Classification of life

Yesterday and today I watched the Systematic Classification of Life series on YouTube by L. Aron Nelson, an American who changed his name to Aron Ra.

According to his Wikipedia page, he is a feminist and tried to run in the Democratic Party. It’s fascinating how in the first forty-nine episodes of his series of fifty he describes elegantly the biological evolution from worm to man. But in the very last episode Nelson speaks of human races repeating the most psychotic claims in vogue today, that races don’t exist, etc.

In the comments section of that video 50, in which Nelson appears with a T-Shirt flaunting heavy metal (in the previous episodes he painted his beard blue: a symbol of the current degeneration), I left him a note today: ‘You’re so wrong! in claiming “Modern ethnic groups have very little differences outside of appearance”. Human races do exist and you completely ruined your otherwise excellent series with this politically-correct final episode. Haven’t you even watched the most interesting exchange between Stefan Molyneux and David Rubin?’ And I added: ‘Do you want the scholarly sources?’ linking the AmRen books on race realism.

It is amazing how men of science immediately turn into pseudoscientists when opining about the human races. I recently debunked the Netflix series Queen’s Gambit showing that in the real world women cannot compete with men in chess (here, here and here).

Well, the IQ differences are even bigger between blacks and whites. At least several women have managed to obtain the norms to achieve the status of Grandmaster of chess. But only one black man has managed to obtain such norms, and with a rating of 2504 when he reached the peak of his chess career (the first chess boards in the world have more than 2800).

Nelson doesn’t want to see these brutal differences between blacks and whites for the simple fact that, despite his scientific background, upon reaching the subject of human biodiversity in Episode 50 he bows to the dogmas of the time, just as the scientists of yore had to bow to geocentrism.

Published in: on December 19, 2020 at 8:06 pm  Comments (12)  

Queen’s gambit

This is a postscript to my previous two posts on the TV series that has been a hit worldwide. Above, D.L. Townes playing Beth Harmon in The Queen’s Gambit. But the position we saw on Netflix is actually an old study composed by a man!

In chess there’s a current World Chess Champion, Magnus Carlsen, and in a parallel universe of players there’s a Women’s World Chess Championship (WWCC). Why are there separate tournaments of chess for men and women, if according to current egalitarian doctrine the latter are supposedly as smart as men?

Because women cannot compete with men in chess.

See the names of the top 101 players in the world according to the list of the International Chess Federation. There’s only one woman, Hou Yifan, ranked #88 in that list, which means that there are 87 players with a higher rating than her. *

In a nutshell, the Netflix series The Queen’s Gambit only advances feminist lies about women.

_________

(*) This FIDE list is updated every first of the month, which means that the ratings for Hou and the top 100 male chess players are subject to change (see my comment below, in the comments section).

Published in: on November 30, 2020 at 10:45 am  Comments (2)  

CNN lies

Look how a CNN anchor misleads her viewers regarding the score that I quoted, twice, in my previous post regarding the games between Garry Kasparov and Judit Polgar.

I guess CNN viewers are under the impression that a Netflix TV series was based on a real biography, as even Kasparov himself cucked in his very polite response to the anchor.

Published in: on November 27, 2020 at 10:19 pm  Comments (5)  

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.

World chess champions, Aryans and Jews

Magnus Carlsen just succeeded today to defend his crown title in a very tough match against the challenger, the Italian-American Fabiano Caruana.

A conventional list of the world chess champions always starts with the Austrian Jew Wilhelm Steinitz. But my unconventional list starts with the American Paul Charles Morphy that could have beaten Steinitz but, like Fischer with Karpov, refused to defend his crown in a match. Below, the years when all of them became champions. As to date, I know of no list that discloses the Jewishness of six of the champions:

