The media and the ADL

[Wahrheitssucher]

White people are Evil! Look, they did this isolated thing… [snip]

Mr.S. I’m not demonising anyone’s ancestors and I do not believe all people of ANY ‘colour’ are evil.

Your replies here are strawmen misrepresentation.
I invite you to consider why you might be doing that.

You take 1 letter talking about 1 guy doing a thing and you say "White People definitely intentionally genocided the native population intentionally with disease'.

Wow!
You are in denial of irrefutable facts. I’m genuinely shocked.
It was definitely not “one guy” doing that. It was AT LEAST one British guy - who definitely was a ‘white’ guy — writing a letter to another white guy about a genocidal plan to kill the native indigenous people of America.

You really can’t admit that?

You are currently in denial of the historical fact that in 1763, THREE British soldiers Jeffrey Amherst, Thomas Gage, and William Trent conspired to use smallpox blankets against Delaware and Shawnee indigenous Americans at Fort Pitt.
And obviously there were more than those three were involved in carrying out that plan.
Plus that mass-murder of natives was not one isolated incident.
C’mon deal with the reality and the bigger picture here.

I'm xxxxxing sick of it. I'm sick of the attacks on my history, on the Great Men, of all we have accomplished.

No, that’s a self-deceit. What you are actually “sick of” is historical facts that you don’t like.

You are parroting Cultural Marxist Critcal Theory about both my people and my Nation.

No, I’m not.
I’m just presenting you with irrefutable evidence that you don’t like hearing.
Plus I’m refuting your strawman arguments.
Viz. I am not “demonising” your ancestors.
I do not think “ALL white people are evil” and have not said that.
I am not saying anything from a “cultural marxist” perspective.

…the idea of my people as bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs is just straight up commie bullshit.

Your strawman argument is the same demonisation and smear tactic that jooze use calling people ‘anti-semites’ when anyone presents irrefutable evidence refuting any aspect of their holyhoax mass-gassing mythology.
You can’t deal with my actual point and the evidence presented to you so you make false accusations against me.

[Wahrheitssucher]

And now you're using the faulty generalization fallacy !

Er, no. I just gave you irrefutable evidence of something you claimed never happened.
You stated all the death by disease was ”unintentional”.
I provided you with evidence that proves that is a false claim.
It also provides proof of “genocidal intent”.

So… in a way, this is progress. As your reply proves you ARE in denial and can’t acknowledge any evidence that refutes your current belief system.

Good that this has been made clear.

…I didn't claim that it never happened…

You claimed all the spread of disease was unintentional.
I pointed out that this claim of yours is false and is denial of the evidence shown by the Amehurst letter. Here is what you wrote: “the unintentional introduction of diseases in America…
…That …can't be called a genocide by any standards. Intent matters. And intent is the central part of the definition of genocide.”

…Turning a single occurrence into a general rule is a…[snip]

Another repeat of your previously refuted strawman argument.

Plus denial of multiple historical evidence of genocidal intent.
Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent:

“…that Vermin … have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity”
~ Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June, 1763.

“I would rather choose the liberty to kill any Savage….”
~Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June, 1763.

“…Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations”
~ Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July, 1763.

“…their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement….”
~ Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August, 1763.

“…put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being”
~ Amherst to Johnson, 27 August, 1763.

Why can’t you admit those letters are proof those people had genocidal intent?

[Wetzelrad]

Reality: ‘white’, colonist invaders from Europe definitely did attempt to exterminate native, indigenous peoples through disease.
E.g. there is evidence from a letter that they intentionally gave Native Americans smallpox through contaminated blankets, particularly during the French and Indian War in the 1760s.
An act considered today as a form of biological warfare.



Here is a drawing to assist in understanding the contents of this letter.

It is exactly this kind of phony history that drew me to the topic of the Holocaust.

Is extermination through disease proved by this letter and this drawing? No.

