On Beth’s cute tits

Beth dancing to a degenerate piece of music
that was a hit when I was pubescent, with trophies
from all the chess tournaments she had won.

As a teenager I was a big fan of chess, and even in my early twenties I played daily in a park visited by middle-class chess players (I recount my adventures in Spanish: here).

The Queen’s Gambit is an American TV miniseries based on the 1983 novel of the same name by Walter Tevis, starring Anya Taylor-Joy in the role of Beth Harmon. It was directed by the Jew Scott Frank and the script was written by a gentile, Allan Scott. The Queen’s Gambit was released on Netflix last month and has now concluded.

The past few days I watched The Queen’s Gambit. From one of the first episodes, when Beth approaches the camera showing the shape of her beautiful boobs under her clothes, I realised the impossible chimera of this series that is causing a sensation in the world. But first of all I must speak a little about female tits in our species.

Decades ago, the biggest surprise I came across when reading The Naked Ape was discovering why men crave women. If we consider the shape of a baby bottle for milk, that is exactly the shape female teats would have if the objective were purely functional for baby sucking. But women’s breasts are completely different. Zoologist Desmond Morris, the author of The Naked Ape, explains the phenomenon of ‘self-mimicry’ in other species of apes. In these species, natural selection favours females to imitate their buttocks with their coloured breasts, in order to shift the aggression of the males to a more erotic channelling.

I was shocked to discover that my own species is a more aesthetic version of the same phenomenon of self-mimicry! But that is exactly what it is when we see the ape we are with a naked eye: the needs of the baby are secondary to the trick that Nature does to us so that we impregnate our females. Nature makes them absolutely irresistible to our instincts in order for the human species to breed.

But our species is also governed by the concept of the trade-off, and I will have no choice but to speak scientifically for a few paragraphs.

Why can’t there be a species that is a mix between a super-poisonous bug and a winged, big, beautiful and highly intelligent creature? In a fantastic world just imagine what power such a creature would have. In my science course at the Open University I learned about the concept of a trade-off between one aspect of an organism’s biology and another. A trade-off is a situation where, to gain some advantage, an organism has to pay a price: to compromise. In our species big brains are a good example. Our huge frontal lobes are certainly nice to have but they are costly in terms of the energy they use up, and make childbirth extremely difficult.

As explained in my Day of Wrath (see sidebar), this is the main cause of massive infanticide of babies in past history. Extremely immature babies are bothersome. A unique feature of the human race—prolonged childhood with consequent long dependence on adults—is the basis for the psychodynamics of mental disorders. The long childhood of Homo sapiens lends itself to parents abusing their young. After all, premature birth was Nature’s solution to the trade-off of bipedalism and the limitations of the pelvis of hominid females in our simian ancestors. (If Homo sapiens weren’t born so immature, we would have to stay within our mothers’ bodies for about 20 months.) The ‘long childhood’ lays a solid foundation for understanding the abuses committed by parents in our species and, therefore, the mental disorders suffered by the progeny. But that’s the price we have paid for our big brains!

Body size is another example of trade-offs. In the animal kingdom being big gives you some advantages against predators but it also means you need more food. Being small means that you don’t need much food but it makes it easier for another animal to hunt you. That species can’t gain an advantage without having to pay a price means that there will be many ways to survive and prosper: and explains why there is so rich diversity in the animal kingdom.

In my Open University course I had to answer this question: Why a bird with a complete set of the five potentially very successful traits (a species of bird whose individuals lived a long time, reproduced repeatedly and at high frequency, and with large clutch sizes) doesn’t exist? The answer is because of trade-offs. A bird that produces large clutches cannot reproduce frequently because the production of each clutch requires a lot of resources. Also, large clutches require more looking after because in due course there are more mouths to feed. Large clutches are therefore likely to suffer higher mortality than small clutches while adults are absent from the nest.

The same applies to the surreal example of the impossible chimera I imagined above. Having assimilated the concept of trade-offs, let’s now remember old Schopenhauer:

In the girl Nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honourably in some form or another for the rest of his life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy [my emphasis—a trade-off].

The media lie is equivalent to ‘filming’ those flying and poisonous bugs which, in turn, are smart as humans: impossible chimeras.