0. Paul Morphy (1858) United States
1. Wilhelm Steinitz ✡ (1886) Austria-Hungary
2. Emanuel Lasker ✡ (1894) Germany
3. José Raúl Capablanca (1921) Cuba
4. Alexander Alekhine (1927) Russia
5. Max Euwe (1935) Netherlands
6. Mikhail Botvinnik ✡ (1948) Soviet Union
7. Vasily Smyslov (1957) Soviet Union
8. Mikhail Tal ✡ (1960) Soviet Union
9. Tigran Petrosian (1963) Soviet Union
10. Boris Spassky (1969) Soviet Union
11. Robert Fischer ✡ (1972) United States
12. Anatoly Karpov (1975) Soviet Union
13. Garry Kasparov ✡ (1985) Soviet Union
14. Vladimir Kramnik (2000) Russia
15. Viswanathan Anand (2007) India
16. Magnus Carlsen (2013) Norway

Only Alexander Alekhine and Bobby Fischer spoke openly about the JQ: Alekhine in writings and Fischer in interviews. Alekhine was my idol when I was fifteen and Fischer was world champion.

In August 1939, Alekhine’s brother, Alexei, was murdered in Russia probably due to his open support of the Nazis. In 1941 Alekhine wrote six Jew-wise articles called ‘Jewish and Aryan Chess’. The articles were reproduced in Deutsch Schachzeitung.

Left, a book of Alekhine’s games that I treasured when I was much younger!

Alekhine’s articles tried to demonstrate that Jews played defensive, cowardly chess and the Aryan chessplayers played attacking chess that was aggressive and brave. (You just have to review the artistic games recorded in this book to see the stylistic difference compared to, say, Emanuel Lasker’s games.) Alekhine had hoped that after the death of Lasker, the latter would be the last Jewish chess champion of the world (Lasker’s sister died in a Nazi concentration camp).

Alekhine died in March 1946 in Portugal. A day after his death, a letter arrived inviting him to England for an Alekhine-Botvinnik match for the crown.

According to Wikipedia, a few years later Alekhine’s son said that ‘the hand of Moscow reached my father’. More recently, Canadian chess player Kevin Spraggett, who has lived in Portugal and who has thoroughly investigated Alekhine’s death, favours this possibility. Spraggett makes a case for the manipulation of the crime scene and the autopsy by the Portuguese secret police. He believes that Alekhine was murdered outside his hotel room, probably by the Soviets.

The Soviet Mikhail Botvinnik✡ became world chess champion a couple of years after the assassination of Alekhine. If the ethnostate is ever formed Alekhine’s tragic life deserves a movie.

Published in: on November 28, 2018 at 3:18 pm  Comments (2)  

Boring team White!

Further to my today’s post ‘WDH radio nuked’ and also to my yesterday’s chess metaphor. Commenting about today’s chess game of the World Chess Championship 2018, grandmaster Peter Svidler (pic below), after 2:32 of this video said:

It is extremely dispiriting to have what has been happening in this match, happen day after day after day. [He has in mind the 9 draws in a row since the match started.] You show with White [chess pieces]; you go absolutely nowhere, you go home. At some point, to me, that would have been kind of soul destroying.

Following my yesterday’s metaphor of ‘Team White vs. team Jew’, I would say that I find the following Normie, Alt-Lite, Alt-Right and White Nationalist internet sites extremely dispiriting and even soul destroying!:

American Renaissance

Black Pigeon Speaks [Youtube]

Black Pilled [Youtube]

Breitbart News [Normie]

Brother Nathanael

Chateau Heartiste

Counter-Currents Publishing

Daily Stormer

David Duke

Gates of Vienna [Gates of Tel Aviv]

Infowars [Normie]

Jean-Francois Gariépy [Youtube]

(((Lauren Southern))) [Youtube]

Majorityrights

Mark Collett [Youtube]

Mark Steyn [Normie]

Millennial Woes [Youtube]

Occidental Dissent

Occidental Observer (The)

Political Cesspool (The)

Quillette [Normie]

Radio Free Northwest (*)

RamZPaul [Youtube]

Reddit (Debate the Alt-Right)

Red Ice TV

Richard Spencer Podcast (The)

Right Stuff (The)

Roosh V

Stark Truth With Robert Stark (The) [Alt Left]

(((Stefan Molyneux))) [Alt Lite – Youtube]

Steve Sailer

Styxhexenhammer666 [Alt Lite – Youtube]

Taki’s Magazine

Tara McCarthy [Youtube]

Trad News [Cuck News]

Unz Review

Way of the World [Cuck] (Youtube)

VDARE

The common denominator of these sites is that they are reactionaries, not revolutionaries. (In the case of Radio Free Northwest, marked with an asterisk above, the introduction of female voices strikes me as un-revolutionary.)

