The devil?

This is a myth being spread around quite a bit right now. However, many are saying that the first settlers in America did this to wipe out the Indians. And that it was "the plan all along."

I challenged another user on here to show me that. She instead told me to do the research, then blocked me like the sniveling commie rat bastard coward she is.

Turns out, the smallpox weapon was utilized on only TWO occasions, and there were only three men involved in the conspiracy. THREE! NOT AN ENTIRE "RACE"!!!

So let's take a quick run down the History Channel's coverage, and deduce some fact from fiction, by deconstructing the left's talking points about early American history:

1. "Race" was defined differently then

Any large grouping of a nationality or national identity was considered a "race." The word didn't take on its modern connotation in full until Charles Darwin, who used it to argue that blacks were "inferior apes." This was a whole two centuries AFTER the Mayflower!

Trying to take the modern left's understanding of the term, and project it onto cultures that pre-date it, is patently absurd on its face.

That being said, what we'd simply call "tribes" bickered a lot. Tribalism was as brutal then as it is today. And the Indians encountered by ethnic Europeans in America were just as guilty of it. Not only against the white settlers, but against each other as well. There is no shortage of history of tribes wiping each other out.

Trying to rehash and recycle Farrakhan's long-discredited "white devil" narrative only makes the speaker look like a fool, even as they imagine they're scoring some sort of brownie point or virtue signal achievement by doing so.

2. There is no evidence the blanket scam even worked

Yes, Sir Amherst and William Trent were particularly diabolical individuals to have come up with this sinister plan; but there is no evidence that they actually succeeded at killing that many Indians through this method. Moreover, Amherst's letter suggesting the crime be carried out is the only evidence that he and Trent even attempted the scam - or of America ever utilizing this en masse.

3. The tribes targeted were not innocent doves

This false dichotomy of Red Man Good, White Man Baaaaaad being bleeted out by the commie sheep makes my blood boil! Amherst's plan was revolting, yes. But he was under pressure!

It wasn't about land ownership. The Indian tribes didn't believe in it. However, as they learned and developed trade, the British started making lives inconvenient for certain tribes, and convenient for others. So to the Ottawa in particular, the British were just another enemy tribe that was frustrating their political equilibrium and balance of power amongst other tribes.

Chief Pontiac said "nuts to that," and encouraged several allied tribes that the British needed to be exterminated - in order to restore their old stranglehold of power. In other words, this was the Bloods deciding that the Triads needed to go, because they were benefiting the Crips more. That simple.

Funny how the Howard Zinn revisionist crowd refuses to go on record condemning Pontiac's genocidal agenda, isn't it????

At any rate, Jeffery Amherst was between a rock and a hard place. Inspired by the Ottawa; the Delaware, Shawnee, and Mingo tribes had Amherst and his men surrounded, taunted them, and had them dead to rights.

To blame Amherst for being a little frustrated, is like saying that you are mad at the Scavengers in Far Cry New Dawn for refusing to let the Highwaymen breach the gate at Prosperity and kill everyone. But that's the level of Tide Pod-eating insanity of modern Cultural Marxists. (And why they block my posts and run away scared, as if I were the Captain, presumably while snorting condoms and screaming helplessly at the sky.)

And why did so many tribes either love or hate the British? Well, it had to do not with some intentional genocide campaign; but with economics. See...the British still didn't get along very well with the French...who got along very well with certain tribes. So when the king of England decided to f*k over the French by ruining their Indian trade routes, and the colonies were along for the ride whether they wanted it or not, a little thing called the French and Indian War resulted.

Once again, Marxist race warfare, class warfare narratives were not involved! What this was, really, was a gang war. Petty tribalism that got out of hand. So what was the real reason to squeeze Amherst into a corner? Simple revenge. They couldn't scalp George III and make him pay directly. So cornering Amherst was revenge-by-proxy.

Amherst, however, was defiant. He saw his camp get smallpox, and knew the tribes would get it anyway. So he figured, why not expedite the inevitable???

It wasn't some sinister white supremacist plot at all. It was rather, like some plan to snuff the guards in order to escape from Alcatraz. Still doesn't justify the intended weapon being used; but again, apples and tire swings from how the narrative is being framed by modern, sinister opportunists with severe Trump Derangement Syndrome. (Who are probably covering for their favorite celebrity, who is mad as a hornet about his / her favorite child trafficking supplier getting arrested by Trump, and sweating bullets that their trip to Epstein's island will be made public.)

4. Superstition isn't dead

Before screaming at me, blocking me, and running away, one hysterical woman earlier today actually tried to tell me that by the 1700s, superstition was dead, and everyone knew what a virus was, how it worked, and that *all* whites in America had a sinister plan to kill *all* Indians off with smallpox!

This is patently stupid on the face of it. Yes, they did believe that some poorly defined "magic," or poorly-defined "wrath of God" was to blame for things. No, they didn't know what viruses were per se, or how they worked. ELECTRON MICROSCOPES DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL 1931!!!!! DEEERRRRRRRRPPP!!!!!

