.” He’s talking about things like roadside bombs. David was particularly worried about a substance called Tannerite, which is totally legal to purchase and is basically ((((((Michael Bay)))))) boner fuel: “I am astounded that you can buy tannerite online … what tannerite is, is ammonium nitrate plus powdered aluminum. World War 2 bombs were filled with stuff that is essentially the same thing.”

How To Hunt
It’s as much fun as it looks. It’s also as deadly as it looks so … scratch?

And a wide enough roadside bombing campaign could literally starve many American cities. 90% of food in the U.S. is transported by truck. Colonel Couvillon called our highway system a “key vulnerability” in any hypothetical civil war. And added, “Our way of life right here is about nine meals from anarchy.”

The United States military is forbidden from directly engaging in law enforcement within the boundaries of the United States. It’s a rule called posse comitatus. Colonel Couvillon explained that, for officers at least, “… it’s ingrained … you’re not the brownshirts, you’re not the Gestapo, you’re not the kempe thai, or any of the other strong-armed people … [in] the military, um, the posse comitatus rules are golden. They adhere to those consistently.”

But if mass starvation was on the table (er … off the table? I think I just created a paradoxical metaphor), you can bet the military would get called out to help fight the insurgency. Colonel Couvillon seemed to view that as a nightmare proposition, “If you remember the riots in LA in the middle nineties … when they called the marines up from Camp Pendeleton, that was traumatic. That shook the military all over the place …” Deploying American soldiers to fight American insurgents would be several Old Yellers of magnitude more traumatizing, “… say you move a combat unit from, ah … Fort AP Hill … into New York, and 10% of your army guys are from New York. And all of a sudden they’re facing possible relatives … do they turn more aggressive or less aggressive, what happens?”

This doesn’t even cover the possibility of some members being people you may have actually served with. (More on that in a bit)

Nobody really knows. But he was willing to admit that a U.S. military crackdown on any kind of insurgency could get really ugly. Like Gary Busey’s teeth levels of ugly.

“There’s always restraint there to start with. And then the insurgency or the protests can incite the forces … and if you have superior weapons and start to bear down on [them], then it becomes an atrocity …”

And, if that happens, it’d be playing right into the insurgent’s hands.

4 The Revolution Will Plagiarize ISIS’s Tactics


Since David Kilcullen’s actually helped fight a couple of civil wars, I asked him to which strategies he thought we’d be most likely to see in our hypothetical civil war. He seemed most concerned with a new jihadi strategy, outlined in The Management of Savagery, a book that was basically the blueprint ISIS used to build their McMansion of Suffering.

None of those strategies included learning cover design.

“You don’t try to generate a mass movement … you don’t try to get the state to crack down on you, instead you try to generate a sectarian civil war so intense it makes the society ungovernable … and then you bring forth a sort of rules based system to give people predictability.”

The outbreak of that civil war wouldn’t look all that different from the normal news cycle, at first. David noted that it might start with a series of politically-motivated mass shootings and bombings, carried out with the express intent of generating copycat attacks. It’s not as crazy as it sounds; ISIS didn’t spend a dime to make the Orlando attack happen, they just had to convince the right guy with a gun. All these attacks are carried out with, “the conscious goal of … generating a backlash … I think it’s just a matter of time. There’s nothing about those ISIS propaganda techniques that’s inherently Islamic. It’s just a technique.”

And the most vocal militiamen out there aren’t shy in pointing out that they’re already looking to successful Islamic insurgent movements for inspiration. Check out this website by a militia who apparently think web design peaked in 1999.

They cite the fighting in the war on terror as a reason why a band of bearded, oxycontin-popping hillfolk might overthrow the U.S. government:

When your best-case scenario is, “Be like the Taliban” it might be time to rethink your value system.

But a few scattered bands of armed nuts won’t make a civil war. As David explained, “In insurgency theory, we typically break down an insurgency into three groups, the actual guerilla fighters,” and “what we call the auxiliary … who run the functional support networks,” these are the illicit veterinarians who pull bullets out of our hypothetical insurgents, the civilians who help feed and hide them, “… and then the underground … engages in propaganda, assassinations, robs banks and drives the movement forward …”

The guerillas have the sexiest job, but they’re nothing but armed men posing for Facebook photos without the support of a network. David explained that, for every dozen armed guys you need, “… maybe a hundred guys in the auxiliary … and a thousand guys in the underground movement … now you’re talking about an insurgency.”

And it turns out vicious insurgencies are a little bit like potato chips: you’re never going to have just one …

3 There Will Be Hundreds of Sides

George Frey/Getty Images

Our last Civil War involved two sides who came pre-packaged with a convenient ideological cheat-sheet (Union: less slavery, Confederacy, more slavery). David Kilcullen doesn’t expect a modern Civil War would be nearly that simple, “One of the lessons we found in Iraq … is it’s actually a lot harder to fight a disunited and fragmented insurgency, than to fight a united one … at one point when I was in Iraq I counted 170 groups that were fighting us.” Yeah, it turns out all those “Join or Die” flags were lying to us. Uncle Sam is real good at throttling enemies. He’s less skilled at Whack-A-Mole.

David felt that any potential U.S. civil war would involve more than two sides. He explained that it doesn’t matter if most of those sides are in conflict with most of the others; the more groups there are, the better their odds of success. And the rise of one credible insurgent group would make other rebellion-inclined individuals, even those on the opposite end of the political spectrum, more likely to whip out their big ol’ hogs and join the group helicoptering.

“If you look at the Black Lives Matter movement, there’s actually some parallels to what’s happening in that group and what’s happening at the fringe of the survivalist movement…” David pointed out that, if Trump were elected, “it’s possible” that left-wing groups might ignite the violence, “I think it’s a broader phenomenon than just white supremacists, and just preppers.” For an idea of how “broad” it could get, just look at the Baton Rouge shooter, Gavin Long, who shot six cops, killing three of them. He was affiliated with a black separatist group that also held some beliefs in common with Sovereign Citizens, a belief system most common among white, right-wing anti-government nuts. Any American civil war would generate a list of groups at least as long and confusing as the Syrian civil war:

Jeffrey Bolling/Institute for the Study of War
Note that these are just the rebel groups fighting in a single city.

