The media and the ADL

[Stubble]

This will be my second time hitting this finer detail of history with you.

When the asiatic's flooded this continent, they boiled the White people who came here before them in pots. There was a total genocide of the White settlements.

By contrast, when the Whites came to settle the Americas in the 1500's and beyond, they specifically did not engage in genocide. Resettlement is not genocide. Many other solutions were tried first, and resettlement was not the first option. Ultimately, the native population in what came to be The United States ended up in reservations and there are more of them than at any other point in human history. If you are going to call that a 'genocide' it was the least successful genocide in human history.

I am sick and so very tired of people parroting convenient narratives to demonize my ancestors, who did more to bring humanity forward than any other group to roam this rock.

People hate the White man, and slander him endlessly, but boy do they all wish to live among us.

Not to mention the fact that the unintentional introduction of diseases in America (a deplorable part of the Columbian Exchange) decimated Native Americans because they lacked immunity against those new diseases, causing a demographic collapse which wiped out an estimated 80% to 95% of the Indigenous population. That unintentional demographic disaster can't be called a genocide by any standards. Intent matters. And intent is the central part of the definition of genocide.

I also dispute this, the Olmec had a similar catastrophe and the Aztec describe the decimation from disease preceeding the White Explorers, Settlers and Colonizers.

[Eye of Zyclone]

I’m not demonising your ancestors.

Let’s just deal honestly with the irrefutable facts.
It’s got to be either that or to be in denial.

Judging past events or people through the lens of modern-day moral standards, values, and perspectives is a historical fallacy called presentism or chronological snobbery. It assumes people in the past had the same information, options, and moral frameworks as we do today, often ignoring the constraints of their time, and it falls into the trap of believing our current era is the pinnacle of moral development.

[Eye of Zyclone]

I also dispute this, the Olmec had a similar catastrophe and the Aztec describe the decimation from disease preceeding the White Explorers, Settlers and Colonizers.

Are the two things incompatible ? Couldn't several epidemic decimations have occurred in a row, one after the other ?

[Stubble]

I also dispute this, the Olmec had a similar catastrophe and the Aztec describe the decimation from disease preceeding the White Explorers, Settlers and Colonizers.

Are the two things incompatible ? Couldn't several epidemic decimations have occurred in a row, one after the other ?

Let me put it this way, it is my belief that this as a factor has been overstated and that The New World was host to its own diseases and environmental factors which led to natural decline, cyclically before the arrival of White European Man. The Aztec for example, were already in decline and making large sacrifices to appease the Gods and bring them sufficient harvest and better health and vitality.

The idea that Europeans are bearers of disease so virulent that the immune system can not cope is ridiculous. The sharp decline in population was happening and continued to happen before The White Man and after his arrival.

Bear in mind there was cross pollination in these cultures with Europe stretching back to Roman, Greek and Egyptian times. What caused the trade collapse between East and West is not well known, but, the archeological record reflects that it existed.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I’m not demonising your ancestors.

Let’s just deal honestly with the irrefutable facts.
It’s got to be either that or to be in denial.

Judging past events or people through the lens of modern-day moral standards, values, and perspectives is a historical fallacy called… [blah, blah, blah]

…It assumes people in the past had the same information, options, and moral frameworks as we do today, often ignoring … [blah, blah, blah]

No it doesn’t necessarily do that.
It is perfectly possible to ask factual questions about the past WITHOUT applying modern moral judgements upon the answers.
So… Nah! That’s just a dodge… presumably from a subliminal motive of denial.
Someone’s filled your head with self-justifying avoidance arguments, bro.

E.g.
Q. How many women were burned as witches in Europe and North America between 1500 and 1750?
EofZ: ”But, but, but… you can’t ask that as that would be to judge past events through the lens of modern-day moral standards, values, and perspectives.”
Yeah you can ask that. You’ve been brainwashed EofZ.
E.g.
Q. How many native, indigenous, ‘brown’ people died due to famines in India during the period called ‘the British Raj’?
Q. How many invader/coloniser white’ people died in India due to famine during the same period?
Q. Why has there never been a famine in India since they gained Independence from Britain in 1948?

eofz:”But you can’t ask that either, as the question is a historical fallacy which assumes people in the past had the same information, options, and moral frameworks as we do today…”

No. It doesn’t. It’s just asking simple questions. There’s nothing wrong with the questions. Its just that certain people do not like the raw data for various reasons.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I am sick and so very tired of people parroting convenient narratives to demonize my ancestors…

Not to mention the fact that the unintentional introduction of diseases in America… decimated Native Americans because they lacked immunity against those new diseases, causing a demographic collapse which wiped out an estimated 80% to 95% of the Indigenous population. That unintentional demographic disaster can't be called a genocide by any standards. Intent matters. And intent is the central part of the definition of genocide.

You are either in ignorance or in denial.

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.

[Stubble]

I am sick and so very tired of people parroting convenient narratives to demonize my ancestors…

Not to mention the fact that the unintentional introduction of diseases in America… decimated Native Americans because they lacked immunity against those new diseases, causing a demographic collapse which wiped out an estimated 80% to 95% of the Indigenous population. That unintentional demographic disaster can't be called a genocide by any standards. Intent matters. And intent is the central part of the definition of genocide.

You are either in ignorance or in denial.

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.

White people are Evil! Look, they did this isolated thing and it killed 6,000,000 Natives.

Nevermind shit like this though;

https://lewis-clark.org/day-by-day/3-oct-1803/

Doesn't count...

[Eye of Zyclone]

I’m not demonising your ancestors.

Let’s just deal honestly with the irrefutable facts.
It’s got to be either that or to be in denial.

Judging past events or people through the lens of modern-day moral standards, values, and perspectives is a historical fallacy called… [blah, blah, blah]

…It assumes people in the past had the same information, options, and moral frameworks as we do today, often ignoring … [blah, blah, blah]

No it doesn’t necessarily do that.
It is perfectly possible to ask factual questions about the past WITHOUT applying modern moral judgements upon the answers.
So… Nah! That’s just a dodge… presumably from a subliminal motive of denial.
Someone’s filled your head with self-justifying avoidance arguments, bro.

E.g.
Q. How many women were burned as witches in Europe and North America between 1500 and 1750?
EofZ: ”But, but, but… you can’t ask that as that would be to judge past events through the lens of modern-day moral standards, values, and perspectives.”
Yeah you can ask that. You’ve been brainwashed EofZ.
E.g.
Q. How many native, indigenous, ‘brown’ people died due to famines in India during the period called ‘the British Raj’?
Q. How many invader/coloniser white’ people died in India due to famine during the same period?
Q. Why has there never been a famine in India since they gained Independence from Britain in 1948?

eofz:”But you can’t ask that either, as the question is a historical fallacy which assumes people in the past had the same information, options, and moral frameworks as we do today…”

No. It doesn’t. It’s just asking simple questions. There’s nothing wrong with the questions. Its just that certain people do not like the raw data for various reasons.

Calm down, drama queen !

Your instance of the execution of "witches" in past centuries illustrates very well the trap of presentism. Through the lens of our modern-day moral standards and worldview, it looks like madness and cruelty. But through the lens of religious superstitious people who believed in the devil and the harmful influence of dark forces on their world, prosecuting and executing the people who had made a pact with the devil and were responsible for all sorts of plagues afflicting their community, made perfect sense and was merely the deserved punishment inflicted on dangerous criminals for the common good.

And for info, there were large famines in south India every forty years in pre-colonial India. The region's climate was the primary factor in these famines. British negligence and incompetence often didn't help, but it was not the result of a deliberate policy of demographic decimation as you imply. Decontextualization is a scam.

Q. Why has there never been a famine in India since they gained Independence from Britain in 1948?

The Green Revolution of India was a success. Good for them.