Moreover, has she ever heard of the Ergot of Rye theory? It is one of many passed around as to why settlers in Boston in 1692 began suffering hallucinations. Which, of course, were blamed ON WITCHCRAFT! That's right, the Salem Witch Trials! 1692! Which, if you ask me, is pretty close to being 1700!

So no, Amherst didn't understand how plagues worked. But he wanted to use one as his get-out-of-Hell-free card. Yet, as mentioned earlier, there's no evidence his plan even worked!

And to say that Amherst spoke on behalf of *all* whites all around the world? THAT, is the real racism!

For the record, superstition is still very common in the world. Chinese eat rooster brains, because of an old wives' tale that it makes you smarter. Bulgarians won't drink cola on a cold day, for fear it'll make them catch a cold.

In fact, superstition was so alive and well even in the 19th century, that Harriet Beecher Stowe literally made it a plot point in Uncle Tom's Cabin! And to that effect, Roald Dahl paid her tribute, by making it Trunchbull's greatest weakness in Matilda!

Even Stonewall Jackson was hesitant to eat with proper silverware, believing it was always dirty somehow!

5. None of this connects to the Mayflower

NONE of it! In fact, read the Mayflower Compact some time! It mentions a religious state where the Word of God was to be honored over and above the whims of any Earthly king. This was a rehash of the Establishment of the Governances, outlined by Old Testament prophets and re-stated in so many words by the writers of the Magna Carta - as well as the writings of Martin Luther. That the Heavenly Governance be always superior in commandment to the Earthly, and that no Earthly ruler be legitimate, unless falling in line with Heavenly Ordinance (Romans 13:1, correctly interpreted).

Why did the Mayflower writers decide this? Simple. Because the king was engaging in numerous sexual perversions. And the king decided, as of Henry VIII, that the King of England was the Arbiter and Pope of the Church, not Christ, and not the Catholic Pope.

Ergo, anyone who dared disagree with the king's edicts on sexual mores, regardless their validity of concern, was treated as an enemy of the state. So if the king then decided to arbitrarily rule marriage to be whatever he wanted it to be, you were forbidden by edict to disagree with his arbitrary definition!

To the Pilgrims, this blasphemous assertion in favor of licentious disregard for the sanctity of marriage was on par with the men of Sodom demanding a never-categorically-capable-of-existing "right" to rape angels - who in as many words, labeled Lot a "bigot" for telling them they were crazy!

Not surprisingly, the commie rat bastards of today don't *just* attack anyone opposing them as "racists," but also as "homophobes" - even on issues that have nothing to do with sex! And one thing that has been under assault since the days of Vladimir Lenin? Traditional marriage. A sleepless pursuit to destroy the institution, come Hell or collision with Jupiter!

What you don't find? "Kill blacky! Kill reddie!" This kind of South African Apartheid communist insurgent (non)-"thinking" was spread far and wide by war criminals like Nelson Mandela - whom the left falsely worships as a hero with every chance they get to wank themselves, even rejoicing over the innocents he murdered by dipping in oil and throwing between truck tires and setting on fire!

So to take Amherst's desperation ploy, disgusting as it was, and blame it on the Pilgrims? Intellectually insulting and dishonest beyond words!

6. What is the modern connection to China?

NONE! To compare what Jinping Xi was doing to experiment with viruses, which got out of hand, and he tried to cover it up, and it backfired, to ANYTHING in American history, is patently apples and tire swings! It is a desperate, gasping-for-air ploy by morally panicked lefttards to keep up their oral floor position kneeling for tyrannical communist regimes, ignore said regimes' unlimited crimes against humanity (especially against Christian Chinese), and defend their own indoctrinated, Tide-spewing hate for all alternatives to communist tyranny; even if by fabricating an elaborate, phony moral equivalency argument.

It's also an attempt to take anyone ruled by emotion off guard, and disarm them from condemning the Chinese government. Or morally equate them with gangbangers who would attack ethnically Chinese Americans for COVID-19 (which is also asinine!)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of this is a campaign by paid trolls, many of them Chinese spies. Trump cost Xi's organized crime rings a LOT of money when he shut down that child trafficking operation of theirs in that port in San Fran. So I wouldn't be surprised if just like Chief Pontiac, this whole thing is an elaborate economics-themed revenge thing.

They can't shoot you, like they were able to shoot Pepe protestors in Hong Kong. So they're gonna play the race card at every given opportunity, as a dog whistle to their troops to silence you via intimidation. This isn't a race war. It's about the Spirit of Tyranny vs. the Spirit of Liberty. And the Spirit of Tyranny is willing to stoop to any low to snuff out its alternative.

Yet, to jump the gun and say Trump will be the next Sir Jeffery Amherst? Also beyond the pale! To paraphrase how Paul Joseph Watson put it, so crudely: