Walk of punishment

‘Walk of Punishment’ is the third episode of the third season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 23rd episode of the series.

‘I want you’, poor Stannis said to the witch Melisandre on the beach, almost begging her to stay with him instead of going on a boat in search of someone to sacrifice. One might think that women cast a spell on us. But as some of the MGTOW have noted, that isn’t the case. It is our desire to possess them that makes us annul ourselves at their whim when we are in heat.

Of course, this wouldn’t happen if we had patriarchy like Republican Rome, when women were treated as property. And even in a softer patriarchy, like what we read in Jane Austen’s novels, no stupid laws had been enacted regarding marital rape. We only make a fool of ourselves when we empower them and give up the power with which Nature endowed us to the degree that we allow ourselves to be handled like puppets. That wouldn’t happen if the West regained its judgment and transvalued its values if not as far as the Roman world, at least as the values in Austen’s world.

In the episode Melisandre sees with open contempt the lust of poor Stannis. Declarations of love don’t work. We give them the power to say ‘no’. A king like Stannis Baratheon who can’t control the woman who was always by his side—compare him with the way his brother Robert Baratheon treated women—is not a true king.

In Astapor, on the other side of the world, we heard a dialogue between Jorah and Dany about war. The theme of the sword always reminds me of how feminised white nationalists are:

Jorah: You know what I saw? Butchery. Babies, children, old men. More women raped than what you can count. There’s a beast in every man, and it stirs when you put a sword in his hand.

Dany then scolds his two loyal advisers, Jorah and Barristan, when they advised her not to sell one of her dragons in exchange for an army of mulattos. The scene represents a very bad message for the white viewer. And the irony is that Emilia Clarke, the actress who played the role of Dany in all seasons, has a very feminine character in real life; so much so that she had difficulties filming scenes in which she appears as a dragon-woman in full command of her leader personality. But that’s the point of Game of Thrones: to reverse male-female roles in the perennial campaign of the media, government and universities to brainwash the white man. Dany’s dialogue with the mulatto woman Missandei, the translator she just got in Astapor while trying to sell one of her dragons, epitomises the feminist message:

Dany: And what about you? You know that I’m taking you to war. You may go hungry. You may fall sick. You may be killed.

Missandei: Valar Morghulis.

Dany: Yes, all men must die. But we are not men.

Missandei smiles. But in the penultimate episode of the last season, during the war of the bitches Dany and Cersei (note that the most powerful were queens, not kings), the latter orders Missandei be beheaded in front of Dany. But back to the episode ‘Walk of Punishment’, in the scene at Littlefinger’s brothel the Jewish director manages to keep the viewer from craving any of his white whores. I can imagine if the Germans were in charge of the cinema instead of the Jews. What would whites be watching now on the small screen?

The degenerate music of the end credits is the final insult, after Locke cut off Jaime Lannister’s hand (in the novels Locke is a cruel man sworn to House Bolton, considered by Roose Bolton as his best hunter). Again, if the Germans had won the war what music would we hear in the end credits of films today?

Published in: on March 18, 2021 at 2:20 pm  Comments Off on Walk of punishment  

Valar Dohaeris

‘Valar Dohaeris’ is the third season premiere episode of the HBO fantasy television series Game of Thrones. Written by executive producers David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, it aired on March 31, 2013.

The first scenes show us some adventures behind the Wall, some filmed in Iceland. It is worth saying that in Martin’s novels the lands north of the Wall are not as arctic as they appear in the HBO series, without any vegetation. If I had been the director I would have filmed those lands as they appear in novels.

More serious is that both in this episode and in subsequent episodes in which the redhead Ygritte appears, she is represented as one more warrior among the wildlings north of the Wall. In real life, and even more so in semi-nomadic societies like the wildlings, young and beautiful women like Ygritte would always be pregnant since the infant mortality rate was very high. It’s a great assault on reason to invent characters like Ygritte for mass consumption (they did something similar in the Vikings series). All the scenes in which Ygritte appears in various seasons annoy the male whose judgment has not been impaired by the System.

However, in this episode we see one of my favourites shots of the series: a beautiful bay that seems to me like a kind of combination between paintings by Claude Le Lorrain and Maxfield Parrish. I’m talking about King’s Landing Blackwater Bay and I put the image here because I didn’t want to put it together with the one below.

In Martin’s prose Lady Melisandre, often referred to as the Red Woman or the Red Witch, is a Red Priestess in the religion of R’hllor and a close counsellor to King Stannis Baratheon in his campaign to take the Iron Throne. There is something that Davos tells Stannis that seems very true to me: that Melisandre is an evil woman who will destroy all who follow her, which happened in a later season: by following the advice of the witch the House of Stannis was annihilated in the fifth season. In this episode, instead of listening to what his loyal advisor says about the witch, Stannis sends Davos to the dungeon.

But more than just blaming women as is sometimes done at MGTOW, I would say that the morons are us when we allow ourselves to be hypnotised by their feminine charms. For example, in the final scenes of the episode Dany, who as we have seen already has Ser Jorah Mormont as a loyal dog, gets another dog: Ser Barristan Selmy who had belonged to the Royal Guard and in the episode swears loyalty to this woman. Dany wants to recruit an army of mulatto warriors for sale to the highest bidder to conquer the predominantly white lands of Westeros. You heard right: mulattoes to conquer white lands. But it is Aryan men like Jorah and Barristan who empower the capricious blonde.

Published in: on March 16, 2021 at 10:52 am  Comments Off on Valar Dohaeris  

The prince of Winterfell

‘The Prince of Winterfell’ is the eighth episode of the second season of HBO’s medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones. It premiered on May 20, 2012.

Feminist messages continue in the opening scene. Yara Greyjoy humiliates her brother Theon in Winterfell. This pseudo-Viking is the commander of the garrison of men who, in the absence of Robb Stark due to war, took the main castle of the North. At this point in the series it’s clear that feminism is the Leitmotif of Game of Thrones. As if that weren’t enough, in Theon’s prolonged discussion with Yara the scriptwriters put the man as stupid and the woman as the smartest.

This image appears a few seconds before Cersei said some words to her brother Tyrion: ‘You, on the other hand, are as big a fool as every other man. That little worm between your legs does half of your thinking’. These words resonate with what I said in my previous post about the blunders that three horny males commit in various parts of the world.

Then we see an argument with a vengeful Cersei, as women are, but behind that ugly argument we see that the thing about the male was true, as the stupid Tyrion has fallen in love with a whore: a woman who, as we shall see in a later season, is worse than Cersei.

‘You’re beautiful’ says the poor devil Tyrion to the whore. He ignores what’s coming in the future. Cersei was right: Our weakness lies in letting what hangs between our legs do fifty percent of our thinking. After that scene and a few words from Tyrion we see that he’s truly in love. ‘I would kill for you. Do you know that?’ Tyrion said that to Shae, the whore who in Season Four will deliver the biggest blow against him during a life and death trial. All these scenes are disgusting in that they put men as idiots, although not all of us are like that.

Another absolutely stupid conduct in this episode: King Robb and Lord Roose Bolton, the head of House Bolton of the north, discuss very serious matters of state when Talisa enters Robb’s military tent. Letting this woman freely enter the king’s tent in times of war wasn’t enough. Stannis Baratheon is about to invade King’s Landing and in these moments when Robb argues with Roose, the latter immediately leaves the camp tent to let Talisa enter with the words ‘My lady’ so that she and Robb may speak in private. Naturally, Robb won’t discuss tactics or strategy with Talisa, the one with the non-white buttocks.

Hardly in the Middle Ages a king wasted his time chatting with a woman alien to his race, putting aside all military plans. Robb and Talisa talk about the biographical past of ‘non-white buttocks’, as I should call Talisa from this line on. But worst of all is that after that King Robb declares himself to her telling her, in the tent, that he no longer wants to marry the Aryan girl from House Frey. Then we see a ridiculous erotic scene between the two and even there you can see the scriptwriters’ feminism as, already naked, we see the female on top of the king.

In Qarth the black man and the warlock give a coup to the Thirteen (or rather the Eleven), the group of merchant princes within Qarth, and remain as sole governors of the city. Dany wants to stay in the city to get her dragons back but Jorah tells her it’s is dangerous, to which he adds: ‘You know I would die for you. I will never abandon you’, which is true as in the last season Jorah will die protecting the one who, in that same season, will be revealed as the worst tyrant of the entire series.

Published in: on March 13, 2021 at 12:13 pm  Comments Off on The prince of Winterfell  

A man without honor

Originally aired on May 13, 2012, ‘A Man Without Honor’ is the seventh episode of the second season of HBO’s medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones. In the image we see Tyrion and Cersei in the only moment I remember from the series with compassion and empathy between the two siblings (I know from my own experience that it’s very difficult to have such a moment with most of our siblings).

Another feminist line began, already from the previous episode, with the relationship between Jon Snow and the captive wildling Ygritte, who in real life became married with ‘Jon’ while filming Game of Thrones (although Kit Harington, who played the role of Jon, fell into depression when he finished filming the last season). Being held captive by Jon in a desolate landscape across from the Wall, Ygritte tells Jon: ‘I’m a free woman’.

Wildlings are enemies of the members of the Night’s Watch, which Jon belongs to, and Ygritte speaks insolently although Jon could kill her at any moment. In fact, killing Ygritte had been the order that Jon’s superior entrusted to him before Jon parted ways with his group seeking wildlings. After some scenes south of the Wall, Ygritte continues lecturing her captor even though she is tied to a rope.

These scenes are completely unreal but they sell us is the image of a liberated woman, retro-projected to a fantastic medieval world even north of the Wall, where supposedly human societies were more primitive and nomadic than those of the south.

The last straw is that Ygritte tells Jon, still held captive by the rope, that she can initiate him sexually as apparently Jon is a virgin. All of this contrasts with the scenes from Beowulf and Grendel, a 2005 fantasy adventure film directed by the Icelandic Sturla Gunnarsson (loosely based on the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf) where Beowulf also ties Selma with a rope. But in this film the alpha male thus controls the beautiful redhead. In Game of Thrones, however, after a scene in Qarth with Jorah serving Dany, Ygritte continues to openly mock the one who’s holding her captive, even making sexual allusions between the two.

South of the Wall, in the military camp, the prisoner of the Starks, Jaime Lannister, provisionally escaped. When they catch him Rickard Karstark, an important northern lord whose ancestors were also Stark, says something about King Robb that is worth picking up: ‘He brought that foreign bitch [Talisa] with him!’

Apparently, terrible blunders are being committed in various parts of the world—in the icy north with Jon and Ygritte, in the city at the middle of the desert (Qarth), and at the green military camp because of the infatuation we feel towards women: Jorah swearing to the mysterious Quaithe that he will never again betray the blonde Dany, with whom he is in love; Jon letting his red-haired prisoner escape with whom he had spent a night out in the open, and Robb was about to lose his precious prisoner, Jaime Lannister, by following another woman’s non-white buttocks, away from the military duties of his camp.

But all of this is never overtly suggested in the episode. I am drawing my own conclusions. The episode simply continues the feminist propaganda so ubiquitous throughout the series.

Published in: on March 12, 2021 at 9:38 am  Comments Off on A man without honor  

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)  

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.

Spartan nostalgia

In his latest comments, Robert Morgan made a few remarks about why conspiracy theories, so popular in the comment sections of racially conscious whites, bother me so much:

Linh Dinh: ‘When your tyrants can’t even be identified, much less found, no coup, uprising or revolution is possible…’

Exactly. Preventing revolutions is the purpose of conspiracy theories. People who imagine they are being controlled by nameless others have the perfect excuse to continue doing what they are doing, which is making up conspiracy theories, or in other words, nothing.

You can score cheap moral points by denouncing vague conspiracies, attributing to them anything you don’t like. You avoid blaming the people themselves, because they’re only puppets! That’s the attraction of conspiracy theories.

I, on the other hand, do blame the people themselves. As I see it, America is just suffering the painful consequences for centuries of Christian delusions. They themselves imported negroes to their shores, and then fought a war to set them free and make them fellow citizens. Thinking this is the result of a conspiracy is ridiculous. To do so is just a transparent attempt to evade responsibility.

At another site, Counter-Currents, also in one of the comments sections a woman just recommended The Turner Diaries.

It is very positive that at least in the comments section, someone mentions Pierce’s novel. In one of the passages of that novel, blacks took a white woman in front of the police to rape her and when a white man complained, the policemen fled embarrassed by the complaint, since defending the white woman would be ‘racist’. As the negrolatric religion grows, it won’t take too long to reach that neo-Orwellian level. But I wanted to say something else about that comments sections.

A couple of CC commenters have just complained that it was useless to talk (for example, about the recent murder of a white woman by BLM) with their wives, that wives don’t get what’s happening.

Since I was liberal in the past, I treated women as if they were regular blokes. Over the decades, in my family I could only talk about the family tragedy with the direct victims of the perps: a couple of women (who, incidentally, have already died). But when speaking brutally with one of them, as we blokes do, my female cousin freaked out and for a few years we weren’t on speaking terms. Only after discovering the manosphere did I realise that I had done something wrong. If I had known what I know today, I would have refrained from talking about little red riding hoods and wolves in my dealings with my poor cousin, who had been a victim of molestation.

I don’t blame myself for that way of speaking because I was brainwashed. Twenty years ago, when I corresponded with my cousin, I had internalised the ethno-suicidal propaganda that guys and gals are all the same. Now I see more than ever that the first guideline I devised for the priest of fourteen words is really adequate: let’s try to talk about transcendental issues only with white males. For example, there is absolutely no point in trying to convey to a woman the fact that we have about ten times more sexual drive than they feel. Since they have never felt such a thing, we can’t create a bridge of true communication.

There are exceptions of course. In this site I’ve mentioned a female friend with whom I can communicate. But she is the exception that confirms the rule. Although as a woman she doesn’t have the impulse I have, her empathy is such that she once told me an anecdote. Apparently, a woman experimented with some male hormones and she felt, for a few days, a tremendous sex drive. As my friend confessed to me when assimilating the anecdote, she finally felt respect for men because we repress our sexual drive not only a few days, but throughout the years. It doesn’t matter that my friend hasn’t done such a hormonal experiment. Just by telling me that anecdote she transmitted that thanks to it she could finally understand men. But as I said, she’s the exception.

Commenters complaining on CC about their wives don’t follow the priest’s guideline. They try the impossible: to communicate with them. The ideal would be to have such guilds only for males as the Spartans had, in which all young men were forced to eat together, even after marriage in order to create the necessary mannerbund. This, in spite of the fact that eventually all Spartans had to marry.

Today’s feminised men, including many racialists, don’t even realise that, in some matters, it’s impossible to build communication bridges with the fair sex. Yes: women could be serving at the table of the Spartan warriors, but not get into discussions or camaraderie.

Lady revisited

If there is something that draws my attention from the pundits of white nationalism it is that they make reviews of recent films omitting that, unlike the cinema of yesteryear, they are pure poison for the white race. For example, in this quarantine millions of whites are actively poisoning their souls with Netflix and few complain.

In contrast yesterday I finished watching, once again, My Fair Lady of which I had already written something on this site in 2013.

Like classical music, it is a type of cinema that the younger generations of white advocacy are not only incapable of watching on the big screen, but even incapable to appreciate if they obtained the DVD to watch it on their televisions.

The disconnect between the pundits of the alt-right with the traditional legacy of the seventh art is so enormous that, when they opine about an old movie, they can say things that only reflect their ignorance. Not long ago, for example, commenting on my favourite film 2001: A Space Odyssey, in a conversation with Richard Spencer a certain Mark, a Hollywood expert, interpreted absurd things about the intentions of Kubrick. I know they are absurd because I have studied Arthur Clarke’s philosophy since the 1980s and read his biography, and Kubrick’s too, so I know the message of his most famous sci-fi novels thoroughly. (I even exchanged correspondence with Clarke in the 1990s, who was very impressed by a journal I sent him as it mentioned the obituary of a certain Benson Herbert, whom he had not dealt with since before World War II.)

But I wanted to talk about something else. One of the reasons this site doesn’t talk about news is because after a few days the media sometimes picks up info that the most radical bloggers had already said on their websites. For example, some of my recent posts mention that the Chinese virus may have come out of a Wuhan lab. I didn’t imagine, when I posted it, that Hannity would talk about it on Fox News soon after, inviting senators who also show their outrage about how these revelations change our views on the pandemic. I could have kept my policy of not talking about that kind of news. But the thing is, I never expected the MSM to bring up the lab scandal so soon. So I generally prefer to talk about things that won’t be said in the mainstream media.

What I experienced these nights before going to bed, for example, watching some minutes of My Fair Lady every midnight until after a few nights I finished it, is a subject not only that won’t appear on MSM but also on racialist forums. And it’s important to talk about it because in these times of lockdown racially conscious whites could try to start getting acquainted with the old cinema that contained good messages (recently I was talking about the movie Shane for example).

If there’s one thing I liked about My Fair Lady now that I saw it once more it’s that it reminds me of the days when men were men and women women (when Hollywood and TV now re-enact older times they put women as early feminists). Ever since I saw My Fair Lady as a child I have loved the idea of learning to speak English—real English—through phonetic exercises: the passion of Professor Henry Higgins. The original musicality of Shakespeare’s language should be a goal to be achieved in the ethnostate, in the unlikely event that Anglo-Saxons save their stock from extinction.

Published in: on April 17, 2020 at 10:44 am  Comments (10)  

The Red Wedding

A couple of posts ago I said that in 2013 Game of Thrones’ Red Wedding caused a tremendous stir among fans of the series, especially in women. Today watching this clip I thought that the abyss that separates me from white women is abysmal:

The woman’s reaction was because she was seeing the moment when Robb Stark’s pregnant mudblood was stabbed in the belly as a punishment that Robb broke his pact to marry a younger and prettier girl (a completely Aryan girl by the way).

As you will remember, one of the guidelines of conduct that I have developed for the priest of the 14 words is: ‘Speak only with Aryan men’. We can already imagine if, instead of comforting this woman as her partner did in the clip above, I tried to reason with her by saying: ‘I stabbed her for you; so beauty like yours never get lost. I can’t let the pregnant mudblood leave brown offspring instead of Robb’s white skin. All the blood that I spill is spilled indirectly for you…’ Obviously the white woman would look at me with pure hatred; she would block herself before my reasons, and would embrace the most progressive anti-racism we can imagine.

Let’s face it: Women think with their emotions, which is not bad at all. It’s just their nature. Cold and ruthless reason is up to men. What the partner of this disconsolate woman did is the proper way to treat our women. It is absolutely delusional to believe that they are able to reason with the ruthless coldness with which we can reason.

My guideline remains and it is a disgrace that, except Andrew Anglin, the people of white nationalism haven’t come to realise that we come from Mars and they from Venus. And that it makes no sense to use reasons and good judgment to try to persuade the fair sex in martial matters.

Unlike feminist products that demoralise Aryan males such as The Rise of Skywalker, when civilisation collapses later in this century the bloodthirsty warriors who recover the West will belong to a Boys Only Club.

Published in: on December 26, 2019 at 10:34 pm  Comments (8)  

Book-burning by feminists

The ethno-suicidal ideology arose in Europe and the United States. Latin America is merely co-dependent on the fashions of the West. For this reason, the news south of the Río Grande rarely have relevance with the fourteen words, as they only imitate the North. But something happened last week at the Guadalajara International Book Fair that is worth mentioning.

Protected by the security agents of the Fair itself, on December 6, a group of vociferous feminists entered the fair, assaulted one of the exhibitors (containing copies of a book out of the pen of a conservative who writes about therapies for those who wish to heal from their homosexuality); they made a pile, and burned them in front of all.

Shocking as it is that the very security forces protected public vandalism, what caught my attention is that the Mexican journalistic notes failed to denounce it. When they finally mentioned it, they did it in such a way that the basic facts, such as the illegal assault on the exhibitors and their bookshelf, the theft of their books, and that the burning was illegal, were omitted to sugarcoat the facts before public opinion.

He who understands spoken Spanish can listen to today’s video of the Argentinian Agustín Laje (drawing) about the event last week. In Latin America and Spain, Laje, who has visited Mexico and Guadalajara many times, is probably the best-known voice in denouncing gender ideology.

I mention this because not long ago a commenter told us that he did not care about women, as an issue, mentioned in an article in an old version of The Fair Race. The comemnter is clueless of course. The target of that text were not women but how we, men, literally go crazy in our interaction with them, as we are hard-wired to protect the fair sex.

Published in: on December 14, 2019 at 2:27 pm  Comments (7)