Monday, December 22, 2014

Looking at Two Lynchings

America is a racist place full of racists who think consciously and unconsciously racist thoughts all of the time. Some advanced race studies academics are looking at it from a bio-medical point of view. It is ingrained and akin to a blood debt for whites. I do not know how blacks apply this to Hispanics and Asians, but that growing 24% of the American population will be attacked eventually. One common number thrown around is the number of lynchings. Oh Lord, the lynchings were so evil and horrible. Modern protestors even use rope imagery to draw some type of parallel to 300 lb criminals attacking cops. Are we talking about thousands a year? No, it is more like 3000 over multiple decades. Some conservatives like to point out the number of whites lynched during the same time frame. Anyone ever talked about a lynching besides the Emmitt Till historical touchstone? Let us take a look at two such stories.

It is amazing what one can find if one scrolls microfilm of old New York Times. Similar to spotlighting random murders in flyover country today, the New York Times in the early Twentieth Century made mention of some lynchings in the south. There was an anti-lynching movement across America that Teddy Roosevelt felt awkward handling, and his relative Franklin Roosevelt clammed up about to make sure he retained the solid south. Democracy in action! In one specific entry from roughly one hundred years ago, the Times reports on two men who were lynched by "unknown parties". The unknown men, sometimes masked, would swarm a jail and take the accused criminal away. Oftentimes, they would assault a cop on duty or threaten the cop as well. Edmund Morris describes one such event in Maryland. The progressives forever want clear cut good guys and bad guys, but reality does not comply.

The two lynchings the Times cite are of men accused of murder. One such man was being held by the sheriff, and the sheriff was threatened as well. The crowd charged the jail, took the man away and he was lynched. Would this become a best selling novel? Probably not if you notice in the Times' details that the man was accused of killing another over a game of dice, and his wife was willing to testify that he did it. This appears to be a group of men taking justice into their hands and not allowing the legal system to handle it. Maybe the crowd was worried that a man might get off like the other lynched fellow in the second news blurb in the Times. This was another case where a man was involved with a crime, except this time the legal system acted a bit odd. The locals did not stand for it. He met his Creator.

I would much rather the legal system handle all prosecutions. A court of law with full evidence in the old English tradition. Sadly, the world does not always comply. Tribalism is ingrained in people far deeper than the English legal system, if it was ingrained at all. Progressives cry for the Zimmerman verdict or the Wilson no bill. They fail to see that either you live in a system with those mechanisms or you revert to tribal law and lynchings. Do not cry about modern verdicts not delivering justice when the evil predators of the past acted on the same feelings of injustice. These progressives would do well to study up on the number of men lynched. While a court of law proving doubt beyond reason is preferable, a little research might make that tear inducing number of lynchings look a little different. I just stumbled on two, how many more are out there.


4 comments:

Scott's Bluff said...

Black leaders can’t pull strings within El Norte; Mexicans who haven’t been to college, weren’t soaked in poz, are wise to their darker brother and his antics. My cousin and I walked out of a house party in Houston last year and noticed a group of vibrant yoofs mulling about the area where his car was parked. AT THE SAME we both uttered a similar response, “ah fuck hang on, let these fools go away”. Sheeeit, I did not know you had already reached anarcho-naggerdeath, cuz.

Everyone except faggot white libs knows pretty well what underclass blacks are like even if they’ve never seen the crime stats. Sure plenty of Mexicans, certainly ones soaked in poz, act as comrades for their fellow PoCs (lib memes display some diversity) but this shit goes out the window for most other Iberian descendants and certainly for the vast ocean of Mexican-Mexicans, untouched by the hand of Der Ju-BZSZZTA dammit fucking keyboard.

Anyway, when you’ve heard old-timer browns tsk-tsk black looting and young browns go full knee grow death, you know somethings up. The individual minorities who DO admire blacks are the ones embroiled within their affairs & culture; Latina dating a black guy, Filipina w/ half black child (yes I’ve seen it, yes the father was absent go figure but damn she’s got some nice ol’ tities, Filipinas are not like the other Asian people), minorities banding together as one PoC entity to scare the white Boomers.

But rest assured, when the money runs out, you can drive a wedge in between these people.

Oh and I don’t actually hate blacks. I have had the pleasure of meeting a few people of the Dark Continent, the first of whom came from New Orleans after Katrina recked dat mo’ fo’ & fuck Bush he racist, and the last of whom tried to scam money from me at an intersection.

“Would you like to purchase a bookay of flowers in the Lord’s name sir?”

“No thank you I’ve already done my share of the Lord’s work for today.”

“OK, you know he knows when you’re lying sir”

This dude was funny as hell, I wish I could recall the exchange better.

I do hate scum-of-the-Earth criminals though. I am all for lynching if it terrifies the criminal class. Didn’t Auster present a couple discussions on the topic of lynching and how it DID serve a purpose despite what shitlibs think? I’ll have to go back and read that. Some light Christmas reading about lynching lol.

Big Bill said...

You will appreciate this link. The author shows the Rolling Stone-type flaws with the way "lynching" has been reported over the last 100 years.

https://www.msu.edu/~lisacook/hist_meths_lynch_paper_final.pdf

Although there is an NAACP definition of lynching, the NAACP fudged the definition regularly in unknown cases. While the NAACP claimed it had a definition and used it, anybody hanging from a tree was a victim of "lynching" even if they had no idea how they died.

Further, if we stick to the NAACP definition, Negros are lynching Negros and whites every day in America. If you have (1) an extrajudicial killing, by (2) three or more people, (3) for violations of tradition or local standards, you have a lynching. In short, when three black teens stomp an old black man to death for "getting smart" or "dissing" one of them, then you just had a lynching.

In fact, the NAACP considers cases in which white men killed a Negro for having a "smart mouth" or "talking back" or "sassing" to be lynchings. IF that is the case, Negros are lynched any time one of them rubs somebody and is two (or more) buddies the wrong way.

Call them on it. Whenever a group of Negros kills someone for having a smart mouth or not showing respect, or bumping into them and not apologizing, or looking at their woman "funny" they have just committed a lynching. ALWAYS call them on it. Call any such killing (either of a white or a black) to be a lynching. BECAUSE. IT. IS.

Dudley Doright said...

Try this:

http://theinjusticefile.blogspot.com/2012/01/blacks-who-lynched-blacks-truth-behind.html

Black folks use to know how to take care of black men who abused black girls.

Now, they just look the other way and wait for the cops.

Snitches get Stitches.

peterike said...

Progressives have widely spread the idea that lynching was a random act done out of racial animus. You know, a couple of good ole boys are sitting around spitting tobacco. One of they says, "Hey fellers, hows 'bout we git ourselves a nigger?" The others drool with delight and off they go to string up the first black they find.

Of course this is utter nonsense. The vast majority of lynchings were responses to black behavior in that blacks were just as over-represented in violence and anti-social behavior then as they are now. And people also had far more sensible restrictions on inter-racial behavior, and blacks were just as rapey then as they are now. In communities where the official legal presences was weak or non-existent, people took things into their own hands.

Think of how the world works in Western movies. The bad gang pulls into town and the sheriff deputizes some citizens to help fight them off. This is how the world worked. Of course there were fewer lynchings in northern cities because these cities had far more government structure, which at the time also dealt very harshly with criminal elements when it focused on them (though plenty of crime was simply ignored at the time -- rates of crime in New York in the mid-1800s for example were astronomical).

In typical Prog fashion, this coming together to protect the white community is seen as diseased and evil, when it fact it was an expression of communal health and moral order. They really do view the world upside-down.