What we are talking about is Pontiac's Rebellion, a war of choice where the Indians surprise-attacked and massacred Whites. Pontiac used explicitly exterminationist language in framing this war, and they resorted to terror, torture, cannibalism, and the murder of innocents in conducting it. Smallpox had already infected both sides.

In that context, Amherst was held up in a fort laid siege to by the Indians, and he approved of the man who tried, underhandedly, to infect the Indians with smallpox.

This was a remarkably small and singular incident. Nothing indicates that it had any effect. Blankets are not an effective vector for virus transmission. The specific Indians who were given the blankets were not infected. The greater number of documented smallpox deaths came 70 years later.

This event comes no where near proving what you claim, and frankly it seems totally excusable in light of the context.

Plus that mass-murder of natives was not one isolated incident.

Your letter is not a "mass-murder of natives". No specific die off is attached to these events.

Do you have no sense of irony? You deny the Holocaust Narrative but see no issue with this obviously slanted narrative? How do you find this letter to be a more convincing proof than Himmler's speeches or whatever?

[Stubble]

Mr.S. I’m not demonising anyone’s ancestors and I do not believe all people of ANY ‘colour’ are evil.

Your replies here are strawmen misrepresentation.
I invite you to consider why you might be doing that.

You take 1 letter talking about 1 guy doing a thing and you say "White People definitely intentionally genocided the native population intentionally with disease'.

Wow!
You are in denial of irrefutable facts. I’m genuinely shocked.
It was definitely not “one guy” doing that. It was AT LEAST one British guy - who definitely was a ‘white’ guy — writing a letter to another white guy about a genocidal plan to kill the native indigenous people of America.

You really can’t admit that?

You are currently in denial of the historical fact that in 1763, THREE British soldiers Jeffrey Amherst, Thomas Gage, and William Trent conspired to use smallpox blankets against Delaware and Shawnee indigenous Americans at Fort Pitt.
And obviously there were more than those three were involved in carrying out that plan.
Plus that mass-murder of natives was not one isolated incident.
C’mon deal with the reality and the bigger picture here.

I'm xxxxxing sick of it. I'm sick of the attacks on my history, on the Great Men, of all we have accomplished.

No, that’s a self-deceit. What you are actually “sick of” is historical facts that you don’t like.

You are parroting Cultural Marxist Critcal Theory about both my people and my Nation.

No, I’m not.
I’m just presenting you with irrefutable evidence that you don’t like hearing.
Plus I’m refuting your strawman arguments.
Viz. I am not “demonising” your ancestors.
I do not think “ALL white people are evil” and have not said that.
I am not saying anything from a “cultural marxist” perspective.

…the idea of my people as bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs is just straight up commie bullshit.

Your strawman argument is the same demonisation and smear tactic that jooze use calling people ‘anti-semites’ when anyone presents irrefutable evidence refuting any aspect of their holyhoax mass-gassing mythology.
You can’t deal with my actual point and the evidence presented to you so you make false accusations against me.

3 guys talking about 1 guy who was asking for permission to do a thing he had already done that he hoped would kill a handful of people then? Is that better. Holy fuck you need a missing the point award.

You are very clearly spouting commie bullshit and demonizing my ancestors, and, this isn't the first time.

Bottom line, America is not 'Stolen Land' and my ancestors did not 'genocide a continent'.

Land deeds and treaties reflect the fact that the land was negotiated, and, the genocide claim falls flat when you look at the numbers. The 'indigenous' population of the United States is far higher now than it ever has been in all of human history. They went from a handful to a population into the millions.

Also, food for thought, this, you?

I see a HUMONGOUS hypocrisy and double-standard there in Rockwell’s rhetoric — one based imho on arrogant ignorance.

North America / Canada is a continent that was invaded by largely genocidal, racist, white invader-settlers from Europe.
Yet he calls it a “white country” and claims it should be permitted to be “for whites only”. And he resents “6 million gassed jews coming to America” and taking it over.