I propose to create a truly revolutionary radio show on BitChute. It is easy not to break First Amendment limits (like inciting immediate violence against X or Y persons). A regular podcast that contrasts sharply with the above Boring Team White is already crying, as the first breaths of fresh air, to be born.

Any volunteers?

Published in: on November 21, 2018 at 4:02 pm  Comments (25)  

Team White vs. team Jew

I would like to answer what commenter Highrpm posted in my previous post, ‘The bondage of groupthink’, with a whole new entry.

The problem, Highrpm, is that not every single nationalist was so badly mistreated by his parents. Why do white nationalist Christians are still addicted to their Jewish drug? Because of the bondage of societal groupthink, that ultimately is intellectual cowardice pure and simple. Aryans could win the Team White game vs. Team Jew easily, yet they chose rather timid moves, such as the moves chosen by the Alt-Right on the board of life.

Yesterday, Fabiano Caruana, born to Italian parents, could have beaten Magnus Carlsen in game 8 of the World Chess Championship 2018. Below, the position after 23…Bd6.

Caruana, playing White, could continue a promising attack with 24. Nc4 or 24. Qh5. However, he played the timid 24. h3?! which was too slow and allowed Black to mount an effective defence beginning with 24…Qe8! The game ended in a mere draw. Nationalists love to play timid 24. h3?! moves in real life. Instead, I would go for the killing with 24. Nc4! (see the whole game beautifully explained by Daniel King: here).

Incidentally, as a result of a single tournament that I played the last decade, I obtained an international chess rating of 2109 (Magnus Carlsen, the world champion, has 2835). Any nationalist willing to play chess with me online…?

Published in: on November 20, 2018 at 3:55 pm  Comments (15)  

World Chess Champion kid

A couple of months ago I predicted that the Norwegian chess player Magnus Carlsen would beat the Indian Viswanathan Anand. Until today, Anand had been the undisputed World Champion since 2007. Although he had won the title for the first time in 2000, he failed to defend it in 2002 but then won again the World Championship in 2007 in Mexico City. In 2008 he defended the title successfully against former champion Vladimir Kramnik, and in 2010 he won again a match against former champion Veselin Topalov. Last year, Anand also defended successfully his crown against another formidable challenger, the Jew Boris Gelfand.

After Anand became India’s first Grandmaster in 1988 he has had a spectacular score against the mentioned World Chess Champions and also against Karpov. Only the retired (Jew) Kasparov has a favorable score against Anand. Anand also has favorable scores against the rest of contemporary Grandmasters, including Carlsen—until today.

Carlsen earned the right to challenge Anand’s crown this November but the match was celebrated in Anand’s own town, Chennai in India. The final score of this match, that just finished today, is three wins for Carlsen, zero for Anand and seven draws of a total of ten games played. In competition chess draws count for half a point for each player; loses zero, and wins a point. The games limit of this match for the world’s crown was twelve games, although the first player to reach 6 ½ points automatically wins the match.

Anand, now a former champion, is forty-three years old and the new champion, Carlsen, only twenty-two: the youngest champion since Wilhelm Steinitz, the first undisputed champion from 1886 to 1894. (This is official chess history which Kasparov endorses in the first volume of his magnum opus My Great Predecessors, but in my humble opinion the American Paul Morphy, who like Carlsen was also a chess prodigy and who died in 1884, should be considered the first champion in history.)

The Ninth Game, with Anand playing the white pieces and Carlsen black, was the most exciting of the entire match insofar as it was the only one of the series with really serious mating threats. For those familiar with the technicalities of chess, let me say that for this game Anand chose a sharp ramification of the Sämisch Variation against Carlsen’s Nimzo-Indian Defence.

These are the moves of the Ninth Game of this historic match:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 c4 9. Ne2 Nc6 10. g4 0-0 11. Bg2 Na5 12. 0-0 Nb3 13. Ra2 b5 14. Ng3 a5 15. g5 Ne8 16. e4 Nxc1 17. Qxc1 Ra6 18. e5 Nc7 19. f4 b4 20. axb4 axb4 21. Rxa6 Nxa6 22. f5 b3 23. Qf4 Nc7 24. f6 g6 25. Qh4 Ne8 26. Qh6 b2 27. Rf4 b1=Q+ (Carlsen queens his pawn having now two queens over the board) 28. Nf1?? Qe1 29. White resigns. (In chess jargon two question marks mean a gross blunder.)

Instead of that losing move, the computer gives the best line in the post-mortem analysis of the game: 28.Bf1 Qd1 29.Rh4 Qh5 (Black has to sacrifice his newly crowned queen if he wants to avoid being checkmated) 30.Nxh5 gxh5 31.Rxh5 Bf5 32.g6 Bxg6 33.Rg5 Nxf6 34.exf6 Qxf6 and 35.Rxd5 probably draws. Therefore, well played the Ninth Game would have meant splitting the point for both players. In the press interview both Anand and Carlsen explained a few of the many complex ramifications of Anand’s pretty scary assault on Carlsen’s castled king, with the young Norwegian defending so well.

But we must not be too harsh on Anand’s mistakes in this and the other two games that he lost. I have played chess tournaments and know firsthand the overwhelming stress that chess players suffer during serious competitions. In YouTube for example you can watch the entire Anand-Carlsen match with some games lasting six hours, which means six hours of strenuous intellectual activity. Anand’s mistake in the Ninth Game can be easily explained by what he himself confessed at the press conference: “The thing is, I had been calculating for about forty minutes…”, calculating for forty minutes a single move!

I confess that I spent many hours watching the match’s games live online thanks to the magic of the internet. This is very different from a mere reproducing of games as in the above algebraic notation, or a mere replaying all the games of the match (here).

A few minutes ago, after a fighting Tenth Game extended to a knights-and-pawns ending, a yelling could be heard from the Norwegian fans visiting India when it ended in a draw, as Carlsen thus obtained with that draw the 6 ½ mandatory points to win the crown.

Chess fans can see a lively audio-visual explanation of eleven minutes of the Ninth Game in Daniel King’s very entertaining YouTube channel (here). If you prefer watching the whole game, almost four hours of visuals of Anand and Carlsen actually playing with some moves commented by Grandmaster Susan Polgar, click here.

The king of chess is dead, long live the king.

Published in: on November 22, 2013 at 9:52 am  Comments (2)  

Chess from the racial perspective

“I am a Jew by blood, Russian by culture, Soviet by upbringing.”

—Botvinnik

I used to be a chess fan but have only participated in a single official FIDE chess tournament in 2004, which gave me a provisional rating of 2109; a rating I might improve if I played more FIDE tournaments. However, after my racial awakening, of which the most emblematic knowledge has been the anti-German Holocaust that the media hides since 1945—which proves that the Second World war continues in the sense of postmortem propaganda—, I cannot see my former hobby as I used to see it. Some snippets of the life of world chess champion Mikhail Botvinnik (1911-1995), who conquered the crown of chess right after the Holocaust of millions of Germans, illustrates my point.

According to the Soviet politician Nikolai Krylenko, Botvinnik, who here appears in a 1936 photo, “exhibited the traits of a true Bolshevik,” and Botvinnik’s pupil Garry Kasparov described his mentor as a “staunch communist, son of Stalin’s regime.” In his memoirs Botvinnik himself recognized that he was lucky in life because his “interests coincided with those of the society.”

In my opinion the Estonian Paul Keres, not the Jew Botvinnik, should have conquered the crown after the pro-Nazi world champion of chess, Alexander Alekhine (my idol around my middle teens), died in 1946. In fact, Alekhine virtually had offered the crown to Keres by means of challenging Keres to a match for the title when Alekhine was already well beyond his prime. The young Keres committed the blunder of his life by refusing this gracious glove, and in fact Keres morally succumbed right after the summer of 1940 when his nation, Estonia, was annexed by the Soviet Union. I would dare to claim that the outcome of the 1948 match-tournament, that crowned the Jew Botvinnik as the successor of the Aryan Alekhine, was the logic conclusion of the Judaization of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and the debasement of the Estonians in Stalin’s postwar society.

Curiously, Kasparov, whose real Jewish last name is Weinstein before he changed it—a fact that Bobby Fischer repeatedly stressed in the media until the US government didn’t allow Bobby to return to the US—, confesses in his book on his predecessors that as a child he, Kasparov, was the only intimate pupil of Botvinnik. His mentor only played the teacher role with other children, but with the young Garry the former champion maintained regular contacts through fourteen years—something that, Kasparov concedes, “helped me enormously” in his career to conquer the chess crown. “In those times life was difficult for me and for my mother, and Mikhail Moiseyevich did everything he could to help us, and provided food coupons.”

Jews helping Jews… I am so glad that by the end of this year a Norwegian gentile kid, Magnus Carlsen, will probably beat the current world champion, the Indian Viswanathan Anand… Hadn’t we been living through the darkest hour of the West, the fair race would’ve never lost the title of World Champion of Chess for so long.

Botvinnik’s advice

After finishing the first volume, I have started to read Volume II of Garry Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors, especially the long chapter devoted to Mikhail Botvinnik, the world champion of chess from 1948 to 1963 (second from left to right on the book cover).

While reading Kasparov’s lead paragraphs to that chapter some of his sentences struck me. Botvinnik had called chess “an inexact problem,” just as the problems of the living. “To solve inexact problems,” maintained Botvinnik, “it is very important to limit the scale of the problem to avoid getting bogged down. Only then could one hope to solve it satisfactorily.” For this champion chess reflected objective reality and what a person thought, and every problem should be reduced to manageable analysis and thought.

Since in the past I was an amateur chess player, these passages immediately brought my mind to my recent discussions in this blog with those who want to reduce the incredibly complex problem of the West’s darkest hour to the Jewish Question.

This is what I thought while reading that page of Kasparov’s magnum opus: “It is true that, in practical terms, people like Alex Linder are right that the masses would not grasp something too complex and that, in order to explain the problem to them once pro-white politics becomes possible, we should focus on the subversive tribe.”

I have no problem with that pragmatic approach. Politically, I am on the same page of Hitler, Goebbles, and Linder on this issue. The problem starts when we abandon pragmatic politics and enter the more subtle terrains of academic discussions.

If whites survive the current crisis, even after a final solution to all non-white problems is achieved future intellectuals will surely try to ponder what exactly happened in the 20th and 21st centuries. In that futuristic scenario it is unlikely that they will navigate forever inside the strait waters of Judeo reductionism. Sooner or later they will probably expand their point of view into a bigger picture, an all-encompassing meta-perspective, perhaps like the one barely sketched in my “Witches’ brew.”

Presently even those who are not Judeo reductionists, like Brad Griffin at Occidental Dissent, acknowledge that—rephrasing Botvinnik’s language—solving the Jewish problem would reduce the West’s darkest hour to manageable proportions. But even so the question will remain open: Why the West, unlike the Muslim world, became so Judaized after Napoleon emancipated the tribe? Why every Western nation started to imitate Napoleon’s lead in the 19th century? What was the primary cause of the empowerment of Jewry in the first place, always keeping in mind that they never wielded such power in the Muslim world?

These honest, commonsensical questions won’t go away even if a final solution to the problem is historically achieved.

Published in: on March 11, 2013 at 12:01 am  Comments (40)