Bill Fulton, an expert on the American militia movement and informant for the FBI, has far more than 170 groups on his list of “armed, violent organizations that might take a shot at the Federal Government”. That’s out of an estimated 1,360 “radical militias and anti-government groups” in the United States in 2012 (note that there were just 149 four years before)

“You have a lot of different people who believe the world should be different ways and once the gloves come up like they did in Iraq then all of those rise to the surface…I think depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, we could end up with three or four hundred solid, different groups under probably twenty or so ideological banners.”

His insurgency candidates include criminal gangs like MS-13 (more on that later!), black nationalist groups, white nationalists, sovereign citizens and generally any armed, organized group with some kind of history to it. He picked the groups he picked because they aren’t flash-in-the-pan organizations, “That have enough background, in what their belief system is to carry them through that type of insurgency type activity. So if I’m a group of guys and we sit around and we hate the government, but we have no real passion for it and there’s not a lot of background for us…we might go up and blow up a federal building, but we’re not going to continue that on for years.”

Neither of the Davids we spoke to were actually all that worried about Trump himself: can you imagine this guy directing strikes from a cave in the Adirondacks?

Brian Blanco/Getty Images
He’d last about three days once the military blockade cut off his supply of tanning oil.

David Kilcullen pointed out, “Most successful insurgencies are led by members of the radicalized elite…it’s usually small town doctors and lawyers and local politicians and police chiefs…it’s those guys…a good example would be Fidel Castro…he was an upper middle class lawyer…Mao was a school teacher…that’s actually pretty common.”

And Hitler was an army veteran. That brings me to the next thing we can (unfortunately) look forward to…

2 Decades of Military Spending Will Bite Us In The Ass

Federal Bureau of Investigation

“We now have a generation, maybe up to two million people, who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan”, David Kilcullen pointed out. Most of those folks are cooks or mechanics, or in the Coast Guard, and don’t know much more about fighting a war than the average Call Of Duty player. But then there are Special Forces guys like these:

US Special Forces

…who look like they could overthrow a small island republic on their lunch break. What happens if one of those dudes winds up caring an awful lot about, say, White Nationalism?

This fear is a big part of why David mentioned The Management of Savagery as a likely civil war blueprint: jihadi tactics would be immediately familiar to the disaffected veterans he expects to find training our hypothetical insurgency. It’s another example of the boomerang effect.

He brought up the shooting in Baton Rouge, Louisiana of three police officers by a former marine who stalked his victims before killing them:

Fox News

David pointed out that the shooter had been a data specialist and, “…the military doesn’t train those guys in these techniques … someone like me, took that guy and trained him.”

When David says “someone like me”, he isn’t trying to sound like a badass, for most of the last few decades his job has been teaching militaries across the world how to military better. He’s not just some dude gawking at a YouTube video and spitting out theories.

And Bill pointed out that, even without direct training, anyone with Internet access can pull up the full text of the Marine Corps Counter-Insurgency manual just as easily as the Army’s guidelines for digging a proper poop hole. But in my lurking on militia sites, I did occasionally run into information that looked like it had its basis in something other than a manual. Take this guide to evading drones published by the Oathkeepers, an anti-government group made up of former military and police veterans.

I had a former drone operator review the video. He said their “thermal evasion suit” was based on a “decent premise”, although he said it would only work well if the shooter was stationary. It’s impossible to know if the info in this video came from someone with direct (albeit outdated) drone experience. In his time among America’s many militias, Bill said, “…I’ve probably ran into direct training” of groups by military veterans, “…five or six times, in five different states. It’s incredibly prevalent.”

Col. Couvillon, a retired Marine, pointed out that this basic pattern is already in use by criminal organizations in the United States, “Inner-city gangs have sent people into join the military, go get combat experience, go get combat training, go get logistical training, and then they go back home and incorporate those methods in their gangs…” In 2011, the FBI noted that at least 53 different gangs had placed members in every branch of the U.S. military:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

And in the early stages of civil unrest, these groups typically find themselves recruiting every violent criminal and combat veteran they can find. These men aren’t just there to be fighters, they’re there to help train other people in the finer points of violence. Stathis Kalvyas, a professor at Yale and expert on civil wars, pointed out that revolutionary political groups often find themselves heavy on college graduates and light on “specialists in violence…”, so they recruit “criminal types” as well as veterans who know how to operate “the kind of command and control systems that are necessary to carry out a war”.

David Kilcullen, our counterinsurgency expert, agreed that young insurgent movements often bring in a lot of “street thugs” and other experienced violence-doers to “raise the temperature and get everybody used to it [violence].” Think of it as giving the Anonymous-mask-wearing masses a crash course in Bringing the Pain 101 and Fuckin’ Shit Up 203.

So the longer the fighting goes on, the more insurgent groups we see crop up and the better all the fighters get at fighting. Like the war in Syria, our hypothetical civil war is only going to get bloodier the longer it goes on, in fact…

1 The Internet Will Make It Even Bloodier


David Kilcullen literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency. And in that book he makes the point that media attention is like air to an insurgent movement. That’s why, when ISIS first started expanding, they made publishing this documentary a priority :


They also started rolling out issue after issue of their slick, glossy magazine, Dabiq, and built up a sizeable network across Twitter and other social media sites. This all translated into roughly 30,000 foreign recruits: an army of fighters who appeared because ISIS made their cause look freaking badass. Their social media game has also helped to inspire attacks, including the shooting in Orlando, at no cost to them.

Colonel Couvillon explained that on a tactical level, the existence of the Internet gave any insurgent group an incredible advantage. “…The lack of effective real time communication” was one of the hallmarks of old school guerilla groups, but “today’s social media” would make coordinating a guerrilla movement “much easier”.

Presenting the only people who welcome group DMs.

