Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Republicans promoting a black Marxist revolution by attacking our nation’s history is the worst thing ever.
Or rather it was – before Sean Hannity did a serious political interview with poor Bruce Jenner. Frankly, the tranny thing is at least six million times worse than the black thing, but the tranny thing is just so heinous that it’s difficult to even grasp.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) on Saturday granted posthumous pardons for 34 Black victims of lynchings in the state, a sweeping action he said would be a step toward rectifying the killings of youths and men who were denied due process.
Hogan announced the pardons on a rainy morning in Towson, standing feet away from a building that was once a jail. There, nearly 136 years ago,
75 men, their faces concealed with masks, pulled 15-year-old Howard Cooper from his cell and hanged him from a nearby sycamore tree.
Historians say Cooper, who had been accused of rape and was scheduled to be executed, was lynched before his attorneys could appeal his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. At a ceremony to memorialize Cooper on Saturday, Hogan decried how the teenager’s life was “taken so violently and so senselessly by an angry mob unwilling to give him the due process he was entitled to.” Hogan declared he would posthumously pardon Cooper as well as 33 other victims of lynching in the state between 1854 and 1933.
He read each of the victims’ names aloud before signing the pardons, ending his list with a 13-year-old boy named Fredrick, whose full name, the governor said, “was lost to history.” The boy was hanged from a tree in or near Cecilton, a small city about 35 miles southwest of Wilmington, Del., around September 1861.
Did he cry a tear for Fredrick, the innocent rapist who was killed for the color of his skin on his way home from a rape?
Look – no one went around killing random black people. Even the most liberal historians don’t make that claim. The blacks that got lynched were at least accused of rape, or of doing some other thing to a white woman. Probably, in many or most of the cases it was technically the white woman’s fault, because white women are sick and deranged and love black dick.
But you have to hold the blacks responsible, as they should have resisted the white women trying to seduce them.
Should they have been given trials? You can call me a cuck, but yes, I think they should have been given due process. I am not pro-lynching, as a rule, as I think we should live in a society of laws. I think lynchers should have spent more time lobbying for back to Africa. I also think juries would have convicted these blacks anyway.
But claiming that these men were guilty is almost certainly wrong. I always tell people this: look at yourself, your friends and family. Your ancestors were more or less the same as you – people are basically genetic copies of their ancestors, that’s the nature of reproduction. Now: would you grab some random black guy and kill him for literally no reason? I certainly would not and I don’t know anyone who would do that. I don’t really like black people, but I also do not believe in just randomly killing innocent people.
Therefore, we can assume that anyone involved in a lynching had at the very least a pretty good reason to believe that the black in question had done something worthy of a lynching. Yes, mob psychology exists, and false accusations exist and so on and so forth, but as a rule, it is pretty safe to assume these blacks did something.
Here’s another thing they don’t tell you: according to the NAACP itself, only 73% of lynching “victims” were black. That means that 27% were white (there weren’t any other races around at the time). That means that this practice wasn’t about race. Seriously – do the math on black crime rates per capita and you’re going to find that there was literally not even any element of race in the phenomenon of lynching.
Let me repeat: lynching did not have anything to do with race. Blacks were lynched proportionally to the whites if you consider their respective sex crime rates. In fact, whites were likely overrepresented in lynchings. I do not think whites committed 27% of rapes in the 1880s.
Whites definitely do not commit 27% of rapes now!
Someone needs to run these numbers and figure this out – I am just thinking about this right now, but I think lynching was literally biased against whites.
Please, someone figure that out. Where’s that gay HBD guy who used to do those statistics-based YouTube videos? Is he on BitChute or something now? He can figure this out.
But we have, just right now, figured it out – for the most part.
Lynching is anti-white.
I wonder how many whites were lynched in Maryland? Is Governor Earthworm Jim pardoning the whites?
(Note: He might have pardoned whites, I don’t know – WaPo doesn’t say and I’m not going to go through the process of looking it up. You know I don’t have staff for that because you people don’t DONATE.)
More importantly: how do you issue a “pardon” for someone who was killed extrajudicially and not actually ever convicted of a crime?
Obviously, you can’t legally pardon someone who was, in legal terms, murdered by a mob. So this is just bizarre theater.
I guess some lynching “victims” were lynched after being convicted. I don’t know what the numbers are regarding who was lynched before and who was lynched after a trial. Maybe he’s just pardoning the ones that were lynched after trials. The case the WaPo focuses on, Howard Cooper, was killed after being convicted. But in the classic case of Emmet Till, he was grabbed by a mob before any kind of arrest even. I don’t know the percentages.
This isn’t really important.
According to numbers directly from the NAACP again, from 1882-1968, only 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. That’s about 55 per year, in a country of however many millions of people. It was not some mass issue.
I just want all of these black and tranny lovers to go away, and not come around here no more.