[Eye of Zyclone]

I am sick and so very tired of people parroting convenient narratives to demonize my ancestors…

Not to mention the fact that the unintentional introduction of diseases in America… decimated Native Americans because they lacked immunity against those new diseases, causing a demographic collapse which wiped out an estimated 80% to 95% of the Indigenous population. That unintentional demographic disaster can't be called a genocide by any standards. Intent matters. And intent is the central part of the definition of genocide.

You are either in ignorance or in denial.

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.

And now you're using the faulty generalization fallacy !! It's surprising that you're not a Holocaust believer !

Faulty generalization

A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people:

• If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude.

• If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Smallpox Blankets: Myth or Massacre?

The epidemic of 1837–38 also spawned a narrative of deliberate white genocide against the original Americans: “smallpox in the blankets” — white Europeans and white Americans deliberately promoting the spread of smallpox among unsuspecting American Indians to clear them off the land.

The sole documented instance of smallpox in the blankets was approved by an Englishman and instigated by a brace of Swiss mercenaries.

https://historynet.com/smallpox-in-the-blankets/

[Wahrheitssucher]

Not to mention the fact that the unintentional introduction of diseases in America… decimated Native Americans because they lacked immunity against those new diseases, causing a demographic collapse which wiped out an estimated 80% to 95% of the Indigenous population. That unintentional demographic disaster can't be called a genocide by any standards. Intent matters. And intent is the central part of the definition of genocide.

You are either in ignorance or in denial.

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.

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.

There is scholarly dispute over the extent of death of indigenous American Native populationd by disease. To assert otherwise is also to be in denial.

...Despite frequent undocumented assertions that disease was responsible for the great majority of indigenous deaths in the Americas, there does not exist a single scholarly work that even pretends to demonstrate this claim on the basis of solid evidence. And that is because there is no such evidence, anywhere. The supposed truism that more native people died from disease than from direct face-to-face killing or from gross mistreatment or other concomitant derivatives of that brutality such as starvation, exposure, exhaustion, or despair is nothing more than a scholarly article of faith...
~ David Stannard
’American Holocaust: the Conquest of the New World’. p. xii. (1993) Oxford University Press.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…the unintentional introduction of diseases in America…
…That unintentional demographic disaster can't be called a genocide by any standards. Intent matters. And intent is the central part of the definition of genocide.

You are either in ignorance or in denial.

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.

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.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Judging past events or people through the lens of modern-day moral standards, values, and perspectives is a historical fallacy called… [blah, blah, blah]

…It assumes people in the past had the same information, options, and moral frameworks as we do today, often ignoring … [blah, blah, blah]

No it doesn’t necessarily do that.
It is perfectly possible to ask factual questions about the past WITHOUT applying modern moral judgements upon the answers.
So… Nah! That’s just a dodge… presumably from a subliminal motive of denial.
Someone’s filled your head with self-justifying avoidance arguments, bro.

E.g.
Q. How many women were burned as witches in Europe and North America between 1500 and 1750?
EofZ: “But, but, but… you can’t ask that as that would be to judge past events through the lens of modern-day moral standards, values, and perspectives.”
Yeah, you can ask that. You’ve been brainwashed EofZ.
E.g.
Q. How many native, indigenous, ‘brown’ people died due to famines in India during the period called ‘the British Raj’?
Q. How many invader/coloniser white’ people died in India due to famine during the same period?
Q. Why has there never been a famine in India since they gained Independence from Britain in 1948?
eofz: “But you can’t ask that either, as the question is a historical fallacy which assumes people in the past had the same information, options, and moral frameworks as we do today…”

No. It doesn’t. It’s just asking simple questions. There’s nothing wrong with the questions. Its just that certain people do not like the raw data for various reasons.

Calm down, drama queen !

Psychological projection, perhaps? (I’m writing my replies perfectly calmly. )

…execution of "witches" in past centuries …through the lens of our modern-day moral standards and worldview looks like madness and cruelty. But through… [snip]

…[famines in British Raj India were] not the result of a deliberate policy of demographic decimation as you imply. Decontextualization is a scam.

I didn’t imply any moral judgement upon burning women for alleged witchcraft. I just demonstrated that it is perfectly acceptable to ask how many women were killed with that allegation
Also I didn’t imply “deliberate policy” in India.
So in both cases that’s either i.) a deliberately deceptive ‘dodge’ reply, or ii.) you are not understanding what is being explained to you.

SUMMARY: You are defensively replying to your own miscomprehension of the actual point.
The actual point I have now colourised for you.
Do you disagree with it?

This:
…It is perfectly possible to ask factual questions about the past WITHOUT applying modern moral judgements upon the answers.

This is important, as if we want to combat the ADL* we have to have sound and logical arguments for that.

[*formerly the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the a New York-based international advocacy organisation founded in 1913 after to protect the paedophile-rapist murderer Leo Frank with the stated purpose of combating ‘hate’ and antisemitism but really nefariously promoting joo-centric self-interests)

[Stubble]

You are either in ignorance or in denial.

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.

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.

Dude, I'm sick and tired of it.

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'.

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

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

I'm not the one strawmanning here Mr Seeker, you are.



The myth of 'stolen land' and the idea of my people as bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs is just straight up commie bullshit.

[Eye of Zyclone]

You are either in ignorance or in denial.

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.

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.

Re-read my previous comment. I didn't claim that it never happened. (I was, of course, already aware of that isolated incident.) I said that the epidemic decimation of Native Americans was unintentional and I still say it now. Turning a single occurrence into a general rule is a gross deception only hardcore wokesters still use nowadays. By using such a dirty trick, you've just demolished the credibility you had !! Fastest self character-assassination ever !

There is scholarly dispute over the extent of death of indigenous American Native populationd by disease. To assert otherwise is also to be in denial.

...Despite frequent undocumented assertions that disease was responsible for the great majority of indigenous deaths in the Americas, there does not exist a single scholarly work that even pretends to demonstrate this claim on the basis of solid evidence. And that is because there is no such evidence, anywhere. The supposed truism that more native people died from disease than from direct face-to-face killing or from gross mistreatment or other concomitant derivatives of that brutality such as starvation, exposure, exhaustion, or despair is nothing more than a scholarly article of faith...
~ David Stannard
’American Holocaust: the Conquest of the New World’. p. xii. (1993) Oxford University Press.

Maybe it had not been documented in 1993. But it is now...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12003378/
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10. ... p.24.2.163
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8785365/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv ... 1.full.pdf
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/4/01-0175_article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Am ... _epidemics

[Eye of Zyclone]

Calm down, drama queen !

Psychological projection, perhaps? (I’m writing my replies perfectly calmly. )

So palpably not true !

I didn’t imply any moral judgement upon burning women for alleged witchcraft. I just demonstrated that it is perfectly acceptable to ask how many women were killed with that allegation
Also I didn’t imply “deliberate policy” in India.
So in both cases that’s either i.) a deliberately deceptive ‘dodge’ reply, or ii.) you are not understanding what is being explained to you.

SUMMARY: You are defensively replying to your own miscomprehension of the actual point.
The actual point I have now colourised for you.
Do you disagree with it?

This:
…It is perfectly possible to ask factual questions about the past WITHOUT applying modern moral judgements upon the answers.

This is important, as if we want to combat the ADL* we have to have sound and logical arguments for that.

[*formerly the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the a New York-based international advocacy organisation founded in 1913 after to protect the paedophile-rapist murderer Leo Frank with the stated purpose of combating ‘hate’ and antisemitism but really nefariously promoting joo-centric self-interests)

Why do people who are making obvious innuendos so often claim that they were just asking innocent questions when they've been uncovered ?