Chechar's Crusade
In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.
Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.
As I've explained before, I'm not inclined to make lengthy or frequent responses to Chechar because he mainly craves attention and doesn't really offer any new or useful ideas. His belief that Whites suck is already the dominant belief amongst Whites, and it's doing Whites great harm. To put it bluntly, I don't believe Chechar offers honest criticism of Whites, much less my positions.
As I noted in my conversation with Carolyn on White pathology, many Whites go back through history searching for answers. What I find most bizarre are the ones who go back out of a desire to "prove" that the answer is not the jews. Chechar is one example of this. Another that comes to mind is Ian Jobling.
Chechar argues that I blame the jews entirely as a way of excusing Whites entirely, that I have identified attempts to excuse jews by blaming Whites (the suicide meme), therefore I must be trying to accomplish the opposite. Basically Chechar likes the suicide meme, thus he dislikes my pointing it out and arguing against it.
Chechar's argument for White suicide is based on a tautological rationale that can hardly even be called an argument. He cites two inter-related phenomena, the history of Christianity and Spain, exactly because in his mind Whites are entirely responsible for them. Therefore, not the jews. QED.
Chechar's just-so argument is not simply wrong, it's wrong in an ironic and telling way. Chechar misinterprets and downplays the influence of jews on both Christianity and Spain, and jewish crypsis more generally. Briefly put, he agrees with the jewish narrative - that Christians persecuted jews, therefore Europeans are responsible for Christianity. The reasoning is based, first of all, on the false notion that jews, once "converted", turn into Europeans. Second, it requires a willful misreading of the persecution, calling attention to the exception, the jews who were most obvious, to distract from the rule, the jews who were more or less successful in infiltrating and manipulating Christianity without much notice.
Any model of reality which is true, not to mention constructed from a point of view in favor of Whites, must account for the jews, and especially jewish crypsis - their deliberate deceptions about who they are and what they're up to. Jewish crypsis, if nothing else, is evidence of jewish hostility toward Whites. According to the jewish narrative, Whites are to blame for it. According to Chechar the jews don't even matter. In my view, people who argue as Chechar does are either knaves or fools. Throughout history the jews have cultivated and exploited exactly this kind of behavior in their hosts, preaching blindness and ignorance while they condemn and cavort however they please.
In his conclusion Chechar quotes approvingly the following comment:
it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.
It's hard to see this as anything but an excuse for jewish parasitism. If White/jew relations were symbiotic there wouldn't be anything to get emotional about. But jews and their sympathizers do get emotional, using that and other excuses to prevent and derail such discussions. From a parasite's point of view discussions about parasitism can't be good for the parasites. From a White point of view that's exactly why Whites should discuss it, not shut up.
Labels: chechar, jewish influence, suicide meme
posted by Tanstaafl at 12/14/2013 05:54:00 PM
16 Comments:
Chechar does a poor job showing that "monocausalism" is a position that serious Wnsts actually hold. He is not alone. For example, in this article, Micheal O'Meara does not identify any guilty parties either for the problem that he perceives.
Where are the quotes, books, essays, podcasts, youtube videos or other materials by WNsts claiming only Jews matter? They don't seem to exist. Thus, this claim that has been put forth by Chechar, O'Meara and MANY others appears to me to have weak backing to put it kindly. No backing might be more accurate.
(1) Tan wrote: "In my view, people who argue as Chechar does are either knaves or fools."
If a significant number of Whites are prone to be like Chechar, then does it not make a tentative case for White Pathology?
(2) On the other hand if we view it as Whites (in this case Chechar) falling prey to Jewish narrative, then it is less (or none of) White Pathology rather Jewish Toxicity.
(3) If, however, we, even if just for a change, consider the possibility (most likely a fact) that Churchianity (as well as Islam) were Jewish conspiracies; there is some reconciliation between points (1) and (2). And that is, whatever appears to be "white pathology" might, on deeper analysis, turn out to be outcome of Jewish deviousness.
(4) Tan, but how about pagan Romans? We do believe that Jews on one hand tricked Romans into crucifying Jesus, and then guilt-tripped them into accommodating Churchianity (designed by Paul, the Jew). But in some sense Romans did get fooled, ain't it? And it must have been owing to some kind of lack of caution (about Jews) or over-confidence in their own infallibility.
(5) So we believe that White (or possibly all goyims) Pathology lies in the false over confidence about their own infallibility, and Jewish conspiracy lies in their deviousness to exploit it.
We wonder if we made any good sense.
Never mind what Jews do or believe, what do those who tend to excuse them have to say about their undeniable raw political power? Does any other group have Presidents and Senators running to lick their ass like AIPAC or the ADL does? Are we expected to believe that people with all this power are somehow neutral and inactive in the genocide going on all around us, or that they are active in that genocide but, despite having all this obvious power, their responsibility for the American Holocaust [TM] doesn't much exceed that which is granted by their mere numbers?
It's also indisputable that Jews top off the list of people raping democracy by giving bribes to our politicians. Their disproportionate influence is undeniable. Do their apologists believe all these Jewish bribers are neutral in the war against whites?
Can the apologists point to the areas where the majority of Jews do anything that is pro-white, or pro-West, or even that is just pro-America from the traditional patriotic point of view? They're thick as thieves in virtually every destructive movement. Again excess power + involvement = greater responsibility.
Thanks for the reminder about O'Meara's screed against "anti-semitism" Lew. I wrote about it at the time in O'Meara: The Anti-Semites Are Our Misfortune. Sure enough, Chechar's there, singing O'Meara's praises, trying to stir shit and call attention to himself. Much of what Chechar writes, including what I've linked in this post, comes across as trolling. His modus operandi is to drop names and play his little caricatures of their positions off against each other. Behind all his whimsical allusions and harsh rhetoric is a seemingly irrepressible urge to blame Whites and excuse jews.
re: 10:33 am,
what do those who tend to excuse them have to say about their undeniable raw political power?
They'll find a way to exonerate jews come hell or high water. In my experience, the standard rebuttal to the type of point you raise here about jewish power is "whites let them do it." In this case, they'd likely point to white politicians sucking up to jews, whites using their power to further Jewish interests, and white voters routinely returning these politicians to office.
If a significant number of Whites are prone to be like Chechar, then does it not make a tentative case for White Pathology?
(2) On the other hand if we view it as Whites (in this case Chechar) falling prey to Jewish narrative, then it is less (or none of) White Pathology rather Jewish Toxicity.
To discuss "White pathology" is to beg the question. What's the pathogen? The answer is jews. The more appropriate term for "White pathology", especially regarding the symptoms White racialists discuss, is judaization.
Likewise with discussions of parasitism. Who is the parasite? Why would any White racialist defend parasitism?
While many Whites have internalized the toxic ideas propagandized by the judaized regime, and widespread demoralization and degeneracy are symptomatic of this, there aren't many Whites who go to the kind of deliberate, long-term effort to blame Whites as a way of excusing jews. I can count on one hand the ones I'm aware of who have done so under the guise of pro-White racialism, ala Jobling or Chechar, actively advocating toxic ideas like the suicide meme, for example, rather than simply being influenced by and paying lip service to such thinking.
Jobling is likely a jew/part-jew. Chechar is as familiar with the other two as I am. Lawrence Auster, self-described "white" racialist and fifth-columnist jew whose primary passion, despite "conversion" to Christianity, was sniffing out and denouncing "anti-semitism". And Peder Jensen (AKA Fjordman), the counter-jihadist who turned out to be as jewy-looking as he was jewy-thinking.
I think it's significant that Auster called Chechar to my attention, praising him as an advocate of "non-anti-Semitic white nationalism". After several years of characteristic exaggerated posturing Chechar has now settled into the same kind of crusade that Jobling, Auster and Fjordman engaged in - saving Whites by sniffing out "monocausalists".