Social media will also make demonizing the other side (or sides) much easier. Internet access alone has been found to increase partisan hostility. And the kind of bickering people do on the Internet tends to cause a feedback loop, which makes them even angrier. We’ve already seen how easy social media makes it to demonize women writing fucking video games, let alone a volatile issue like politics. And Colonel Couvillon noted that, in war, “…motivation comes from patriotism or vilifying, demonizing the enemy. The Japs with monkey faces ….Charlie the Cong, ragheads, Krauts, nips, gooks…” When I asked if he thought it’d be possible to make Americans vilify other Americans in that way, he brought up the rivalries between high school football teams and said , “C’mon, it ain’t hard.”

And it’s also possible that the sharing of pictures and videos of wartime carnage might “brutalize” some of us. Over the last few years ISIS’s infamous beheading videos have inspired their followers to decapitate, or attempt to decapitate, infidels all over the world. But then beheading turned into the psychopath equivalent of a meme (also a meme?). CNN documented how it went viral worldwide among non-jihadists …

The professor CNN interviewed, Arie Kruglanski, suggested that this might be evidence of the “brutalization effect”. That term’s traditionally used to refer to the well-documented phenomenon of the death penalty inspiring more violence in states that use it. But the last few years of social media makes it look like that same basic principle holds true with snapchats of atrocities. And we’ve got more than enough documentation of mass shootings to know that they work like a “contagion”, inspiring copycat attacks usually within two weeks.

During his time in Iraq, one of David Kilcullen’s jobs was to “debrief” captured insurgent fighters. He told me he’d find himself asking questions like, “How did you get to a point where you were cutting off kids heads?” And they’d always respond with something like, “I have no idea, it was like a form of collective madness that just overtook us all…” David didn’t think that was all ass-covering, “…people will look back on their own behavior during the height of a civil war, and almost not recognize themselves, or recognize their behavior…and it turns out that’s not accidental, there’s an art to generating that.”

I sincerely apologize for the nightmares all of this information is going to give you for the next month. On the upside, today is National Deep Fried Clams Day! That’s … that’s enough to distract the terrified screaming in your brain, right? RIGHT?!

((((((Robert Evans)))))) wrote a book, A Brief History of Vice, that’s much more lighthearted than this article has been.

Separation by Civil War is the ONLY outcome

Every day we move closer and closer to civil war and this is simply one symptom of the disease. Painful but not as painful as defeat or as painful as the war will be. Because there cannot be peace without compromise and I am so sick of compromise and so is the other side. It is a old fashioned as White countries with only White people in them, as old fashioned as women only working because they needed to, as old fashioned as top hats.

Every day we move closer.

Both sides are hardening their stance and unwilling to compromise further. One side is using corporate America to usher in racial Bolshevism through cultural Marxism, the other side is buying up every gun, bullet and piece of body armor in preparation for what can only be a race War. Either way its gonna be big, and only one will prevail, exterminating the other. Battened down the hatches, tie down everything, and lock an load, we are in for world changing events.

Articles from https://anepigone.blogspot.com/, Read through them, look at the data, then take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

Camp of the Squatemalans

Most of the 2012 invaders were “unaccompanied minors”. Most female invaders, including children, coming through Mexico are sexually assaulted along the way. Many of the adults with the children aren’t the real parents of the children. Incarceration requires family separation. Concern for Tommy Robinson’s children? For the carcasses of raped and mutilated Afrikaner toddlers?

No novel observations there. Using the opposition’s principles against it is standard operating procedure, literally right out of the ((((((Alinsky)))))) playbook. In a generation or two, if we’re still around, we’ll be whispering to each other how we should’ve shot the invaders on sight just as our European brethren will be whispering to each other how the migrant vessels should’ve been sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean.

President Trump–or as I suspect in this case, ((((((Stephen Miller)))))) (heaven preserve him)–is a formidable tactician himself. When news of the executive order reuniting families broke, I assumed another hard cucking. Instead, Trump boxed the anti-whites in. The EO doesn’t instruct the resurrection of catch-and-release. It allows the children to accompany their scofflaw putative parents in detention centers, nice detention centers run by HHS.

The anti-whites are pissed because the EO provides Trump with great optics without relenting on the actual “zero tolerance” (I know, I know, but it’s not nothing). It’s obvious the anti-whites don’t give a damn about the child-invaders. They want the borders wide open, but even they can’t quite say that yet, so they went the family-separation route assuming the results would be the same. Nope. They were outplayed on the invasion front by the Trump administration again.
On the topic of invasion, the American Bar Association is a festering den of thieves and robbers. From the ABA’s head harpy and “social activist“:
“appears to violate longstanding precedent protecting rights to family integrity”–ie, this has no constitutional basis, but black robes have through the magic of case law allowed us to call it illegal because we’re allowed to do that with anything and everything we want to do it with.

Still on the topic, here’s a man made of the stuff the West needs to survive:

Dispense with the “undocumented migrants” phraseology. Kobach doesn’t even use the cucky “illegal immigrants”. He uses the based and legally descriptive term “illegal aliens” instead.

Fellow Kansans–and readers who know Kansans–are urged to support this great man in the GOP gubernatorial primary on August 7th. Here’s his twatter cover photo:

A pretty wife who stayed pretty after bringing five lovely children into the world. And is that a retriever on the left? Looks like we know Kobach is good on the pit bull question, too.

Compare Kobach’s photo to Paul Ryan’s:

All the rafter ties in the world aren’t enough to visit justice on these miscreants determined to destroy ourselves and our posterity.

To preserve and protect White European heritage

Mom and baby have spent a lot of time sleeping in this hospital cell over the last couple of days so dad has correspondingly had a lot time to scroll through Reuters-Ipsos polling looking for interesting queries. The interactive site doesn’t organize polls chronologically but instead puts them into categories and sub-categories of which there are around 100. As a consequence, many slip past me unnoticed when they’re first released.

The following is based on one such poll from last year. Searching the archives to make sure I hadn’t previously covered it reveals that an anonymous commenter did point to it a couple months ago but I failed to take notice then. Better late than never.

Unless you’d like the blog to lay off the 2% already, that is. The subsequent graph shows the percentages of R-I respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who agreed with the assertion that “America must protect and preserve its White European heritage” (N = 4,024; the response “neither agree nor disagree”, comprising 29% of all responses, is excluded):

There were only 104 Jews included in the survey, so there’s a lifeline if you’re looking for one. Given that Hispanics, Asians, and even blacks appear to express less hostility towards European heritage than Jews do, you probably are!

The distance between white Democrats and white independents on the one hand and the closeness of white independents and white Republicans on the other is a white pill of sorts. Anti-white sentiment among whites isn’t a natural predisposition, it’s an ideological one. When it comes to explicit hostility towards Heritage America, there is the non-left and then there is the left.

A civilization that fails to protect and preserve the legacy of its ancestors will fail to protect and preserve the future for its descendants.

Nearly three times as many Californians would move to Canada as would move to flyover America

SurveyUSA is one of my favorite polling organizations because of the unique questions it poses. A few weeks ago a representative survey of 1,100 Californians statewide was commissioned. Respondents were presented with a hypothetical–if they could retain their current job and salary, would they be willing to move to selected other places if it meant their cost of living would be cut in half? The results:

– 12% would move to Nebraska
– 12% would move to Indiana
– 18% would move to Mississippi
– 31% would move to Canada
– 36% would move to Nevada
– 43% would move to Oregon

Parenthetically, the respondents were asked about each place separately, not which one of the six they’d prefer. One-in-five respondents pretty consistently said they were unsure. A plurality said they’d move to Oregon.

The blue bedfellow state is the most popular destination, followed by the blueish-purple Nevada, then Canada, and then finally the red states.

Canada ahead of Mississippi, Nebraska, and Indiana? Even with the residency requirements to contend with? It doesn’t get much more middle American than Nebraska or Indiana. The weather obviously isn’t driving these responses–it’s the politics and the culture. Why are California and Indiana under the jurisdiction of the same national government, again?

Time for the political dissolution of these disunited states. Californians have more affinity for Canadians than they do for Hoosiers–and the feelings are probably mutual.

But won’t there be war between the states/regions if they separate?

Highly unlikely. Far more probable is that tomorrow the relationship between the country of California and the country of the American Midlands will be comparable to that of the US and Canada today. And tomorrow California may have a modestly better relationship with Canada than the US does today while Indiana may have a modestly worse one. Big deal.

Parenthetically, the new invaders Americans who have colonized California aren’t going anywhere. The survey asked respondents to pick from seven statements the one best describing themselves, ranging from “I am in the process of relocating to another state” on the emigration end of the spectrum to “I will never, ever leave California” on the staying put side of things.

Percentages of respondents, by race, why said they were “never, ever” leaving:

California Dreaming is a thing new Americans do and Old Stock Americans don’t. The golden state is gone.

White births as a percentage of total births by state (2017)

The preliminary birth figures for 2017 are in. The following graph and table show the percentages of births by state that were to non-Hispanic white babies:

State Wht%
1) Vermont 90.8
2) West Virginia 90.7
3) Maine 89.1
4) New Hampshire 86.8
5) Kentucky 80.9
6) Montana 79.4
7) Wyoming 78.6
8) Iowa 78.1
9) Idaho 77.3
10) Utah 75.1
11) North Dakota 73.9
12) Missouri 73.6
13) Indiana 73.6
14) Ohio 72.2
15) Wisconsin 71.3
16) South Dakota 71.0
17) Kansas 70.1
18) Nebraska 69.1
19) Minnesota 68.6
20) Michigan 67.7
21) Pennsylvania 67.0
22) Oregon 67.0
23) Tennessee 66.3
24) Arkansas 64.2
25) Alabama 58.3
26) Colorado 58.3
27) Washington 57.9
28) Oklahoma 57.7
29) Rhode Island 57.6
30) Massachusetts 57.2
31) South Carolina 56.6
32) Virginia 55.4
33) North Carolina 53.5
34) Connecticut 53.5
35) Illinois 52.8
United States 51.7
36) Louisiana 51.7
37) Alaska 50.4
38) Mississippi 49.8
39) Delaware 48.9
40) New York 48.9
41) New Jersey 45.3
42) Georgia 44.1
43) Florida 43.0
44) Maryland 41.6
45) Arizona 41.2
46) Nevada 36.8
47) Texas 33.4
48) District of Columbia 31.8
49) New Mexico 27.6
50) California 27.1
51) Hawaii 19.5

The hoped-for Trump bump failed to materialize. Total births were down from 2016, as was the national percentage of births to white babies.

At 51.7% in 2017, we are fast approaching the point where non-white births outnumber white births in America. If it doesn’t happen this year, it looks like it will happen in 2019. I expect members of the intellectual dark web will complain the media isn’t giving Trump the credit he deserves for being in office when non-white babies outnumbered white babies for the first time when the historical milestone is reached!

As has been pointed out numerous times previously, the sensational assertion based on Census estimates that this happened back in 2012 will turn out to merely be six or seven years premature.

The four most populous states in the union are now natally majority-minority. In California, barely one-in-four babies are white. Future president Kamala Harris is California Dreaming this for the entire country.

In Texas, it’s one-in-three. The putatively rock-ribbed Republican stronghold is undergoing a demographic transformation that will turn it purple and then blue. Texas is to my knowledge the only state in the country where whites vote more strongly Republican than non-whites vote Democrat. They do so only marginally, though–the white and non-white votes are essentially the inverse of one another. This means when non-whites reach an electoral majority in the lone star state, it’ll move to the Democrat column. The writing is on the exit polling walls:

The Southwest is lost. It’s past time for political dissolution. A decade ago, we were mocked for advocating secession. In a decade, we’ll be on the cusp of it.

Parenthetically, a common response I hear when political dissolution is brought up is that the smaller political entities crawling out of the national carcass will, individually, all be demographically overwhelmed just as the country as a whole is now.

