Selaphiel
Well-known member
Idiocy and hatred transcends historical periods. Of course, it takes a special kind of moron to actually think Johnny Rebel writes good songs today.
White Power Music
- Thread starter zoo22
- Start date
- Status
Idiocy and hatred transcends historical periods. Of course, it takes a special kind of moron to actually think Johnny Rebel writes good songs today.
The Berean
Well-known member
I had no idea white power music existed and I had never heard of Johnny Rebel until last week here on TOL.
musterion
Well-known member
Systemic, systematic hatred of black folks is the topic? And Zoo cutely focuses on obscure loser racist niche music, which some of us never heard of before tonight, when such music better describes his own side?
All this is true because of people like Zoo.
Zoo loves abortion. He doesn't really care that blacks are the majority of abortion victims. If he did, he would oppose abortion.
Rather, Zoo hates blacks. He doesn't really care that liberals like himself want to see blacks kept down and dependent on white handouts to keep them a perpetual voting bloc for leftist politicians, or murdered en masse in the womb. He doesn't really care that leftist gun laws in all major cities restrict law-abiding blacks from legally protecting themselves from criminals, to whom gun laws mean nothing except easier prey.
He just pretends to care about stupid hillbilly music in order to pretend he doesn't hate blacks. He's just doing some typically lazy, empty virtue signalling.
And let's throw in some of Zoo's fellow travelers...
Democrat LBJ and his winning formula for securing the black vote in perpetuity.
Democrats who formed the KKK to quash the growing liberty of blacks.
Democrats who wanted to murder Freedom Riders.
Democrats whose handy label of "Tom" blacks is given only because the recipients are free thinking conservatives.
Idiots who say a descendant from North Carolina sharecroppers, Thomas Sowell, is less "authentically black" than the half-white, privileged Obama.
George Wallace.
Robert Byrd.
Margaret Sanger.
People just like Zoo, who hated blacks just like Zoo does.
Zoo is a hypocrite.
All this is true because of people like Zoo.
Zoo loves abortion. He doesn't really care that blacks are the majority of abortion victims. If he did, he would oppose abortion.
Rather, Zoo hates blacks. He doesn't really care that liberals like himself want to see blacks kept down and dependent on white handouts to keep them a perpetual voting bloc for leftist politicians, or murdered en masse in the womb. He doesn't really care that leftist gun laws in all major cities restrict law-abiding blacks from legally protecting themselves from criminals, to whom gun laws mean nothing except easier prey.
He just pretends to care about stupid hillbilly music in order to pretend he doesn't hate blacks. He's just doing some typically lazy, empty virtue signalling.
And let's throw in some of Zoo's fellow travelers...
Democrat LBJ and his winning formula for securing the black vote in perpetuity.
Democrats who formed the KKK to quash the growing liberty of blacks.
Democrats who wanted to murder Freedom Riders.
Democrats whose handy label of "Tom" blacks is given only because the recipients are free thinking conservatives.
Idiots who say a descendant from North Carolina sharecroppers, Thomas Sowell, is less "authentically black" than the half-white, privileged Obama.
George Wallace.
Robert Byrd.
Margaret Sanger.
People just like Zoo, who hated blacks just like Zoo does.
Zoo is a hypocrite.
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
Me neither, not until tonight.
zoo22
Well-known member
Traditio has been posting Johnny Rebel songs for the past week here at TOL. Thus the thread.
White power music has been a big part of the White Nationalist, neo nazi movements for decades, both here in the US and in the UK. I'm glad I'm able to open your eyes to it.
Did you read the article I'd posted? What did you think?
zoo22
Well-known member
Also, for anyone who may be too quick to look the other way and pretend this isn't full-on "white power" music, here are 5 more songs you should read the lyrics to so that you can judge for yourself:
Chances are, if you have any sort of moral integrity, you'll understand that only an ignorant racist would be a fan of Johnny Rebel:
Ni**er, Ni**ger by Johnny Rebel
Spoiler
Ni**ers Su*k! by Johnny Rebel
Spoiler
Ni**er Hatin' Me! by Johnny Rebel
Spoiler
In Coontown by Johnny Rebel
Spoiler
Ain't Nothing But Ni**ers by Johnny Rebel
Spoiler
Last edited:
Two points:
1. The man in question was found guilty (albeit probably based on an unfair trial). I'm not sure what weight this holds or what should follow from it, but it's worth pointing out.
2. Lynching was not simply racial violence; it often was a form of vigilante justice. It was intended to send a message: "We refuse to be victimized by blacks. You mess with us, and you die. Stay on your own side of the tracks."
It's easy to be horrified by lynching. And it's easy to forget about the rapes, murders, thievery, etc. that prompted them.
None of this, of course, should be understood as being in support of lynching. It goes without saying that I disapprove.
I'm just saying, though: it wasn't so black and white as "they lynched him simply because he was black."
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Consider your words that I bolded.
With respect to the former:
I simply don't know. The trial lasted 2 hours. I don't know the further details of the case. Do you?
With respect to the latter, what about them?
As I said, I imagine that white people generally didn't form lynch mobs simply because they didn't like the way that a given black person looked. They formed lynch mobs due to provocation/outrage over apparent criminal activity (or, at the very least, unruly and socially unacceptable conduct).
Granted, sometimes, they were in error about these things. Perhaps this white woman didn't get raped by that particular black person. Perhaps she didn't get raped at all.
Nonetheless, the crowd certainly didn't think that they were in error about the case, and they had a goal which I don't think can be reduced simply to racial hatred, i.e., to punish a criminal (or, at the very least, a troublemaker).
They weren't out to "get" black people who knew their place and stuck to themselves.
And I'll ask you this:
When blacks and whites were segregated, and blacks had good reason to fear the KKK and lynch mobs, do you think that they victimized white people more or less than they do now? Or about the same amount?
Be honest.
Again, however, and I do insist on this point: these considerations are not in favor of or support of lynch mobs. [I will say, however, that, unjustly done or not, if a black person who was guilty of rape, murder, etc. against a white person got lynched, I have no sympathy for him.]
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
However do you cram so much smug into your lies?
musterion
Well-known member
It's not smugness. It's simple factual correctness, something of which you've never been capable.
Did you have an IEP when you were in school?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Factual correctness and you don't belong in the same sentence. Thanks for trying so hard, though.
How much education do you have, bro?
lain:That's my favorite! It's unfortunate that he didn't write the song himself. Someone else wrote it, and he just recorded it.
Musically, it's fantastic, and his singing is great in that one. You'll be tapping your foot the whole time you listen to it. "Move them north," again, simply music-wise and singing-wise is probably tied with it for my favorite.
The lyrics are very catchy, too. [In terms of lyrics, my favorite is "Kajun KKK." It tells a really amusing story. "[N-word] in Law" is also really good, too, in terms of lyrics. If you aren't a complete liberal politically correctness zombie, you'll likely laugh really hard at both of them.]
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Jury deliberation lasted 4 minutes.
Oh, I think they definitely had goals which could be reduced to racial hatred. Like the lynching postcard said:
"Warning
The answer of the Anglo-Saxon race to black brutes who would attack the womanhood of the South"
The answer of the Anglo-Saxon race to black brutes who would attack the womanhood of the South"
Here's some history which adds context:
The accusations against persons lynched, according to the Tuskegee Institute records for the years 1882 to 1951, were: in 41 per cent for felonious assault, 19.2 per cent for rape, 6.1 per cent for attempted rape, 4.9 per cent for robbery and theft, 1.8 per cent for insult to white persons, and 22.7 per cent for miscellaneous offenses or no offense at a 11.5 In the last category are all sorts of trivial offenses such as disputing with a white man, attempting to register to vote, unpopularity, self-defense, testifying against a white man, asking a white woman in marriage, and peeping in a window.
Being charged with a crime did not necessarily mean that the person charged was guilty of the crime. Mob victims ware often known to have been innocent of misdeeds. A special study by Arthur Raper of nearly one hundred lynchings convinced him that approximately one-third of the victims were falsely accused. Occasionally mobs were mistaken in the identity of their victims.
The racist myth of Negroes' uncontrollable desire to rape white women acquired a strategic position in the defense of the lynching practice. However, homicides and felonious assault, not rape, were most frequently cited in explanation of mob action. Next in importance, from the viewpoint of number of cases, is rape and attempted rape, 25.3 per cent of the victims. Concerning this figure, Myrdal states: There is much reason to believe that this figure has been inflated by the fact that a mob which makes the accusation of rape is secure from any further investigation; by the broad Southern definition of rape to include all sexual relations between Negro men and white women; and by the psychopathic fears of white women in their contacts with Negro men. Another fact which refutes the fallacy of rape as being the primary cause of Negro lynchings is that between 1882 and 1927, 92 women were victims of lynch mobs: 76 Negro and 16 white. Certainly they could not have been rapists.
How do you know?
I'll be honest. That's a stupid question.
I do insist on this point: You're a racist, Trad. All the fancy verbal footwork in the world won't fix it.
Perhaps it was simply that obvious that he was guilty. I don't know. :idunno:
Also, go to the section "Analysis and Legacy":
"In 2011, Berg concluded that Washington probably murdered Fryer, but doubted that he raped her.[94]"
Nuff said. :idunno:
Also, it just occurred to me...
Read the top part:
"He entered a guilty plea and was quickly sentenced to death."
To my mind, that reads: "The vast majority of them were accused of relatively serious crimes."
You say that 1/3 were falsely accused, i.e., that the glass was 1/3 empty. I say that 2/3s were correctly accused, i.e., were guilty. I see the glass as 2/3s full.
It may be a stupid question for whatever reason, but it is a question to which an answer can be provided.
Necessarily, when blacks were rightly afraid of lynch mobs and the KKK, they either:
1. Committed more crime against whites.
2. Committed the same amount of crime against whites
3. Committed less crimes against whites.
Necessarily, one of those is true.
Which do you think obtained?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I read the whole link, Trad. I already know what it all says.
They took four minutes.
They took a lot more time torturing him to death.
They took four minutes.
They took a lot more time torturing him to death.
What on earth did you want them to do?
He plead guilty.
He should have thought about that before he murdered that white woman.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
What on earth did you want them to do?
He plead guilty.
He should have thought about that before he murdered that white woman.
He was 17, illiterate, by some accounts mentally challenged. We'll never know if his confession was coerced. He was convicted by 12 white men in 4 minutes, lynched by a mob in violation of Texas law, and tortured with as much vicious efficiency as ISIS, a mob which would have loved to have had some loudspeakers blasting Johnny Rebel while they were dipping Jesse Washington in the flames and cutting off his fingers and castrating him. And then they probably went to church and thanked God they were white people.
I really don't have anything else to add, except my fervent hope that you're not still teaching ethics.
Be that as it may, what did you want the judge and jury to do? If he plead guilty, then there's no trial to be had. When a guilty plea is entered, you get straight to sentencing, and it seems pretty clear cut to me.
"The [n-word] killed a white woman? He needs to die."
Of course, I would have disagreed with lynching him, but you know what? If he bore full culpability for his actions, I can't bring myself to pity him.
Of course, if he was mentally challenged, etc., then that's a different story, but again, I ask you:
How on earth could the jury have taken that into account when he plead guilty?
How could the mob have known that given that his lawyer didn't present it as a defense?
Edit:
With respect to his being 17, I'll simply note that even today, this is considered old enough to bear adult responsibility for murder in US courts.
With respect to his being illiterate, so what? Is being illiterate an excuse for murdering a white woman?
Furthermore, he apparently was "mentally sound" enough to lie to the police (and it must be assumed that it was a lie, since he later plead guilty) and tell them that the bloodstains on his overalls were because of a nosebleed.
- Status