In previous years I insisted a lot on how the most popular series of all time, Game of Thrones, made us see several female characters as brave warriors: something that never existed in the Middle Ages or in old-time chivalric novels (Brienne of Tarth, Yara Greyjoy, the wildling Ygritte, the masculinised female warriors at Dorne) or queens without a king to control them (Daenerys Targaryen and Cersei Lannister). Worst of all was that a girl (Arya Stark) killed the bad guy of the series, the Night King, in what I consider to be the climax of the whole series (Theon Greyjoy should have killed the Night King). In real medieval times, and in chivalric novels, all these women would have been similar to Lady Sansa, the only character who played a feminine role in most of the seasons of Game of Thrones (except for the end of seasons 6 and 8).

The goal of Hollywood and TV is to brainwash us by reversing sex roles to exterminate the white race. And it is a disgrace that even the greatest white nationalist novelist of the 21st century, the late Harold Covington, fell for this feminism in his most voluminous novel (see ‘Freedom’s Daughters’ in my Daybreak).

HBO produced Game of Thrones. Netflix has produced The Queen’s Gambit. HBO wanted us to believe that women can compete with men, and even surpass them, in matters of what used to be called the knight-errant. (Remember how Brienne of Tarth beat the very tough Hound in the last episode of the fourth season of Game of Thrones.) Now Netflix wants us to believe that in matters of the intellect a woman, Beth Harmon, can beat the toughest chess players and even the very world champion (Vasily Borgov in the TV series: Beth’s strongest competitor).

Some people in the media are publishing articles with titles such as ‘Is The Queen’s Gambit a true story?’ They claim that the series was inspired by the woman who has reached the highest when competing in chess tournaments: the Hungarian Judit Polgar, now retired from the competition although she continues to comment on professional chess games. But Polgar’s life was quite different from the fictional Beth Harmon whose photo appears at the top of this entry. It is true that in real life Polgar once beat the world champion of chess, Garry Kasparov. But what the Netflix series omit is the score of all their confrontations. In real life, Kasparov beat Judit Polgar 12 to 1, with 4 draws!

It seems important to me to present the scores of the best female chess player in history, Polgar, in her games against the male world champions (to date, no woman has been crowned world champion of chess). The source for the list below is Chess Life:

Kasparov – Polgar: 12-1
Carlsen – Polgar: 10-1
Anand – Polgar: 28-10
Karpov – Polgar: 20-14
Topalov – Pogar: 16-15
Kramnik – Polgar: 23-1

As we can see, Polgar is at a disadvantage against all of her contemporary world champions. The only world champion with whom she maintained an almost even score was Topalov. Her score against Karpov was not bad, and although her disadvantage against Anand is wide, her results are noteworthy. But against Kasparov, Carlsen and especially against Kramnik, Polgar took real beatings.

These are the pure and hard facts of real life that more HBO or Netflix feminist series won’t change. They want us to believe that women are interchangeable with us in matters of physical activity and, now, intellectual sports!

Nature has endowed the woman with feminine charms so that a man may impregnate her thanks to her inviting tits, and support her for the rest of her life. Nature didn’t give her muscles or brain-power equal to the man. We have more cranial capacity than women. Anyone who hasn’t read a chapter from the 2017 edition of The Fair Race (a chapter that no longer appears in the 2020 edition!) should read it now. It is the best way to understand not only our sexuality but also the sexuality of the fair sex.

Beautiful tits that enchant us cannot go in the body that houses, at the same time, a superior brain of those whom her tits seduce: an elemental trade-off.

Postscript of 2021: Desmond Morris’ exact quote appears in the first indented paragraph: here.

20 Comments

  1. I saw this feminist propaganda suggested to me on YouTube. Skimmed through the comments, nobody was outraged at how women are portrayed as chess-masters now. Pitiful.

    On the topic of the boobs – what’s about other fetishes? Plenty of men find long legs appealing, or thighhigh stockings, or over-the-knee boots, or even plain feet (in various combinations of the above). I could see long hair in young females as comparable to (male) peacock tails, at least, but boots aren’t even natural.

    Are humans unique in their abuse of the young? Is it an unintended consequence of some shift from nature? At the same time, I always try to keep in mind that evolution is constantly in motion, never stopping, and thus modern child-protection laws might be the latest step in the right direction. Some might think the savage negroes of Africa to be a pinnacle of fitness, and yet those stupid Xhosa killed their own cattle and starved (see: Nongqawuse on Wikipedia). Turning to Christianity, I could totally imagine a future man physically immune to it.

    • As to your first paragraph, males have been so emasculated that even the best commentator of chess in YouTube, Daniel King, is now praising the series:

      • It is fascinating to watch people getting overpowered by the fear of God. What else is it? The belief in equality is the holy cow of Christianity. Rejecting it the highest blasphemy.

        Another one is UsefulCharts, an otherwise wholesome YouTuber drawing diagrams and genealogical trees. One might think he’s a Nazi, inspired by the past? Nope, a soyboy cuck. See the “matrilineal house of Garsenda” – a fitting topic for an April Fools’ joke. Alas, the world is a clown world, or at least America.

        This is a tad off-topic, but have you gotten any pleasure from the vandalised churches in Armenian Artsakh? Isn’t the rise of Turanic racism something we might imitate?

  2. Here are some excerpts from an essay I have been writing for the last two years (On the Historical Absence of Feminine Facial Morphology in European Art and Culture) which pertain to what you have written.

    “Breasts in human females are permanently swollen, which is unique among primates. All other primate species have small, deflated breasts. They only enlarge when they are ready to mate or breast feed. This is a sign of fertility, showing the female is capable of producing and caring for a child. Human females developed permanently enlarged breasts to fool the males into thinking they are always ready to mate. Thus the male is always prompted to protect the female because he never knows when mating with her will produce a child.

    Smaller breasts are further from feminine and closer to masculine on the dimorphism scale. In many women, large breasts are also an aesthetic necessity in order to balance out the plumper buttocks of females, thereby achieving an equilibrium in body mass proportions, the beloved hourglass figure. In the absence of voluptuous breasts, a bottom-heavy “pear-shape” figure may develop. This body type has always been reviled, due to its anatomical disharmony and synonymy with obesity and lethargy.

    In an apparent reversal of good taste, there has been a cognitive shift in recent years wherein many white people have acquired the quintessentially black preference for hideously oversized buttocks, as the recent “twerking” trend has shown. This primitive fixation on the gyrating derrière in pop culture is part of a process whereby society has become increasingly negrified. Redirecting the focus to the buttocks, a body part not exclusive to either sex, also serves as a prophylactic against homophobia, as it subtly acclimatises straight people to homosexual acts (as the increasing popularity of sodomy between heterosexual couples attests) and makes them more receptive to gay rights and transgender activism.

    Gay men also dominate the fashion industry, hence why catwalk models are tall and have androgynous facial features and the ectomorphic body type of pre-pubescent males. As such, the unfeminine women who are often selected for runway modelling do not reflect the natural and healthy preferences of heterosexual males, but rather the pederast fantasies of the homosexual high fashion designers, as Erik Holland has noted. In contrast, the heterosexual male’s ideal of femininity is exemplified by the glamour models of the lingerie and erotic photography industry.”

    • “there has been a cognitive shift in recent years” > I was expecting you to mention not twerking but the interest in pétite girls (and maybe the small breast fetish). The bath water phenomenon is a sign of it. Onlyfans is not known for twerking negresses. And then you have the ASMR industry which clearly emphasises affection and emotion.

      “a body part not exclusive to either sex” > What’s about long legs? They featured quite heavily in the pin-up girls of old.

      “the glamour models of the lingerie and erotic photography industry” > From what I understand, it is quite underdeveloped in the West. If anything, it seems to be dominated by Instagram hoes (esp. the Polish long-legged ones, see Ariadna Majewska or Marta Kowalczyk). Whereas in China, there are entire agencies such as Xiuren dedicated to female beauty (pornography is banned in China, and skin tanning is unpopular).

      • The fetish for girls with childlike body proportions seems a bit paedophilic to me. A preference for women with more childlike faces is healthy and natural, as optimal feminisation of the face is achieved by retaining juvenile characteristics, but this preference shouldn’t extend to parts of the body wherein it would indicate sexual immaturity, such as the breasts.

        I’ve never understood the ASMR thing. People whispering suggestively in your ear, mundane sound effects… I just find it aggravating. I don’t understand the appeal. It just seems really lame to me.

        I’m not aware of long legs being a sexual characteristic in men. Maybe it is for gay men, I don’t know. I’ve never looked into it, although they probably share the heterosexual female attraction to tall stature in men.

        Interesting. I don’t know much about China, other than the horrendous practice of foot-binding that was prevalent there a century ago, and the atrocious manner in which they treat animals.

      • People like you who have such a low opinion about Hitler (I refer to another thread) shouldn’t be posting here.

  3. Cesar, why can’t you let it go? I only ever said that Hitler was not perfect. I am not obliged to worship the man as if he were a deity. Incidentally, I would be interested to know how you reconcile your condemnation of suicide with the fact that Hitler committed it.

    • You said:

      ‘Which genocidal maniac is that? One could make the case that Hitler merits that description…’

      How many times do I have to tell you that this is not a forum for people like you?

      • “Could” being the operative word. I know he didn’t expect to lose, but his military decisions did ultimately bring about the destruction of the German people. It was not his intention, but I’m sure he was aware of the severity of what would befall the German people if he lost the war. As such, it was not worth the risk. It would have been best to just leave Poland be. It acted as a buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union anyway. The pragmatic solution would have been to extradite those Germans living beyond the Polish border and bring them into Germany. Just forget about the territory. It was never worth all those tens of millions of German lives.

      • One thing is recognizing he committed a blunder, and quite another to call him maniac.

        If you don’t hate the British who declared war on Germany, you must not comment here again!

  4. Obviously I hate the Allies. It was the Jewish influence that controlled Britain, and the corrupt Churchill, who declared war. I don’t see any reason for any antipathy between the British and German peoples, as the British are pretty much descended from Germans. Governments declare wars, not the people. In a similar fashion, the Israel lobby wages wars in the middle-east using the might of the US military. I would argue that the American people do not desire war with these foreign countries, but their (illegitimate) government does, on behalf of the Jews. The public have little say in the matter, but they do choose to serve in the military when their government is corrupt, and that seems foolish to me. I don’t know why so many people do it.

    • I said ‘If you don’t hate the British who declared war on Germany…’ and you respond with a strawman.

      It was the Jewish influence that controlled Britain…

      This is not a WN site. I blame the whites, not the Jews.

      Please don’t try to comment here again unless you read my books advertised on the sidebar.

      • C.T.: This is like the argument Tom Metzger and I would occasionally have, primarily because at that time I based my thinking upon the wrong concept.

        Tom would say that white leaders are the greatest enemy of our race (in total agreement with you), while I posited that it was the Jew.

        My error was in thinking that they are the greatest enemy of the White race rather than a great problem, which I believe must be resolved first and foremost.

        As that task is accomplished the much greater one of our own treasonous leadership will, of necessity, become the main focus.

      • It is true that if I had totalitarian power in a nation, I would address the JP first, before the Aryan problem, due to the enormous power they have in the media, the financial sector, the universities and even the courts.

        But when I say that the Aryan problem encompasses the Jewish problem, I mean that there are more Christians, conservatives and white liberals than Jews; and that those enable the JP. Without Christians, conservative and liberal whites there would be no JP.

        In other words: Biden and the whites who voted for him and his mulatto VP are worse than the Jews, while the racial traitor is worse than the ethnic enemy.

  5. Well there was Boudicca…

  6. I myself cringe when reading Goebbels’ propaganda about defending the ungrateful bastards in the West from Communism (knowing how the Anglos utterly betrayed them in the end), but sometimes, seeing the deeply anti-American nature of Hitler’s Germany in action with one’s own eyes is more convincing. (Although singing songs probably stems from a Catholic Sunday school practice. Timestamp: 10:35. The anti-Christians will flinch away from this vision like from a swastika.)

    I will dare to say, if war could have been avoided, it might have been even more riskier. Peace-time is harder than war-time! Isn’t it obvious in the light of how the normies flinch away from Breivik and Tarrant? Because action in peace-time is inherently more heroic! Be it living a mundane life raising kids in the Fourth Reich, or withering away like Pierce and Metzger without seeing one’s triumph in this timeline – either is harder than sacrificing yourself in the heat of a moment in a proper war, such as what Joichi Tomonaga and Tamon Yamaguchi did when fighting the still-manly American Christians face to face.

  7. Reblogged this on My Journey.

  8. ” (Although singing songs probably stems from a Catholic Sunday school practice. Timestamp: 10:35. The anti-Christians will flinch away from this vision like from a swastika.)”

    Nothing in this makes sense. Why would an anti-Christian like myself be bothered by singing children?

    • Yes: I don’t mind that many NS men were Christians. What bothers me is that with the info that this site provides, many WNsts are still Christians.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: