At Age of Treason, last March an interesting debate ensued when the admin expelled a regular commenter (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):
Daybreaker, I get the distinct impression you are in some way jewish. Would you mind setting the record straight, one way or the other?
I’m not Jewish.
My personal background is not your business, and I’m not going to share it on the Internet, but I’ve been looking it up and I’m definitely not Jewish.
Your “distinct impression” lacks any foundation. The quote you gave just before saying you have this “distinct impression” (“Our default setting is highly universalistic compared to Jews, and likely compared to anybody else” [–Daybreaker]) is not a rational basis for an impression that I’m Jewish in any way.
Let me be blunt. You’re being paranoid.
Pat Hannagan said…
Well, Tan’s impression is one I got Daybreaker, or at least I questioned.
Your comments in this thread were beautiful but, when I’ve read you elsewhere you seem to me to have flip slopped and taken on the opposition’s side. It’s not paranoia, just trying to work out if you’re legit or not.
I’ve said what I am, minus what particular countries my all-White and all non-Jewish ancestors hail from. And I’ve done what I can to clear up the main points that may cause confusion.
There’s nothing else I can do. I accept that you and Tanstaafl are not being paranoid. But you’ll just have to keep wondering and working on it, because I can’t make myself any plainer than to give you a straight no, which I already have.
Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it.
That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you’re a jew because you act like one.
That’s a “shut up” and I will.
“That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you’re a jew because you act like one.”
Based on that additional evidence, I retract my retraction. You definitely are paranoid about Jews and imagined Jews.
You definitely won’t be missed.
“Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it. That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew.”
Wow, that’s all it takes to avoid the accusation?
What alarmed me was that other commenters at Age of Treason I respected continued to comment as if Daybreaker’s ethnicity had been properly demonstrated. It looked unfair to me even though I had no means to ascertain if Daybreaker was telling the truth. I felt disappointed and promised to myself, silently, not to comment at that blog again. But…
Yesterday and today I received some emails from Tanstaafl asking me if I have Jewish blood in my veins! Apparently Tanstaafl is now trying to see a Jew under the wrong stone because he’s extremely upset about my recent posts criticizing his pet theory, “monocausalism.” However upset he may be, that is no excuse for his rudeness in his recent emails. Here there are some sentences of our email exchanges. Originally, he reacted as a result of my comments at Carolyn’s blog:
Could you tell me what is going on in your mind? Do you not recognize a criticism of your position? Are you not willing or able to defend it? Did you discover some marrano roots or something?
If you don’t mind, I will respond in my blog, but first I must know if it’s OK with you to quote your email.
Haven’t you been “responding” at your blog, and elsewhere, for months already? You can’t sum up whatever you have to say to me in an email?
I can sum up: as far as I know I have zero J ancestry (a couple of old uncles are pretty obsessed with genealogy and I trust their research). And I am astounded that you may think of me having “marrano” ancestry.
Why would this be astounding anyway, then or now? Were you not aware of the marrano element sprinkled throughout latin America?
What is astounding about the question considering this position you’ve taken? Being marrano would help explain it.
Did Tanstaafl imply that I lied in my previous email when I explicitly said that I have zero Jewish blood? Since I consider his rudeness a personal insult (not only is he apparently doubting my word, marrano also means “pig” in Spanish) now I don’t feel compelled to ask permission to publish his above emails. This said, another clarification is in order. In his last email he also said:
“You seem similarly single-minded in your drive even farther back into Roman history. Naturally I’m curious why excusing the jews has become so important to you, especially when your criticisms are aimed, at least in part, at me.”
Where the hell Tanstaafl got the idea that I am “excusing the jews”? My criticism of monocausalism has nothing to do with defending Jews and everything to do with accusing Whites of weakness—as Severus Niflson explained so well last Monday in Yeager’s show, the subject of my previous entry.
It now looks to me that Tanstaafl is the symmetrical opposite of Fjordman. Just as Fjordman gets mad every time I suggest at Gates of Vienna that Jews have been involved in the West’s crisis, so Tanstaafl gets mad when I suggest at other forums that Whites are involved too in the same crisis. Although Fjordie and Tan are ideological antipodes with regard to the Jewish Question, for them the whole question is “either or”, never—God forbid!—“both.” As Niflson put it in his audio reply to Tanstaafl:
“We can’t just go out there and mention the jews the jews the jews, yeah we can mention other people, but we can’t be childish and just think that it’s all to blame on other people and by magically addressing the issue of their existence that suddenly our character will become magically well.”
Niflson is not alone speaking out about the character flaws of present-day whites. If I wrote for this blog the articles criticizing monocausalism it’s because notable people moved my train of thought toward that direction after Michael O’Meara became disenchanted with the webzine Counter-Currents:
1) Tom Sunic for one has been openly dismissive of monocausalism in his radio podcasts.
2) Michael O’Meara’s best 2011 article at Counter-Currents dismissed monocausalism as something silly and quite stupid.
3) Many of Harold Covington’s radio rants convinced me that, although the subversive Jew must be named, something horribly wrong—“yellow dogs” is one term used by Covington—is going on within the character of today’s Whites.
4) Hunter Wallace has been contradicting monocausalism for at least two years at Occidental Dissent. Although I disagree with his claim that America is run by blacks (I believe that Jews are far more influential) I have quoted some of his recent pronouncements on monocausalism, which Wallace calls “single-cause hypothesis.”
5) The harshest diatribes against these weakened whites I’ve read comes from the pen of William Pierce: one of the best minds that the movement produced in the continent.
6) Even Kevin MacDonald himself doesn’t seem to support strict monocausalism!
The heavyweights convinced me that strict monocausalism is silly, and that besides naming the Jew we must also note our flaws that empowered the tribe since the French Revolution.
Perhaps the next step in Tanstaafl’s escalating paranoia will be to ask these notable people if they too have some Jewish blood—and when receiving answers in the negative then insisting in follow-up emails that they must, notwithstanding, be Jewish?
This is the second time that this happens to me since I became involved in the white nationalist movement by the end of 2009. The first time happened when I criticized the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Monocauslaist J Richards, who even blames the American Civil War on the Jews, claimed at Majority Rights that that alone was proof that I was Jew! (see my comment about it here). Again, since the Majority Rights admin never apologized for allowing Richards’ claim within the main text of an article, I promised never to comment at that site again.
Aside of these insults directed at me by mail and in the blogosphere the real issue is, Are other monocausalists paranoid too?
I would appreciate comments on this question. It seems to me that character flaws are far more endemic in the movement than what I previously thought.
When I finished the above writing I learnt that Severus Niflson recorded a follow-up audio response to Tanstaafl even if this time Niflson didn’t name him. At Carolyn’s blog Niflson added a textual reply as well, of which I’ll quote a sentence:
Generally, my point is more on the side of practicality and honesty. The honest truth is that we have plenty of blame for our current situation, we could all make a list. This isn’t to remove blame on other people, but to be reasonable and forthright. Anybody who claims that all of our issues are to be laid on the feet of Jews is basically crossing the line into the realm of religion and faith, which in all honesty isn’t my favorite area since it crosses from rational into emotional.
Listen to Niflson here.
35 replies on “Are monocausalists paranoid?”
Strict monocausism is an error from one POV.
Every group needs an enemy. When one is lacking, it is created. Here in the US this is done almost continiously, new enemies always springing up.
The enemy creates fear and dread, while promoting unity. If pinning all of our problems on the jews helps WN, maybe it should be considered. You look at the result you want, then you determine the means to use.
In truth, the jews are only a part of the issue. But whites are very demoralized today. They need a target, they need someone to fight.
The blacks are too stupid, as are the mexicans and the muslims. The asians clearly aren’t involved. The jew makes a good target, especially when you factor in the effect of the holocaust fable, which has been their greatest WMD.
As you have found out, an attempt at cleaning up the WN act has resulted in you being labelled a Jew. I’ve been labelled a Jew, a sand nigger, a homosexual, an Uncle Tom, and, somewhat anticlimactically, a Nordic!
Don’t waste your time with these people. I have been “involved” with these crazies for, roughly, a decade. They are hopeless. There are rare finds within their ranks, but they are few and far between.
You may be right. But I still feel respect for people like the good professor Kevin Mac.
He’s one of those exceptions. Anyway, you’ll burn out in due time. And I don’t write this with glee nor with superciliousness, but the blandest matter of fact observation.
I think Niflson has it right. To lay 100% blame on Jewish influence is to miss the boat. It absolves White elites of selling out their own and it prevents any discussion of previous mistakes made by them that resulted in the current situation. Jewish and White elites might not be responsible to the same degree but there would have to be a lot of evidence to back up monocausalism. All you would need to disprove it is just one fact that shows a White actor being responsible for something that goes against White interests.
More than Jews I hate White traitors:
Addressing Arabs and speaking in high terms about the idiotic Obama speech in Cairo, Bill Clinton said that America won’t be an European-based majority nation by 2040. That is: that whites will finally lose, numerically, their majority status. And Clinton also said that this is a good thing!
On the other side of the Atlantic there are also lots of politicians that will be brought to justice by me and my comrades in the glorious “Day of the R.”
Minister for immigration, integration and national identity Eric Besson, Sarkozy’s mouthpiece and a former Socialist said, in front of an immigrant audience, right in the middle of a Muslim suburb next to Paris:
There is no question that the jews have had a decidedly detrimental effect on our civilisation. I include myself among those who sometimes go overboard in laying all the blame on these people for what has happened. However, the fact remains that the jews would not have been able to achieve their destructive aims without the willing help of so many of our own people down the ages. Unless we examine ourselves and realise that much of the horror that has transpired is due to us then no solution to the crisis will be obtained. White character, or more accurately, the lack of it, is as responsible for what has happened as the any of the machinations of the jews.
The nazis took the jews out of the cities before the massive bombing raids of German cities. The jews were in camps out in the country away from the horrific and death and destruction that the German people had to endure.
The camps, by the way, were much different than the “narrative” would have us believe. There is plenty of information online for anyone who cares to research the matter.
The national socialists were rational all right. The top nazis leaders knew exactly what to do to keep the jews safe from the bombing raids.
At a time the Germans were fighting a war for survival on two fronts, and needed every resource they could muster, the top nazi leaders made sure to direct needed and valuable resources to keeping the jews safe.
After Germany was left in complete devastion, the jews skipped to Israel : As per the rothschild plan from the very beginning; As per Hitler’s plan.
As it is, the jews have been kicked out of many countries as we all know. No one mentions, however, that the jews were always brought back into the same countries they were kicked out from.They were always allowed back in because of white sell-outs. Unfortunately, our white race produces sell-outs a dime-a-dozen. One can’t deny that without denying the truth of history.
National socialism is not the cure for what ails white America. Until family life is restored and Marriage and Children are given a place of honor and respect in our collective white conciousness, our collective culture, nothing good is going to accrue to white Americans.
And yes, I know hollywood is all about “jew” propaganda. I also know that one can throw one’s teevee in the dumpster. As it is, white Americans are not even willing to make that sacrifice. I don’t see it happening.
For all the great gifts the white race has given to the world, the mercenary spirit that runs deep in our blood greatly weighs us down as a race.
blah blah fucking blah
You conspiracy nuts crack me up. One way or the other you’ll be dead soon.
I’m open to conspiracy Joe: any truth can be thoroughly hidden if the powers that be have the will, the media, the force and a decent alibi. However, if you truly believe the 3rd Reich was in the Judaic pocket, then why did they destroy Nazi Germany?
Roosevelt and his Jewish elite had already eliminated the WASP market-elite power in America. America was in their pocket, with only minimal resistance by Isolationists Republicans who were easily circumvented to drive the American war machine in whatever direction the Jews desired.
If the Jews had a strong control over America (though they still had to be calculating in order to steer America towards their interests), and if Great Britain was working in their interests (whether Jewish controlled or not), and if they secretly controlled the Nazi party, that’s EVERYTHING.
WW2 would not have been necessary. Israel would have been guaranteed, with the only real threat remaining in the anti-Semitic Joseph Stalin. However, even the Soviet Union was still fairly Jewish in key positions at that point.
Was WW2 something the Jews had never intended? Was it an unintentional war between all the Judaic-puppets, each Nation thinking the other was the enemy of the Jew?
Your narrative makes the Jews the omnipotent overlords: a mindset White Nationalism must avoid for it is ultimately a defeatist narrative. The Germans under Hitler stood valiantly against the Judaic controlled west and Judaic created communism: it is our shining proof that European peoples can resist effectively if the will and clarity of mind exists.
I don’t have the qualifications to discuss whether someone is paranoid in the precise, professional way that you could, Chechar. I can only use the word in the common-sense way that most people do in saying that, for instance, Stalin was paranoid.
As usual, I agree with Kevin MacDonald a lot. First:
Because of that I think we have to be careful about ideas that are possible but lack evidence, particularly if these ideas hit strong emotional buttons. I think that can be an invitation to people to buy into conspiracy theories and structures of thinking that are resistant to rational discussion.
You saw this yourself in the discussion when Kevin MacDonald said he wasn’t taking the possibility of some form of “9/11 truth” off the table. I didn’t like him going even that far, but since then he’s never gone further, which has set me at ease again. However, you’ll remember that in the discussion thread there was an unpleasant number of people that were true believers, arguing 9/11 truth in ways that showed they were not open to reasonable persuasion and wanted converts not contradiction.
That to me showed at least a touch of paranoia. One big hostile entity with vast organizing ability, that is the Jewish enemy, sufficed to explain everything, even acts of explicit jihad undertaken by fanatical Muslims who died chanting “Allag hu akhbar!” So I think the preference to see one big enemy only, not multiple problems, does bleed over into “paranoia” (in the common sense sense).
I don’t hold professional qualifications either (as you may know, I believe that most psychiatric diagnoses are political, not scientific): I merely used the term in commonsensical ways too.
Yesterday I loved this interview of Henry Harpending by Craig Bodeker. Harpending, a very kind and old-fashioned scientist, said that he doesn’t pay much attention to the global warming stuff because it’s hold “by True Believers. And every time you see a True Believer on Science, walk the other way.”
Of course: those who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories and that the so-called holocaust is a hoax are True Believers: They don’t spend the same amount of time researching both the prosecutor’s case and the attorney’s case. If you have ears only for researching one side of the debate you are in the realm of religion, not of skeptical inquiry.
I believe that more rational criticism of Jewish power, precisely the one that Kevin Mac does (who apparently doesn’t believe that “Mossad did 9/11” nor he dismisses the “holocaust” as unhistorical), is far more effective than the quasi-religious approach endemic in the movement. Irmin Vinson’s essays on Hitler and the holocaust are also spot on and free of this sort of approach.
But try to explain that to a True Believer…
There is no debate on the holocaust, except on some isolated places on the internet. The prosecutor’s case is being rammed down our throats 24/7 and anybody questioning it is persecuted.
Skepticism “…generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.” (Wikipedia) Historical revisionism is skeptical inquiry by definition.
“Of course: those who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories and that the so-called holocaust is a hoax are True Believers: They don’t spend the same amount of time researching both the prosecutor’s case and the attorney’s case.”
You are making a bold claim about people you don’t even know. You also used the loaded term “holo denialism” against holocaust revisionism before. You show bias against holocaust revisionism, which is irreconcilable with skeptical inquiry.
I ignored that “holo” was derogatory (English is not my native language).
As you can appreciate, since I lost decades believing in pseudosciences, I have detected subtle mechanisms of self-delusion that escape True Believers. I am not claiming that the Holocaust happened exactly as described in MSM. Only that when you believe vehemently something you completely skip paying due attention to the other side. The vaccination against such unconscious mechanisms of self-deceit is obviously to read a “skeptical” book (however you define “skepticism”) for every book you read from the other side and then make your mind.
Forfeiting this natural process usually leads to self-deception.
“They don’t spend the same amount of time researching both the prosecutor’s case and the attorney’s case.”
Holocaust revisionists probably think that the Jewish narrative is preposterous. Even so, they have written detailed books on the subject. I haven’t done my holocaust homework and haven’t read the explanations given by Faurisson, Butz, and others. But from what I understand, the problem with the Jewish holocaust narrative is that the Jews lack any evidence that millions of Jews were killed by Germans, many of them in gas chambers. They just “know” it happened. They present themselves as the true believers.
They are many obvious things that don’t make sense in the Jewish holocaust narrative. You don’t have to be a knowledgeable revisionist to see that. The way Jews keep lying and threatening us is obvious too. They can’t be bothered with details like facts and logical arguments.
Armor, the Jewish narrative is indeed preposterous. But are you saying that there are no Gentile scholars in holocaust studies?
“are you saying that there are no Gentile scholars in holocaust studies?”
You mean no Gentile scholars supporting the Jewish holocaust narrative? I wasn’t trying to imply that, besides I know little about the subject. Even so, I think the quarrel is between Jewish activists and a handful of White revisionists. Most White historians want to avoid any trouble and have simply given up on doing their jobs. I guess a handful of non-Jews are probably working for the Jews and using the same dishonest tactics as Jewish activists.
I am no expert on holocaust. Have you any idea of the percentage of these Gentile scholars (some pure Germans perhaps)? You imply as if the overwhelming majority of the creators of that narrative are Jews. I really have no idea of percentages and it would be nice to know.
“You imply as if the overwhelming majority of the creators of that narrative are Jews.”
I take it for granted, even though I don’t know, actually. We know that Jewish activists like to push sympathetic non-Jews in prominent positions in Jewish political movements as a front. It is probably true in the case of the holocaust narrative too. But still, if you are prosecuted in France for holocaust revisionism, it will be at the instigation of Jews. I guess it is different in Germany, where the government is probably doing the Jews’ work for them.
Daybreaker: acts of explicit jihad undertaken by fanatical Muslims who died chanting “Allag hu akhbar!” So I think the preference to see one big enemy only, not multiple problems, does bleed over into “paranoia”
Today’s threat to White people is not Muslim terrorism, but replacement by non-Whites. And Muslims are not responsible for that. And in fact, Jewish activists are largely responsible for importing Muslim immigrants, as well as non-Muslim immigrants.
Re what you said today at Carolyn’s:
I don’t believe that either Severus or I hold such stance. It would be criminal if people like Kevin Mac stopped their work at TOO.
I believe that Jews must be criticized and exposed until they are expelled from the West (along with the Muslims and other non-white immigrants).
I believe Muslim immigration is just an unintentional side effect of the mass-migration system created by Judaic powers. They wanted to racially replace White ethnic groups (their primary threats), but didn’t realize that these anti-White systems can import non-Whites who are a lot more physically anti-Semitic then any online WN keyboard warrior.
Its scaring them a bit I bet, and now the Jews are trying to do some damage control lest the Muslim migrants hunt them down in their Western puppet nations. So they’ve started rallying the anti-immigration crowd: even allowing for a bit of implicit White racial consciousness, but only tolerated if the organizations are strictly anti-Muslim. (I.E. the E.D.L.)
That’s “Allah hu akhbar!” …
Anyway, it would be a complete defense to say (convincingly) that there really is only one big problem, the Jewish problem. But I don’t think that flies.
My second quote is from Stalin’s Willing Executioners:
Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR. Kevin MacDonald concludes:
I fully agree with that. For the whole White race, the Jewish problem is HUGE!
But given that the case in point is the Soviet Union, you’d have to be blind not to notice that the Russian people had at least two big enemies. (And I think a third, with an idealistic, moralistic domestic cultural elite that was so often so wrong-headed that it was as bad as treasonous. That type has not gone away, unfortunately. Under Jewish influence it has only gotten worse)
I think the Germans should have gone East as liberators, but the reality is that they didn’t. They went as harsh conquerors. (Not that the Russians had behaved decently either. To speak only of the Winter War against the innocent Finns…)
Man is a wolf to man, and Whites have been wolves to Whites.
The nutty vindictiveness of Westerners seriously at war, which Victor Davis Hanson thinks is a great strength and I think is two double-edged to embrace, has to be reckoned with. The First World War cut open the belly of the Western world, and let every infection in, both literally (with the killer flu) and figuratively and morally. We shouldn’t forget this calamity, which struck a devastating blow against the confidence of the White world. And with America still winding down more wars that have not done Whites ay good that I can see, we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this weakness for unprofitable war is all in the past.
A ghost still stalks the White world; it is the ghost of Charles XII of Sweden, who thought that every war he fought was moral and to be pursued without limit in a frenzy of righteousness, and whose legacy is corpses and ruin.
And precisely this First World War gives context to understand the present. But the problem goes even before that. This is what distressed me the most when reading the history after the French Revolution emancipated the Jews: the Europeans were trapped in a deranged sense of decency. When Jews started to take over their banking system and culture in the 19th century, this deranged sense of decency prevented them to act accordingly. So it was not only the French blunder by the end of then 18th century, it was also this deranged sense of decency throughout the 19th what, especially after the wars of the 20th, empowered the tribe.
If there was nothing wrong with the white character they would have behaved in more robust ways to confront the J problem. As Fender put it at TOO, “And when someone finally did it in Germany the Anglos betrayed their own race. They’re a downright dangerous race of people—basically the vicious bulldogs of the tribe, attacking anyone who stands up to them.”
Once more, this goes far beyond monocausalism and places at least some of the blame on whites.
Daybreaker: “I think the Germans should have gone East as liberators, but the reality is that they didn’t. They went as harsh conquerors.”
Kaganovich and his fellow revolutionary Jews are responsible for the deaths of millions in Ukraine and Russia. By comparison, how many Russians do you claim the Germans killed?
The Germans killed Soviet soldiers as will happen in a war. Is that the harsh conquest you are talking about? Or are you talking about the way they ruled the population in the Russian territories under their control?
Gah! Preview is my friend…
Anyway, monocausalism is not correct, if only because is Shlomo lets three killers named DeShawn, Pancho and Khalid into your house you then have four enemies, not one.
And in being wrong and in insisting that everything displeasing to the monocausalist must be part of the one big evil, it lends itself to paranoia.
“if Shlomo lets three killers named DeShawn, Pancho and Khalid into your house you then have four enemies, not one.”
How do you send Pancho and Khalid back to Mexico/Arabia without first getting rid of the Shlomos in the government? Do you grab them by the collars of their shirts and drag them back to their home countries? I’d like to see you try that.
yeah yeah yeah
Of course it’s all shlomo’s fault. Whites are angels with snowy white wings sent down from heaven to teach the jews about truth and light.
I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel…. and all that
You can say “yeah yeah yeah” but it’s true and relevant.
People who are outright nuts like truthers do no good.The pro-White movement is marginal and tiny, and it doesn’t take many crazies to move in and be a substantial proportion of such a small movement.
It’s not a question of being tolerant or intolerant in driving out the nuts; that is not the conflict. Rather it’s about not being discouraged and in effect driven out by paranoids who see imaginary Jews and imaginary Jewish agendas in unlikely places.
I never said,nor did I ever imply, that I see imaginary jews anywhere.
My “yeah yeah yeah” post was moved by the webmaster to give the readers the impression that I think the exact opposite of what I really do.
The webmaster also deleted a post of mine that rightfully should be up on the board in the middle of the comment board.
I am Not a monocausalist at all.
My “yeah yeah yeah” post was in response to Cameron’s “blah blah fucking blah” post. I then wrote a compelling post about WW2- the webmaster put the post up for about an hour or two– then he deleted it, ipso facto making it look like I blame the jews for our problems. The truth is the exact opposite– and the webmaster knows it.
@Chechar- it’s not cricket. You’re not as fair-minded as you feign.
Nope! As far as I know I can’t move comments. The fault is yours: you had to click on the “Reply” button to make sure that you were responding to Cameron (instead, you used the “Leave a reply” box at the bottom). If this was not apparent at the beginning it’s because Daybreaker’s comments got stuck in the filter when I was outside the net.
As for you removed comment (“The jews are omnipotent overlords…”, etc), I’ll restore it but please try shorter comments and more to the point.
I’ll shall write shorter posts in the future. I appreciate that you’re going to restore my post. I will be sure to click the “reply” button next time.
I’ll do my best to get more to the point in the future.
What was loaded about the term “holo denialism” was not the word “holo” but the word “denialism”. There is a Wiki-article on that word here. Its meaning is to ascribe psychological issues to deniers and thereby serves to avoid skeptical inquiry of the matter.