What people like this do isn't a symptom of judaization. It is judaization.
In Jewish Crypsis – Crypto-Jews – Part 2 I quoted another jewish page on Crypto Jews:
Many of the immigrants from Portugal were secondary immigrants from the Jewish Expulsion in Spain of 1492. However, a later similar decree was also issued in Portugal in 1497 effectively converted all Jewish children, making them wards of the state unless the parents also converted. Therefore, many of the early crypto-Jewish migrants to Mexico in the early colonial days were technically first to second generation Portuguese with Spanish roots before that. The number of such Portuguese migrants was significant enough that the label of “Portuguese” became synonymous with “Jewish” throughout the Spanish colonies.
So many perceived crypto-Jews were going to Mexico during the 1500s that officials complained in written documents to Spain that Spanish society in Mexico would become significantly Jewish. Officials found and condemned clandestine synagogues in Mexico City.
This doesn't get at exactly where, when, or to what degree these crypto-jews had influence, and it would be difficult to get a full accounting anyway since some were able to go about their subversion unrecognized and unmolested. But then that's my point. Despite the "persecution" the jews were still there, and furthermore, they had influence. I'm not the one arguing all or nothing. Chechar is.
Chechar claims "judenfrei" and "sans jews" - i.e. there were zero jews and/or they had zero influence. That makes him 100% full of shit.
Chechar, the Spanish imposter,
Boring blog, no ideas to foster.
He's descended from Moops
and still jumps through hoops
to forget being bullied by Auster.
Chechar writes:
I said above that I used the word “suicide” hyperbolically.
Yes, in fact it's all hyperbole. Hyperbole is probably the single best word to sum him up. But so good of him to finally come clean. That's the last second of my life I'll waste responding to Chechar.
Yes, I've noted that as well, his consistency in diverting a directed criticism of what he has said by saying what he said was "hyperbole".
That statement completely undercuts whatever point he was making, since the "hyperbole" was his core point.
What he does next is ask you to read a book that is 1,000 pages long, or redirect you to 10 of his past essays plus the entire output of Counter-Currents for the last two years.* Until such a time as you do so, he no longer permits you to engage him in debate.
*Yes, that's what he does. No hyperbole.
Chechar's Massive Iberian screw-up offers some response to the argument I've made here against his White-blaming/jew-excusing version of history, that Christianity + Spain = "proof" of "suicide" "sans jews".
He's shifted the middle portions of his argument, but his premise and conclusion, that Whites suck (or to be more precise, Whites are fundamentally broken, in that we have some inherent jew-independent drive to self-destruct), remains the same.
He's no longer focused on how I suck, but broadens it to how White nationalists suck:
why the single-cause hypothesis in White Nationalism is untenable—that is, that “Whites can do no wrong and are the eternal victims of Jewish deceit and aggression”
What I see when I look back through history is evidence that Whites have been more or less judaized, parasitized by jews, for millenia. What Chechar sees is what he went searching for in the first place, a way to blame Whites and excuse jews. Naturally those who sympathize with the host see things from a pro-host/anti-parasite point of view. Chechar is aware of this view, but does not share it, in fact he is trying to counter it, aiding and abetting the parasite. This reflects poorly on him.
Now his specific "culprits" are a lust for gold and anti-racism. Where do these "culprits" come from? They're just inborn traits of the real "culprits", of course, Whites.
Chechar admits now that some crypto-jews did escape "persecution" and even had influence. But:
the larger point is that ... it would be ridiculous to claim that they “caused” the thoroughgoing mestization that, with time, ruined the genetic pool of the conquerors
He fails to acknowledge that this genetic pool was already tainted, that judaization preceded mestization - that the judaization traces back at least to Roman times, survived despite the "persecution" of some crypto-jews all along the way, and continues to this day.