Anybody else see the logical and moral inconsistency and hypocrisy?

Saying I am strawmanning you and you aren't saying what you fucking said, come the fuck on.

We generally get along, here however, there is no 'common ground'. You unironically call my ancestors thieving genocidal racists, then, fucking pretend I made that assertion up, and, as proof that they were in fact thieving genocidal racists, you produce a letter where a guy gave blankets to another guy and hoped it would transmit small pox and say 'See, they totally were genociding the whole continent, here's the proof! Check mate...'.

Holy fucking hell.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Er, no. I just gave you irrefutable evidence of something you claimed never happened.
You stated all the death by disease was ”unintentional”.

Once again, I've never said that it never happened. Go back to my initial post for a proper refutation of your lie about this.
I stated that the the death by disease was unintentional (i.e. a general rule), not that all the death by disease was unintentional (i.e. your fallacy of overemphasizing a single occurrence at a single location to distort reality and "prove" a false point). Stop acting like a Holohoaxer. This is ridiculous.

I provided you with evidence that proves that is a false claim.
It also provides proof of “genocidal intent”.

Nope. You distorted my statement and then claimed to prove that my statement was a false claim. Holohoaxers do that all the time. Pathetic.

So… in a way, this is progress. As your reply proves you ARE in denial and can’t acknowledge any evidence that refutes your current belief system.

Waw! It seems that Nessie has hacked your account !!

Good that this has been made clear.

Yes, your dishonesty and gross tricks are now crystal clear.

…Turning a single occurrence into a general rule is a…[snip]

Another repeat of your previously refuted strawman argument.

Plus denial of multiple historical evidence of genocidal intent.
Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent:

“…that Vermin … have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity”
~ Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June, 1763.

“I would rather choose the liberty to kill any Savage….”
~Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June, 1763.

“…Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations”
~ Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July, 1763.

“…their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement….”
~ Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August, 1763.

“…put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being”
~ Amherst to Johnson, 27 August, 1763.

Why can’t you admit those letters are proof those people had genocidal intent?

A single occurrence of something done by a handful of men at a single location across an entire continent and over several centuries, that's the very definition of an anomaly!

From the Merriam Webster dictionary :

anomaly: deviation from the common rule

QED
Period

Now stop derailing this thread with your off-topic distortions, wahrheit. This is boring.

[Eye of Zyclone]

It is exactly this kind of phony history that drew me to the topic of the Holocaust.

Is extermination through disease proved by this letter and this drawing? No.

What we are talking about is Pontiac's Rebellion, a war of choice where the Indians surprise-attacked and massacred Whites. Pontiac used explicitly exterminationist language in framing this war, and they resorted to terror, torture, cannibalism, and the murder of innocents in conducting it. Smallpox had already infected both sides.

In that context, Amherst was held up in a fort laid siege to by the Indians, and he approved of the man who tried, underhandedly, to infect the Indians with smallpox.

This was a remarkably small and singular incident. Nothing indicates that it had any effect. Blankets are not an effective vector for virus transmission. The specific Indians who were given the blankets were not infected. The greater number of documented smallpox deaths came 70 years later.

This event comes nowhere near proving what you claim, and frankly it seems totally excusable in light of the context.

Plus that mass-murder of natives was not one isolated incident.

Your letter is not a "mass-murder of natives". No specific die off is attached to these events.

Do you have no sense of irony? You deny the Holocaust Narrative but see no issue with this obviously slanted narrative? How do you find this letter to be a more convincing proof than Himmler's speeches or whatever?

Very good comment, Wetz !!

[Wahrheitssucher]

Reality: ‘white’, colonist invaders from Europe definitely did attempt to exterminate native, indigenous peoples through disease.

…what you claim, …frankly …seems totally excusable in light of the context.

Plus that mass-murder of natives was not one isolated incident.

You deny the Holocaust Narrative but… [snip]

Ah, but that’s where we perhaps fundamentally differ.

As I definitely DO NOT “deny” the holocaust narrative. I accept much of it but question and doubt fundamental key aspects of it. Viz. i.) the extent of the mass-gassing claim, and ii.) the accusation of a planned genocide of ALL jews.

Basically, I’m only interested in ascertaining historical fact as accurately and as truthfully as humanly possible, on those particular historical topics that I’m interested in.
I have no presumed nor cherished final conclusion about ANY historical narrative. I take the evidence as it is, and follow it to see where it leads.

In contrast you, Stubble and EofZ appear to have an agenda. Presumably on this particular topic it is informed by some kind of racist, white-supremacist ideology which makes you feel a need to shoehorn evidence into a preconceived belief-system, plus results in you getting upset if specific evidence is presented which challenges your cherished belief-system.
I’m not in that ‘game’.
As that, in my opinion, is not researching history, but is merely buttressing a belief-system.
I’m interested above all in Truth, both on the mundane level and ontologically.

I came to the research and investigation of the holocaust narrative as both my grandfathers fought in WW1 and survived but with injuries, plus my father and two uncles fought in WW2 — both wars were supposedly waged for purported reasons that I came to increasingly suspect were bogus.
Researching the actual causes of those wars coincided with my increasing awareness of the decades-long awful plight of the Palestinian people and its cause. The two avenues of research coincided and corroborated each other in an increasingly vivid pattern pointing to culpability.

[Stubble]

Reality: ‘white’, colonist invaders from Europe definitely did attempt to exterminate native, indigenous peoples through disease.

…what you claim, …frankly …seems totally excusable in light of the context.

Plus that mass-murder of natives was not one isolated incident.

You deny the Holocaust Narrative but… [snip]

Ah, but that’s where we perhaps fundamentally differ.

As I definitely DO NOT “deny” the holocaust narrative. I accept much of it but question and doubt fundamental key aspects of it. Viz. i.) the extent of the mass-gassing claim, and ii.) the accusation of a planned genocide of ALL jews.

Basically, I’m only interested in ascertaining historical fact as accurately and as truthfully as humanly possible, on those particular historical topics that I’m interested in.
I have no presumed nor cherished final conclusion about ANY historical narrative. I take the evidence as it is, and follow it to see where it leads.

In contrast you, Stubble and EofZ appear to have an agenda. Presumably on this particular topic it is informed by some kind of racist, white-supremacist ideology which makes you feel a need to shoehorn evidence into a preconceived belief-system, plus results in you getting upset if specific evidence is presented which challenges your cherished belief-system.
I’m not in that ‘game’.
As that, in my opinion, is not researching history, but is merely buttressing a belief-system.
I’m interested above all in Truth, both on the mundane level and ontologically.

I came to the research and investigation of the holocaust narrative as both my grandfathers fought in WW1 and survived but with injuries, plus my father and two uncles fought in WW2 — both wars were supposedly waged for purported reasons that I came to increasingly suspect were bogus.
Researching the actual causes of those wars coincided with my increasing awareness of the decades-long awful plight of the Palestinian people and its cause. The two avenues of research coincided and corroborated each other in an increasingly vivid pattern pointing to culpability.

The bold part there, that's what is referred to as 'inversion'.

You are literally vomiting an agenda and you grasp at the thinnest possible 'evidence' to bolster your agenda.

I know Neo Marxist Critical Theory talking points when I see them. You are towing one.

[Eye of Zyclone]

In contrast you, Stubble and EofZ appear to have an agenda. Presumably on this particular topic it is informed by some kind of racist, white-supremacist ideology

Someone's real or imaginary motives and agenda don't matter. Only someone's arguments matter.
If it was shown that Galileo Galilei hated the Pope and had an anti-Catholic agenda, the earth would still revolve around the sun, and not the other way around, because his arguments are much stronger than the arguments of Geocentric astronomers.