I don’t buy it. Imagine Brussels has the same power to determine immigration policy for the EU that the Imperial Capital currently has in the US. The Visegrad group would be powerless to keep the invaders out.

Now imagine the states have the power to defy the Imperial Capital as individual European countries are currently defying Brussels. In my home state immigration patriot Kris Kobach is running neck-and-neck with the current governor for the upcoming August primary. If instead of governor Kobach of Kansas we had president Kobach of Kansas, our government’s approach to invasion would look a lot like Hungary’s does.

Support for secession by state

The following map and subsequent table show percentages by state who, according to a 2014 Reuters-Ipsos poll, support “the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government” (“don’t know” responses are excluded; N = 12,734):

State Secede
1) Alaska 58.3%
2) New Mexico 45.2%
3) Texas 40.4%
4) Illinois 38.9%
5) District of Columbia 38.1%
6) Alabama 38.0%
7) Utah 37.6%
8) Louisiana 37.5%
9) Montana 37.2%
10) Rhode Island 36.9%
11) Nebraska 36.2%
12) Delaware 36.1%
13) West Virginia 35.4%
14) Georgia 35.3%
15) Vermont 35.1%
16) Wyoming 34.8%
17) Oregon 33.9%
18) Virginia 33.8%
19) Kentucky 33.0%
20) South Carolina 32.7%
21) Idaho 32.5%
22) Florida 32.2%
23) Colorado 32.2%
24) New York 32.1%
25) Arkansas 32.0%
26) Oklahoma 31.6%
27) North Dakota 31.6%
28) Mississippi 31.5%
29) California 30.0%
30) Maine 29.8%
31) Kansas 29.8%
32) Nevada 29.7%
33) Tennessee 29.7%
34) Arizona 29.0%
35) New Hampshire 28.8%
36) South Dakota 28.4%
37) Maryland 27.9%
38) Washington 27.5%
39) Ohio 27.3%
40) Hawaii 27.2%
41) Michigan 26.9%
42) Pennsylvania 26.0%
43) Missouri 25.9%
44) North Carolina 25.7%
45) Iowa 24.5%
46) Indiana 24.3%
47) New Jersey 23.4%
48) Wisconsin 22.3%
49) Massachusetts 21.2%
50) Minnesota 20.6%
51) Connecticut 19.2%

Just under 13,000 people across 51 states and the Imperial Capital comes to 250 people per, some with fewer and some with more, so bear in mind the limited sample sizes.

Speaking of the Imperial Capital, the 38% figure strains credulity more than any other result does. The sample is the poll’s smallest, though, at just 70, so take it with a grain of salt.

The mountain states, the Southwest, and the Deep South show the greatest support for secession. The Upper Midwest shows the least appetite for it, though Illinois–a financially dysfunctional Midwestern state held captive by ultra leftist Chicago–is a notable exception.

It’s not particularly surprising that Alaska, with its petroleum dividend, libertarian streak, and minimal association with the rest of the country in terms of culture and politics, shows the greatest support for breaking away. It is the only state where a majority of respondents favor secession.

One thing I inexplicably failed to bring attention to in the previous post is the political split among whites:

White Democrats express a lot more opposition to secession than white Republicans and independents do. But non-whites, who of course vote overwhelmingly Democrat, are more supportive than white Republicans are. There’s a gaping chasm between white Democrats and their non-white political allies when it comes to political self-determination. And the non-white enthusiasm for political dissolution expressed in this poll was captured during Obama’s more explicitly anti-white second term.

R-I should run the poll again today. I suspect non-white support for breakup now exceeds 50%. Sure, political dissolution will threaten the gibs, but identity is more powerful than economic well-being. That reality is something WEIRDOs have a lot of difficulty understanding. Everyone else takes it for granted and acts accordingly.

US political dissolution a question of when and how, not if

Revisiting a poll from a few years ago reinforces my belief that the US is headed for political dissolution within the lifetimes of most people reading this. In the latter part of 2014, Reuters-Ipsos asked a huge number of respondents (N = 16,668) if they supported or opposed “your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government”.

The following graph shows the percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who supported the idea. “Don’t know” answers, which constituted 23.5% of all responses, are excluded in the graph which presents the results dichotomously:

At 87, the Muslim sample size is small, so don’t read it conclusively. Instead, take it suggestively–suggestive of exactly what you assumed to be the case. And the 2%? Maybe they should’ve thought twice about destroying the nation that was the greatest thing that ever happened to them.

This poll was conducted during Obama’s presidency, nearly a year before Donald Trump shocked the world by announcing his candidacy. Even during the Obama administration large numbers of non-whites–especially “new Americans”–liked the idea of getting out. Imagine what those figures would look like in 2018.

The warning that secession will lead to civil war has always struck me as highly unlikely. That  nearly half of the country’s armed forces support political dissolution further confirms it.

If Texas goes, blue states cheer because the presidency indefinitely becomes theirs while red states begin planning on how to follow Texas’ lead. If California goes, red states cheer because the presidency indefinitely becomes theirs while blue states begin planning on how to follow California’s lead.

One reason secession strikes many as practically unthinkable at first blush is because the political zeitgeist is still overwhelmingly shaped and controlled by boomers. The generational divide is actually starker than the racial divide is. When the boomers exit the stage, the possibility will suddenly seem all too real.

To people who grew up in a country of 150 million that was 90% white with a minority that had been here from the beginning, the thing made sense. To people trying to survive inside an empire of over 330 million people who are religiously, ethnically, financially, linguistically, racially, politically, and culturally divided–bitterly divided–it makes no sense. About the only thing keeping the it together now is a mix of inertia and economic expediency.

Political dissolution is an idea whose time has come. Support for it exists all over the dissident right–Heartiste, Z-Man, Vox Day, Julian Langness, Jared Taylor. Our favorite septuagenarian is even thinking it over. It’s not just gaining traction out here on the political frontier, though. The Federalist recently carried a column in support of the idea. Even the NYT is dipping a toe in the water.

((((((Stefan Molyneux)))))) on the GSS and free speech absolutism

Watch the Video here:

Regular readers who watch this presentation will recognize that it is strikingly similar to this post. It also draws from this one.

This is not on account of Molyneux being a plagiarist. He contacted me and I subsequently worked with his producer, Michael, who had seen the post and found the topic fascinating. Over the course of several e-mail exchanges, I helped Michael understand how to navigate the GSS in general and how to replicate the results from that post specifically.

Michael was extremely cordial and complimentary. He offered to compensate me for my time. I refused and made it clear that no attribution was necessary. There are posts on this blog that delve into things Molyneux understandably doesn’t need to get tangled up in. While I know the data presented are always reliably and precisely pulled from primary sources, it’s easy to imagine a large portion of his audience questioning the validity of his presentation upon seeing the blog as the source. Pointing to the GSS directly is a better way to go.

Oh, and now we have a guy with nearly one million subscribers giving a detailed presentation based on the GSS, one of the most underutilized data sources in the world of social science. Three cheers!

Molyneux is doing civilizational-saving work. So far as I’m aware no one else is doing as much to spread realism about race and IQ as he is. Charles Murray gave the relationship salience with The Bell Curve, and other psychometricians and evolutionary psychologists have conducted research on it, but no one with a platform approaching the size of Molyneux’s has weaved it into discussions of every topic it applies to (which is just about every topic there is).

Understanding IQ differences as an abstract concept is one thing. Actively applying it to everything aspect of existence is another. The latter is what will change the zeitgeist, and no one is doing as much to realize that change as Molyneux.

Parenthetically, Molyneux (or Michael) didn’t apply the BORN filter when tracking free speech absolutism by intelligence (the relevant portion of the presentation takes place around the 31 minute mark). Since intelligence in this context is estimated based on the English vocabulary of respondents, it’s an imprecise proxy if people who are not native English speakers are included. Consequently, my figures–which exclude respondents born outside the US–are modestly higher at all ranges of intelligence.

Thinking about the bigger picture, there is only one direction:

Today Democrats have crossed the Rubicon.  By saying that it’s okay for Antifa to shut down speakers they don’t like and physically assault anyone they don’t happen to agree with Democrats have renounced the rule of law and summoned the whirlwind of civil war.

Why have Democrats once again started a civil war to achieve their ends?

They thought they had everything sewed up. When Hillary won she’d pack the Supreme Court with fascists who believed that they could make up whatever laws they liked. Hillary would, like Obama, ignore the Constitution and further strengthen the administrative state while waging a war against non-Democratic whites and Asians and ensuring that Blacks stayed uneducated so they couldn’t see how Democrats were exploiting them.

But contrary to their expectations, the American people said no. We don’t want to be ruled, we want to be represented — which is why the Republican failure to get rid of ObamaCare is so offensive.

Even with the lying media spreading Democratic talking points 24/7 the majority of Americans want to be free, not enslaved — not told how much soda they can drink or what type of entertainment they can like — Democrats support violent misogynistic rap music while condemning Americans for liking NASCAR. The Democratic message calling on Americans to accept slavery because, according to Democrats, Americans can’t manage their own lives — the same line Democrats used to justify slavery– can’t win elections because American’s aren’t that stupid. As a result, the Democrat leadership has decided that their only way to power is violence.

If they can’t win in the battlefield of ideas, they’ve decided that they need to silence, by the use of force, any voices they don’t like.

The Democrat leaders have turned to the communists they so admire — remember Obama wishing he could rule like the dictator of China does? — and decided that what they can’t win by the ballot they can win with the baseball bat.

Unless we all take a stand now, this spiral of violence initiated by Democrats will lead to a truly horrible future, just as the Democrat’s violent defense of slavery was the cause of the greatest tragedy in American history. If Democrats had voluntarily abandoned slavery, we could have avoided America’s most costly war

Its NOT going to end peacefully.

California skin games

From a SurveyUSA poll conducted back in April, illustration 364,140 of how in a multiracial society, democracy inevitably devolves into a skins game, even on the left. The following shows the percentages of whites, Hispanics, and Asians who said they were supporting gubernatorial hopefuls Gavin Newsome, Antonio Villaraigosa, and John Chiang:

The racial percentages all fall short of 100% because the poll asked about eight candidates in addition to an “other” candidate option–these three were the top (D)s. The black sample was too small for SurveyUSA to break those out by candidate.

Although California is majority-minority, non-Hispanic whites still comprise a majority of the electorate because Hispanics and Asians are slackers. Newsome won the primary and so consequently will be California’s next governor.

A couple other noteworthy observations. Firstly, political dissolution is on the horizon. No matter how it’s sliced, Gen Z and millennials are more favorably predisposed to political dissolution than boomers and silents. When the latter disappears, the political landscape will look a lot different. Support for the CAL3 initiative that would break the state up into three new smaller states, by age:

Secondly, even in a state like California where blacks make up a small and shrinking proportion of the non-white coalition, they are open borders fanatics. The survey asked respondents whether the national guard should be used to secure the southern border and what it should focus on if used. The percentages who said the national guard should not be utilized, with “not sure” responses excluded, by race:

The other two possible responses were the based “patrol for those crossing [the border illegally]” and the cucked “focus on gangs and drugs”.

A plurality of all respondents chose the cucked answer, so don’t optimistically come away thinking the inverse of the bars above are the percentages who want the National Guard to stop illegal alien crossings. Most of the residuals just say they want the drugs and gang activity halted. The invasion itself is okay–we’d just like it to be a little more peaceful and sober is all!

This is a finding that crops up everywhere. For example, from Pew Research:

Blacks are more inclined to accept rapefugees than Hispanics. Hispanics are also twice as supportive of Trump’s immigration stances as blacks.

If I retained an ounce of hope in civic nationalism, this reality would challenge that hope. Since I don’t, it serves as another battering ram to smash into the quixotic civic nationalists who think a multiracial democracy can do anything other than devolve into a skins game.

Mexico: New Record! 93 Murders Per Day!

Luis Castillo
Daily Stormer
June 22, 2018

When Mexico inevitably loses the world Sportsball(tm) competition, at least they will still have something to be proud of. Even better – the Aztec people will no longer need to measure themselves according to a stupid European game about kicking a ball. Now, Mexico will be able to take pride in something truly Mexican, something even more Mexican than sleeping in the middle of the work day, or doing temporary agricultural work in the United States.

Nothing is more Mexican than industrial scale ultraviolence.

El País:

At ten days from the presidential elections in Mexico, the number of murders in the country has reached a historical 2,890 intentional homicides in May, which supposes an average of 93 murders in a day, or four victims per hour, according to data of the National System of Public Security published this Thursday.

The official data indicate that May was the month with the most homicides since 1997, the year that federal authorities began counting the data. Before now, the most violent month had been March of 2017, with 2,746 murders.

In the accumulation from January to May of 2018, 13,298 victims of intentional homicide are registered, which supposes an increase of 21% compared to the registered murders in the same period of last year. The violence has permeated equally in the distinct latitudes of the country. The states with the greatest incidence of homicides per 100,000 people are Colima, Baja California, Guerrero, Chihuahua and Guanajuato. Firearms are the principal instrument of homicide.

American firearms. Final redpill:

Mexico really needs wall with the United States.

I mean, the cartels get all their money from an open border. Drugs go north, guns come south. Drug deaths on the north side, gun deaths on the south side. It’s great for everyone, and by everyone, I mean the cartels.

Although 2017 had positioned itself to be the bloodiest year on record with 28,710 murders, the numbers from the first five months of the year indicate that Mexico could break its own annual record in violence. Francisco Rivas, general director of the National Citizen Observatory, prognosticates that the case of homicide and femicide in 2018 will culminate with an increase between 5,5% and 15% compared to the previous year.

In studying the crime statistics, the increase in femicides also becomes apparent. From January to May this year 328 murders of women have been recorded, which supposes an increase of 13% relative to the same period last year, when 288 cases were counted.

Yeah, sure, (((El País))). Tell me all about the 328 women, and not the 28,382 men.

I’m so tired of reading this paper, you have no idea. This is one of their better stories.

I’m hoping that, at some point in my lifetime, a nationalist government expropriates the building of this jew rag and puts me in charge of it, so I can put a big swastika on the front of it.

Of course, the Stormer doesn’t need physical office buildings, and that’s a waste of money in a dinosaur news model that they can’t prop up, and you really have to wonder about people who pay paywalls to “support journalism” for the WSJ or whatever. They’re supporting useless office buildings. Work from home.

But, I’ll find some real building function for the space – like a Holocaust Meme Remembrance Museum – and put a big swastika out front.

The director of this civil organization explains that the increase in murders in the whole of the country is the result of the lack of measures since three years ago, when the increase in murders began. “There is a series of illegal businesses which continue to prosper, a lack of meaningful action and an important absence of the State. A crime which is not punished is a crime which is given permission to grow.”

Before the upcoming elections, Rivas has cautioned that the next president will have to prioritize measures to contain the violence, to stop the ascent of these bloody statistics. None the less, he indicates a lack of clarity in the propositions of the candidates. “We do not see, at least in the leading candidate [Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador] clarity in a security proposal, his is a supremely naive and contradictory proposal which does not make one think that the security conditions will improve.”

Mexico is really showing us what the Triumph of the Will is all about.

Breaking records, just to prove they can be broken.

Congratulations, Mexico.

You won it, and you deserved it.


Trump Gives a Shoutout to the Anglin Plan: NO DEALS on Immigration! Wait for November, Get Everything We Want!

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 22, 2018

This is what I’ve been saying ever since these “competing bills” were introduced.

Trump has been playing games with these people, going back and forth on whether or not he would support the bills, now he’s just come out with the hard, obvious fact: there is no longer any real question about what is going to happen in November. Short of some catastrophic and unforeseeable event, we are going to win very, very hard in the midterms.

So what can possibly be the point of doing this whole immigration jerkoff right now?

We’ve silenced the “OMG BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RETARDED BABIES IN ROOMS???” bullshit with the executive order – which was perhaps at worst a “tactical cucking” – and now we’ve got a minute to chill. We are holding it down on the border, arresting everyone and prosecuting them.

Trying to get wall funding and all of the rest of it with the current Congress is futile. And cucking on anything, when the Red Wave is coming, is just stupid.

Trump obviously reads DS religiously, and knows the deal.

There is no point in engaging in this retarded fuckaround. The normies don’t really understand what is going on, and any “immigration reform” sounds like a cuck. So what Republicans should be saying is “we’re waiting until after the elections to do this, so we can get everything we want with ease.”

The problem of course is that a lot of GOP cucks want to cuck on immigration, because that is what their donors have paid them to do. So they are purposefully trying to thwart the 2018 elections by cucking on purpose to please their money masters.

BUT – that can be cut-off by Trump just coming out and saying “yeah, you know what, I’m not signing anything immigration related right now. We’re waiting until after November to make any moves at all.”

And this Tweet is the first indication that that’s where he’s going.

These are the games he plays. He did the whole “I’ll sign it, sure – but what is it?” bit. After the “I’m not really going to sign anything, I don’t think, but maybe” bit.

Now it’s time to come out hard and just say “yeah, you know what, no deals – we’re going to win in November, then we’re going to do everything I want to do.”

I guess he can play with them for a little bit longer. They’re not going to deliver a bill any time soon anyway. So whatever. Who cares?

But in the end, when the time is right, he needs to just say “yeah, let’s just wait.”

He also Tweeted these this morning, along the same lines.

Yeah, the cuck bill might be possible, but we are winning – compromising is for losers.

By all metrics, we are going to sweep the entire place in November. Trump is campaigning hard. Two out of three tweets is an endorsement, and he is touring, doing rallies.

The economy is fantastic.

And that is the bottom line, for everyone other than the most committed extremists and Jews.

Hail the RED WAVE!



Old School Chimpout: Pittsburgh Gud Boi Drive-By Shooter Mourned with Freeway Blockage

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 22, 2018

Now that there is one gud boi. Looks like he’s in a school in that picture. He was turning his life around.

The thing I’ve learned about gud bois is that they didn’t never ain’t not did nothing.

Nonetheless, white police murder them.

The only conclusion anyone can really come to is that there is a defect in the white biology that drives them to violently murder to death those with a certain tone of skin. They do it because of hatred, which exists for literally no reason.

What are these colored people – forgive, me, these people of color – to do?

Other than riot and block traffic?

They don’t have the institutional power needed to do anything else.

They have to take to the streets if they want justice.

New York Times:

The fatal shooting this week by an East Pittsburgh, Pa., police officer of an unarmed teenager who was attempting to flee prompted more protests on Thursday and calls for answers from law enforcement officials.

The teenager, Antwon Rose II, 17, was a passenger in a car that had been pulled over because it matched the description of a vehicle that had fled an earlier shooting in which a 22-year-old man was wounded, the Allegheny County Police Department said in a statement.

So he was involved in a drive-by shooting.

Does that mean he deserves to die?

No doubt he fled because he just assumed that the racist cops would just shoot him right there in the car.

A video that recorded the fatal shooting on Tuesday night and was posted on Facebook shows two people running from police vehicles as three shots are fired. One of the people, later identified as Antwon, appears to fall to the ground.

Killed dead just like that.

All he did was run from cops after a drive-by.

And let me just ask you something: have you ever in your life heard of a white teenager getting shot in the back by police who he was running from after doing a drive-by?

The authorities confirmed on Thursday that Antwon was struck three times but did not specify where.

“Why are they shooting?” the woman recording the video says. “All they did was run and they’re shooting at them!”

The Allegheny County Police Department, which is investigating the encounter, said that two firearms were found on the floor of the car. When asked if the 17-year-old was found with a weapon on him, Coleman McDonough, the department’s superintendent, said he was not.

See that.

He didn’t even have the gun he used for the drive-by.

He left it in the car.

And he still deserved to die? Simply because he is African American?

On Thursday, Mike Manko, a spokesman for the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office, confirmed reports that Antwon, while unarmed, had an empty clip of a handgun in his pants pocket at the time he was shot.

Yeah and what’s he going to do with an empty clip?

Throw it at the cops?

Come on.

This is skin-hate, period.

No child deserve to die for fleeing the scene of an arrest after committing a drive-by shooting.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Wednesday quoted Mayor Louis Payne of East Pittsburgh — a borough in Allegheny County — as saying that the officer who shot Antwon was hired in mid-May and had been formally sworn in hours before the shooting. Mr. Payne told Action News 4 on Thursday that he believed the shooting was the first time in at least 20 years that an East Pittsburgh officer had opened fire.

In a statements on Thursday, the authorities identified the East Pittsburgh officer who fired as Michael H. Rosfeld.

So wait is he Jewish?

That would certainly complicated things. He could have shot because he was having flashbacks of the Holocaust.

He doesn’t look Jewish though.

On Wednesday evening, dozens of people gathered outside the East Pittsburgh Police Department to protest the black teenager’s death. “No justice, no peace!” they chanted. Some carried signs that said, “Justice4Antwon” and “#BlackLivesMatter.” Then on Thursday, hundreds of people rallied outside of the Allegheny County Courthouse; later Thursday evening, protesters poured onto Interstate 376, blocking it.

Those who knew Antwon described him as bright, lively and funny. He was a senior at Woodland Hills High School who was expected to graduate at the end of the year, the superintendent, Al Johnson, said in an interview on Wednesday.

“He was an excellent student,” Mr. Johnson said, adding that Antwon was taking Advanced Placement classes.


Gud boi, going to school.

Who doesn’t get caught up in a drive-by in their youth?

The traffic stop on Tuesday that led to the deadly shooting occurred after multiple 911 calls earlier in the night reported a shooting in North Braddock, Pa., that had wounded a 22-year-old man in the abdomen, the police said. He was treated at a trauma center and later released.

Investigators said a gunman in a passing vehicle had fired nine .40-caliber rounds at the 22-year-old, who returned fire.

The 911 callers described a vehicle they saw fleeing the scene, the police said, and Officer Rosfeld saw a similar vehicle — a silver Chevrolet Cruze that appeared to have ballistics damage to its rear window.

“I’m very confident that that was the vehicle involved in the shooting,” Superintendent McDonough said.

Officer Rosfeld stopped the car at 8:40 p.m. and took the driver into custody, the authorities said.

“While he was putting the driver into handcuffs, two other occupants ran from the car,” the Allegheny County police said. Officer Rosfeld started shooting, striking the 17-year-old, department officials said.

The 17-year-old was taken to U.P.M.C. McKeesport hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 9:19 p.m., Superintendent McDonough said.

Officer Rosfeld has been placed on administrative leave, officials added.

In statement on Thursday, officials from the borough of East Pittsburgh said they were “profoundly saddened by the death of Antwon Rose” and offered sympathy and condolences to his family.

“We have confidence in the Allegheny County Police and District Attorney’s Office and we will be transparent with any and all information that they need during the investigation,” the statement said.

It’s just so sad.

A young black child can’t even do a drive-by shooting without getting murdered to death by racist cops in Donald Trump’s America.

It’s time to dump Drumpf, and bring back black African rule of America, so these kids can have justice once again.

Very Little Media Coverage

Other than the NYT, the national news is not touching the story of these black riots.

Obviously, the white controlled media doesn’t want the nation to know the blacks are standing up for themselves, by rioting and blocking traffic as they demand justice for this drive-by shooter.

They were doing the “hands up – don’t shoot” motion at the protests because maybe while Anton was fleeing from the car after committing the drive-by, he had his hands up and was begging the white police not to murder him.

Absolutely shameful.

How absolutely dare you?