Whatever the evidence against it, he concludes by idiotically repeating the same variant of the suicide meme that he's been pushing all along:
Whatever happened in this large part of the American continent it had nothing to do with Jewish subversion. It was the Spanish and the Portuguese doing it to themselves.
My point is that Chechar is the one making ridiculous arguments and all-or-nothing claims. He acknowledges jewish infiltration and subversion only to dismiss it.
My larger point is, why does he do this? Why is he looking for a way to blame Whites and excuse jews? I have asked him directly. He ignores the question. In fact, when he made public the email where I asked if he was a crypto-jew, he deliberately left out that portion, the better to paint me as "paranoid".
I think the best explanation for his behavior is that he's either a crypto-jew, neurotic, or both. I think his bombast about Hitler and exterminating jews is squid ink. Whatever the cause for Chechar's crusade, the bigger picture, I think, is that as the parasite is exposed and its cries of "ANTI-PARASITISM!!!" lose potency, the host's antibodies can expect tacts like "IT'S ALL THE HOST'S FAULT!!!" to come to the fore.
At several so called WN blogs there has been a push of late to assert that we should stop asking questions of the Jew and instead look to our own faults. The conclusion then is made: Kill White people.
Of late, Chechar has been posting more and more on the necessity to exterminate large amounts of White people in order to preserve White people (well, specifically English Roses). It may seem counter intuitive to you or I but it makes great sense to Chechar.
What would be more intuitive for Chechar, given his goals, is that he convert to Islam, move to England as a persecuted minority, go on the pension and sire a brood of moops with his state funded English Roses.
While the harem attends to his new breed of Morlocks he can set about enacting his plans for massive liquidation events of White people throughout Europe.
And all to the tune of Wagner's Ring Cycle. With added bonus that he finally got to pay back his dastardly parents and their evil Church.
Speaking of Chechar's "culprits", the lust for gold and Christian anti-racism, I just happened across the following in An SS Booklet on Racial Policy:
The Jew
The Jews were behind the teachings of equality by the Church, Liberalism and Marxism. They were the first and most fanatic proponents of the idea. The Jew Paul spread the Christian doctrine of equality. Freemasonry dominated the intellectual world of the French Revolution, and Liberalism grew out of Freemasonry. The Portuguese Jew Ricardo, the “father of classical national economics,” is the prophet of the liberal economic theory of free trade and economic piracy. The foundation of Marxism and Bolshevism is “Das Kapital,” by the Jew Mardochai (Marx).
How did the Jew gain this destructive power over the European peoples? The Jews are a mixed race. The essential characteristic that separates them from all other races and peoples is the instinct for parasitism. The Jews themselves are most clear about this. Karl Marx, the author of “Das Kapital,” says: “What is the essential trait of Jewry? Practicality, self interest. What is the culture of the Jew? Haggling. What is his god? Money.” The Jewish philosopher Spinoza said: “What we require is simple: that we control everything necessary for our own good.”
Not a word about "White suicide sans jews".
Tan, you have said (possibly here) Jews are my enemy. Jews are not the only enemy, and not all Jews are enemies.
Wonder why there are still doubts in Chechar's mind about "monocausalism", "anti-semitism", etc.
We always see Christ and Church as separate. Notwithstanding "doubts" regarding the historicity of Jesus (and his being allegedly Jew), the message in the gospels seems to be towards liberation from the Torah! While the Church's emphasis on the old-testament etc., as well as its opposite seem a subterfuge towards Judaization.
It might be better for Whites to rediscover their pagan roots and then, if they so wish, independently draw only spiritual inspiration from only Jesus's message (including looking for the "lost" gospels).
Church, Islam, Marx all are crude or subtle attempts at destroying the goy by the non-goy.
the message in the gospels seems to be towards liberation from the Torah!
That is incorrect. The message about the Pharisees is liberation, if you want to call it that, from the Talmud.
Christ's criticisms of the Pharisees was that they do not observe the Torah but rather have made up their own rules in their oral tradition, now called Talmud, to subvert God.
Post a Comment
<< Home