Massive Iberian screw-up

As a postscript to my recent post about 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”—, let me clarify something I said about the Iberian side of the conquest of America and New Spain in particular.

mestizo kid

(A Mestizo kiddie: the symbol of the Iberian blunder.)

The main culprit of the extremely thorough mestization that took place in the American continent at the south of Río Grande, all the way to the lands of the Incas in South America, was the Iberians’ lust for gold and silver.

That was the main culprit that in this blog I have called, inspired in Wagner and Tolkien, as falling prey of the One Ring or “economics over race” policies. That’s also why, at the very top of this blog, I include an image of the real god of spoiled whites, Mammon.

The second culprit was the Catholic Church that allowed the bachelor Spaniards in the continent to marry Amerindian women with a Pope bull only ten years after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. Christianity in general is blind to racial matters and the Church did not give a damn about the havoc that such bull would cause. (The Catholic Church was so powerful in New Spain that by the end of the 17th century it owned more than half of its territories.)

Those are, in my view, the two main factors that explain how the Iberians massively screwed up the continent.

As I said in my previous post, this case proves that whites are capable of committing ethno-suicide by themselves, without the help of the subversive tribe, the Jews, who were persecuted and dispatched when detected in the three-hundred year period that lasted the Colonial times. (Hernán Cortés was the first to burn at the stake a couple of kikes in 1528, even before the Inquisition was formally established in New Spain.) Yes, it is true that even with such controls some cryptos might have entered spheres of influence. According to one biographer, Bartolomé de Las Casas was of converso heritage, although others refer to Las Casas family as old Christians who migrated from France.

But the larger point is that even if Las Casas (and presumably other cryptos who escaped detection) was of Jewish ancestry, it would be ridiculous to claim that they “caused” the thoroughgoing mestization that, with time, ruined the genetic pool of the conquerors.

Bernal_Diaz_del_Castillo

If you want to breathe the zeitgeist of New Spain I would highly recommend reading the primary sources, starting with the stupendous chronicle of Bernal Díaz del Castillo (d. 1585), The Truthful History of the Conquest of New Spain, i.e., the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Bernal was a foot soldier and fought with Hernán Cortés during the conquest of the capital of the Aztec Empire.

You will breath in The Truthful History, right from the beginning of the history of post-Columbian Mexico, how gold and religion provided the zeitgeist or axis around which the Iberian dominion over the Americas would move. 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. But judge it by yourself if you are interested in history. Read the primary sources that have been translated to English.

8 Comments

  1. I just changed the link of Bernal’s book from the Wikipedia article to an Amazon link to the Penguin Classics edition of the book, where it says:

    Vivid, powerful and absorbing, this is a first-person account of one of the most startling military episodes in history: the overthrow of Montezuma’s doomed Aztec Empire by the ruthless Hernan Cortes and his band of adventurers. Bernal Diaz del Castillo, himself a soldier under Cortes, presents a fascinatingly detailed description of the Spanish landing in Mexico in 1520 and their amazement at the city, the exploitation of the natives for gold and other treasures, the expulsion and flight of the Spaniards, their regrouping and eventual capture of the Aztec capital.

    My emphasis.

  2. Contrast the Jew-burning mongrelizing Catholics of Mexico with the far more philo-Semitic Indian-killing Negro-segregating Protestants to their north, and it’s pretty silly to claim that “conversos” were the principal force behind the destruction of New Spain.

    • In the Age of Treason thread I’ve been discussing these days,

      ‪Reg Sipco said…

      Until such a time as you do so, he [Chechar] no longer permits you to engage him in debate.

      ‪Who is this guy? I have not banned anyone in WDH except Joe-troll after he used a dozen of sockpuppets (and even after Joe’s many insults, I have recently allowed him to come back under a different name).

      ‪Reg Sipco said…

      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).

      I was indulging a little in Pierce’s novel fantasy, where many millions have to die in a nasty civil war to save the race. And yes: in “Dies Irae” I have also indulged myself in sci-fi fantasies after my favorite film, Kubrick’s 2001 and save only the best of the white race. But the way Reg phrases it makes the reader think that I have in mind something else.

      But Tan was much worse:

      What Chechar sees is what he went searching for in the first place, a way to blame Whites and excuse jews.

      Wrong. As always Tan is trying to guess what are my motivations, as if I were unique in the movement who has rejected monocausalism. (I am only unique in the sense of the vehemence of my writing style.) The truth is that first it came the evidence, the books on the history of the white race by Pierce and Kemp. Then it came the realization that whites have fell under the spell of the “One Ring” (cf. the discussion of previous threads) in cultures where the tribe had not subverted their civilizations. Tan is so overwhelmed by his POV (monocausalism) that he cannot even conceive that.

      Now his specific “culprits” are a lust for gold and anti-racism.

      More defamation coming from Tan. I feel almost sorry because pointing at something so obvious that I have never said (blaming “anti-racism”) only exposes him further. And Tan is so angry that he writes, “he concludes by idiotically repeating…” In his last comment of his December 14, 2013 post, “Chechar’s Crusade” he even has a harsh word about you.

      He acknowledges jewish infiltration and subversion only to dismiss it.

      Certainly not to dismiss it. Pneumonia (Jewish problem) may be a secondary disease. But it is still lethal. And it is lethal even if we acknowledge that AIDS (the Aryan problem) caused pneumonia in the first place. That’s why I advocate a final solution to the bacteria that is causing pneumonia, even if it’s a secondary infection (the virus is the primary one).

      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.

      I ignore nothing. He is so blinded with rage that he cannot even see that others are doing the same, rejecting the single-cause hypothesis.

      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”.

      Poor Tan. He is really paranoid. In this blog I have disclosed so many facts about my life that any visitor to Mexico City can do a little research about me or my family. He or she of course won’t find a drop of Jewish blood in any of us. None. But even defending myself before such accusation is kind of comic because I am simply responding to paranoia, like trying to convince a paranoiac (like those I have dealt with when I researched psychiatry) that you are not part of a sinister conspiracy. An impossible task…

      I think the best explanation for his behavior is that he’s either a crypto-jew, neurotic, or both.

      As I said, poor Tan. In an ethnostate such accusations would be libelous.

      Meanwhile, I like an Alex Linder policy on his VNN forum. He bans anyone who starts making criminal accusations about another commenter (“Jew,” “pedophile,” etc.) if there’s no proof that the accusation is truthful.

      Remember how I began my piece “Are monocausalists paranoid” last year?

      https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/are-monocausalists-paranoid/

      • He does seem temperamental, and I’m trying to understand what his actual position is.

        The sillyness Stubbs refers to is Chechar’s own claim about what other people claim. There are two halves to Chechar’s hyperbolic all-or-nothing false dichotomizing. On the one hand he makes silly claims using terms like “judenfrei” to “prove” “White suicide sans jews”. On the other hand he makes silly claims that anyone who doesn’t buy his bullshit is arguing that “Whites can do no wrong”.

        If I’m reading this correctly, Tan acknowledges that the fate of Mexico and America wasn’t entirely dependent on the amount of Jewish power in each society.

        I believe this would make Tan a Jew-emphasizing bicausalist in your model, similar to Linder. (He would not, however, identify Christianity as an enabler of Jewish dominance.)

        Tan seems to take some sort of moral offense at the idea of “blaming” Whites for their own victimization at the hands of the Jews, considering it to be apologetic for them. This goes back to the question of whether the guy walking alone through Harlem at night can be “blamed” for getting mugged. People will vehemently argue both ways; I think it’s basically two different uses of the word “blame”.

        That’s what it looks like to me anyway, if Tan’s reading this he’s obviously free to correct me.

      • I don’t see it that way. You see: I have been seriously called kike twice in the pro-white blogosphere, once by J Richards because of dismissing 9/11 conspiracies, the other by you know who for dismissing the single-cause hypothesis.

        It is so obvious that Tanstaafl is delusional. Did you read the first paragraphs of my post linked above after “Are monocausalist paranoid?” about how he banned Daybreaker from his blog because Daybreaker started to say that the universalist traits of whites make them vulnerable?

        At my age I have pretty much experience with people like Tan. In the past I met a sophisticated guy involved in guerrilla fighting. To him all history was the product of the struggle between the classes. You can imagine how furious he got when a non-Marxist challenged his dogma.

        Other notable people in the movement who believe that the tribe is the main cause don’t get furious. Just think of Duke or Linder. They are reasonable. My issue is not with them but with the fanatics who cannot tolerate the least bit of cognitive dissonance if you honestly disagree with them.

        Tan is paranoid also because he believes that suddenly I just picked on him. Can’t he see how I have “picked” on Greg Johnson too? Or how I have recently criticized many others, including my cousin Gerardo Tort, who recently I mentioned by name in a whole WDH entry? No one in the pro-white blogosphere that I know dares to drop real family names in their blogs. I do because I have no such scruples and my hate is infinite. Does Tan honestly expect that I would make an exception about him?

        He attributes malicious intentions about my purpose to debunk his a-historical thesis when someone saner would obviously see that if I had a background of trying to decipher human behavior (my book on psychohistory), once encountered WN the pivotal question of what is causing this mess would be obsessively addressed by my inquisitive mind. If in an honest search of trying to crack the cipher a meta-perspective originated in the Kemp and Pierce histories opens, then the monocausal hypothesis has to go.

        Tan cannot even conceive this. He has not responded to Hunter Wallace’s efforts to dismiss monocausalism for the simple reason that Wallace, unlike me, has not dropped the penname “Tan” in his many posts where he dismisses the hypothesis. But I bet that if Wallace changed his mind and dropped Tan’s penname that would be enough to make Tanstaafl a little paranoid and start asking questions about Wallace’s real motivations, etc.

        In a nutshell, although he sounds reasonable in Carolyn’s show Tan is quite an immature person. In my case he started the war. Yes: we don’t have ethnostate laws for libelous defaming yet. But you cannot expect that after making unfounded accusations, as he did when he insisted in his emails last year that I must be a member of the tribe, that the other party would not react.

        Look at his “temperamental” comments, as you say, these days. Don’t you think that in the minds of some non-fanatic visitors who read his blog and click on the articles that link here would see that Tan is probably making false assumptions, that he’s imagining things?

      • I missed the part with Daybreaker. Seems he wasn’t just having an off day…

        I’m no shrink, but I wonder if having a half-Jew wife isn’t contributing to his demeanor. Tan sort of slingshots past objectivity, so as not to be pulled into lying for personal reasons, and becomes intensely suspicious of anyone he sees as “helping” his darker half run apologetics for the Jews (though they’d have no motive to do so).

        I’m speculating, and I don’t read much of the guy’s blog so I can’t say I have a great read in him.

  3. I disagree about a “ruthless” Hernán Cortés. After the conquest of Tenochtitlán he sent a letter to the king of Spain and emperor of Germany, Charles the Fifth, offering him the territory. Charles entitled him as Marquis of Oaxaca Valley. So Cortes became the only noble Spanish conqueror together with Francisco Pizarro. Cortes was a fair governor in New Spain and he introduced cattle in the country. Later he went to fight against moor pirates of North Africa where thousands Italian, French and Spanish christians were being held to ask for ransom. Cortes was a tough military when fighting but he was not “ruthless”. Malinche told him in to kill “even Aztec children” in Tenochtitlán in order to cause demoralization in the enemies. But he rejected to do so saying: “We are Castillians and Castillian soldiers do not kill children”. By the way. The Viceroyalty of New Spain reached in some point almost the entire West Coast of today’s United States. Hernán Cortés, for instance, took California in the name of Charles the Fifth, King of Spain and -at the same time- Emperor of the Holy Empire.

    • Yes, I read the book about Cortés by Madariaga when I lived in Spain.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: