Mockingbird

‘Mockingbird’ is the seventh episode of the fourth season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 37th overall. The episode opens with words that portray the imbecilic way we sometimes see women. Tyrion, after Shae’s lies at his trial unhinged him, talks to his brother in the dungeon:

Jaime: ‘You fell in love with a whore!’

Tyrion: Yes. I fell in love with a whore. And I was stupid enough to think that she had fallen in love with me’.

It is precisely because we are so hard-wired to desire the woman’s body so much that we frequently enter a state of genuine psychosis while trying to possess her. The only way I can think of to remedy such a great asymmetry of instinct, insofar as they see us as providers, is to return to the values of the time of Jane Austen. Only in this way could the hypnotic magnetism that women apparently wield—a biological program of our brains, actually—could be offset by social norms.

Away from King’s Landing, in the Riverlands, we see a feminist scene: the girl Arya kills another man with her Needle, a man who had told her obscenities in a previous episode. But I wanted to focus on another aspect of what happened at the Riverlands: the Hound’s confession to Arya about his past. Just as the story Shae told Varys—her mother’s betrayal—helps us understand how she turned into an evil woman, in this episode we hear another story that explains the Hound’s perennial angry mood: his father also betrayed him horribly. I don’t want to tell the details but from my own experience (cf. what I wrote about my uncle Julio in my autobiography) I know that this is a story that makes sense.

Left, another iconic woman in the series: the highly masculinised Brienne who is constantly mistaken for a Knight. Here we see her from behind leaving a cozy medieval inn after having her meal there.

Since the white man is making psychotic use of technology, my dream is that after the extermination of the Neanderthals à la Turner Diaries the surviving whites will go through a long historical test without technology, going through modest inns like this one, with an extremely small world population, while learning to develop their souls as Solzhenitsyn did. Given the treachery rates of the 20th and 21st centuries, only if they passed that test could they afford to relight the fire of Prometheus.

Published in: on April 1, 2021 at 11:48 am  Comments Off on Mockingbird  

Two swords

‘Two Swords’ is the fourth season premiere episode of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 31st overall. The episode was written by series co-creators and showrunners David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, and directed by Weiss. It premiered on April 6, 2014.

The season begins by introducing new characters. Prince Oberyn Martell, who comes from the desert kingdom of Dorne, arrives at King’s Landing for King Joffrey’s wedding. However, Oberyn’s real plans are to inquire about the death of his sister, and take revenge on the Lannisters for the brutal murder of her and her children. Prince Oberyn, whom we see to the left of the photo, is travelling with his lover Ellaria Sand, another non-white, who appears on her back and lying on the bed:

The fourth season is just beginning and the showrunners send us a bad message. After this stunning nude specimen of Aryan beauty in Littlefinger’s brothel, Oberyn and Ellaria have homoerotic approaches with other prostitutes of the brothel. Since the culture of Dorne is inspired by Islam, this homoeroticism is gratuitous excess: a projection of the current degeneration of the West on the characters of an exotic culture. The people of Dorne even resemble the Arabs under Islam.

Ellaria chooses one of the prostitutes in the photo, not the naked one because she is shy, and Oberyn picks the guy who appears in the shadows, barely visible at the extreme right of the photo. From my point of view, it was an outrage to have rejected a sculptural woman like the one we see naked above (I would kill to have such a woman in my house, as property).

Tyrion’s scenes with Shae are tiresome, and are not worth describing until in subsequent episodes we see how Shae betrays him. But the argument between Cersei and Jaime—and let’s remember that they hadn’t argued since Jaime left King’s Landing and after that Locke cut off Jaime’s sword hand when he was a prisoner—, reminds me of how we enslave ourselves before a woman. Gradually I see it more and more clearly:

Women have no powers to ‘get into men’s heads’, Ser Davos Seaworth’s words about the witch Melisandre in the previous season. It is us, our impulses—think about what I said in parentheses above—that enslave us.

Fire and blood

‘Il y a une autre canaille à laquelle on sacrifie tout, et cette canaille est le peuple’. —Voltaire

‘Fire and Blood’, the tenth and final episode of the first season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones, was first aired on June 19, 2011. There is not much to say about the final episode of the first season but I will still say a thing or two about the opening scene and the ending scene.

The mob that Voltaire spoke of, the common people, has been idealised by those who limit themselves to criticising the elites. In reality the people are as despicable as the elites. They’re like King Joffrey who had Ned Stark beheaded only because Ned was faithful to Joffrey’s father’s will. The King’s Landing mob not only yells the ‘traitor’ slander when poor Ned is led to the scaffold, but cheers when his blood-dripping head is flaunted in the public square.

In the same way as Westeros, the contemptible mob that is the people of the West consume everything the elites tell them about Hitler. And the experience I’ve had with Christian friends whom I have broken off with (and it makes me want to translate some anecdotes from El Grial) is that they don’t give a damn about well-known sources, like Solzhenitsyn’s non-fiction books, when I try to convey that the Allied narrative is a myth. People in general follow and believe what the Joffreys of today tell them to believe and feel. Even cultured people rant in the ‘two minutes hate’ imposed by the System. As Andrew Hamilton put it in one of his Counter-Currents articles, even the so-called intellectuals of the West are mass-man.

That is for the opening scene of the episode. Regarding the final scene, for the second time in the first season Dany is shown naked without showing her pubic hair (above Dany appears the first time we saw her in the series). I think that not having shown her in her full-frontal glory was a serious mistake, as well as another scene from ‘Fire and Blood’ that shows naked Cersei Lannister’s new lover, her cousin Lancel, who had been the squire of the now-deceased King Robert. Both Dany and Lancel should have appeared frontally naked.

It is important to say this if we remember those words of a well-known white nationalist that I picked up on Daybreak: ‘We need a regime that bans pornography and erects statues of gorgeous naked nymphs and athletes in every public square and crossroads’. As seen in the photo above, if there is something that the Aryan should promote it is the human nude that doesn’t awaken our appetites but merely exalts the beauty of the Aryan body. As the Greeks and Romans understood it before the envious Christians, many with Semitic blood, destroyed almost all their statues, the Aryan nude should not be hidden if it comes from splendid young specimens.

But what can we expect if our seventh art has been taken over by Jews and neochristian gentiles? We get the crap we saw in a previous episode of Game of Thrones: a lesbian act between a northern white woman and a brunette in Littlefinger’s brothel. So aberrant was that prolonged scene that even the normies disliked it. And this northern prostitute appeared even in the first episode on a bed with the Lannister dwarf, and in another episode she shows her pubic hair to Theon when she moves south in a carriage.

Unlike the art I have in mind, these shots only degrade the Aryan. In our times the values have been inverted even in the human nude.

Published in: on March 5, 2021 at 8:55 am  Comments Off on Fire and blood  

Boobs revisited

This is a postscript to my previous post ‘Classification of life’ where I wrote: ‘I recently debunked the Netflix series The Queen’s Gambit showing that in the real world women cannot compete with men in chess (here, here and here)’. I failed to add to these links my December 1 entry, ‘A naked ape’ where I quote Desmond Morris’ book, which cover, incidentally, Aron Nelson shows in his series Systematic Classification of Life. Desmond Morris said:

Given this situation, one might very well expect to find some sort of frontal self-mimicry of the type seen in the gelada baboon. Can we, if we look at the frontal regions of the females of our species, see any structures that might possibly be mimics of the ancient genital display of hemispherical buttocks and red labia?

Lips on women’s mouths! Only until I read that book I understood why we want to kiss them! I quoted Morris in the context of what I had written in ‘On Beth’s cute tits’:

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. Morris explains the phenomenon of self-imitation in other species of apes. In these species, natural selection favours females to imitate their buttocks with their coloured breasts, to shift the aggression of the males to a more erotic channelling.

I was shocked to discover that my species is a more aesthetic version of the same phenomenon of self-imitation! 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 irresistible to our instincts for the human species to breed.

Except for Antinatalist44, no other commenter told me anything about it. I wonder if, unlike me, most white advocates aren’t interested in science, zoology, and physical anthropology. I find it fascinating, as science supports the thesis of this site that we are animals like any other, although with tremendously developed frontal lobes in the brain. Accepting who we are has a lot to do with saving the white man from extinction.

As I said yesterday, Aron Nelson was very scientific before arriving, in his final episode, at the appearance of the human races. But white nationalists too, like Nelson, resort to a pseudoscientific vision of the human being by continuing to believe in life after death or in a Christian or neochristian morality that prevents us from genociding our enemies.

I came up with the expression ‘the extermination of Neanderthals’ decades before I found out that Cro Magnon had perhaps exterminated the Neanderthals. In Nelson’s series for example, it is mentioned that Neanderthals fled as much as possible before the Cro Magnon advance in Europe until they had nowhere else to flee, thus becoming extinct. This is the attitude that the white man must have, once again, towards the more primitive versions of humans. And if he doesn’t have it, it is because he is still under the spell of the Jew who wrote the New Testament, with those commands of universal love, including our enemies, etcetera.

What I want to get to is that the fact that white nationalists don’t see Beth’s pretty boobs for what they really are, is the other side of the coin of accepting a Semitic code that cannot be more antithetical to the Laws of Manu that the Aryans developed when they conquered India (see page 100 of On Exterminationism). Seeing our women for what they actually are, and Neanderthals for what they are, a species that competes with our habitat that has to be expelled (and eventually exterminated) are, in effect, two sides of the same coin.

But when will white nationalists transvalue their values from Semitic values to Aryan values? The fact that only one commenter told me anything substantial about my article on Beth’s palatable boobs suggests that other commenters have not shaken the Christian vision of man. Or did they just not want to opine?

Lebensraum, 5

A child for the Reich

Kidnapping and helping single mothers were not the only methods used by the Germans to increase the population. In an unofficial document sent to all members of the SS on October 28, 1939, Himmler ordered his men to fulfil their patriotic duty by becoming fathers. It didn’t matter if they were married or not.

‘Beyond conventional bourgeois laws, which may be necessary in other circumstances, it may be a noble endeavour for German women and girls to become, even out of wedlock—and not lightly, but with deep moral seriousness—mothers of children who will become soldiers and go to war; of whom only fate knows whether they will return or die for Germany’, Himmler wrote.

At the same time, the Reichsfürer assured the soldiers that both mothers and children would be cared for while the war lasted, or if men fell on the battlefield.

‘SS soldiers and mothers of these children: Show that you are ready, by faith in the Führer and for the sake of our blood and our people, to regenerate life for Germany with the same courage with which you know how to fight and die for Germany’, he added.

Stories of sex in Hitler’s Youth that were already circulating revived. There was also a rumour that the Lebensborn Organization favoured sexual encounters between honourable women and members of the SS, causing a scandal among a people who still didn’t fully understand the laws of sexual selection and eugenics.

Himmler tried to smooth things over, but only made it worse: ‘We only recommend men who are racially unblemished as conception assistants’. He then had to clarify that the order didn’t apply to wives of soldiers and police officers. He also expressed his great faith in the German woman and assured that he could decide for himself if a potential mother was racially and ideologically appropriate.

Alas, none of this had much of an effect on an audience that still required decades of education in eugenics. ‘Nature has no use of organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce abundantly’, wrote the historian Will Durant.

A naked ape

Editor’s note: One more word about my post last Wednesday, ‘On Beth’s cute tits’. I just reviewed Desmond Morris’ The Naked Ape after decades of not reading it. Below I quote the passages that so impressed me when I was much younger. If you don’t want to read it watch at least this very brief interview of old Morris.

It is an extremely important subject because the ideology that’s killing whites is Christianity’s view of Man, which permeates even secular humanism: for example, the egalitarianism spawned after the creation of the United States, and the French Revolution. Paraphrasing Robert Morgan recently I tweeted: The racial inclusiveness of Christianity is caused by the same reason for accepting homo/trans people: all are seen to have souls. ‘Souls’ have no body, while race and sex are properties of the body, not the soul. In the Christian worldview, only the latter is important.

The only way to cure ourselves of this Christian and neochristian pathology is to see ourselves for what we really are: not immortal souls but naked apes. Desmond Morris wrote:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The enlarged female breasts are usually thought of primarily as maternal rather than sexual developments, but there seems to be little evidence for this. Other species of primates provide an abundant milk supply for their offspring and yet they fail to develop clearly defined hemispherical breast swellings. The female of our species is unique amongst primates in this respect. The evolution of protruding breasts of a characteristic shape appears to be yet another example of sexual signalling. This would be made possible and encouraged by the evolution of the naked skin. Swollen breast-patches in a shaggy-coated female would be far less conspicuous as signalling devices, but once the hair has vanished they would stand out clearly. In addition to their own conspicuous shape, they also serve to concentrate visual attention on to the nipples and to make the nipple erection that accompanies sexual arousal more conspicuous. The pigmented area of skin around the nipple, that deepens in colour during sexual arousal, also helps in the same way…

Recent German research has revealed that certain species have started to mimic themselves. The most dramatic examples of this are the mandrill and the gelada baboon. The male mandrill has a bright red penis with blue scrotal patches on either side of it. This colour arrangement is repeated on its face, its nose being bright red and its swollen, naked cheeks an intense blue. It is as if the animal’s face is mimicking its genital region by giving the same set of visual signals. When the male mandrill approaches another animal, its genital display tends to be concealed by its body posture, but it can still apparently transmit the vital messages by using its phallic face. The female gelada indulges in a similar self copying device. Around her genitals there is a bright red skin patch, bordered with white papillae. The lips of the vulva in the centre of this area are a deeper, richer red. This visual pattern is repeated on her chest region, where again there is a patch of naked red skin surrounded by the same kind of white papillae. In the centre of this chest patch the deep red nipples have come to lie so close together that they are strongly reminiscent of the lips of the vulva. (They are indeed so close to one another that the infant sucks from both teats at the same time.) Like the true genital patch, the chest patch varies in intensity of colour during the different stages of the monthly sexual cycle. The inescapable conclusion is that the mandrill and the gelada have brought their genital signals forward to a frontal position for some reason. We know too little about the life of mandrills in the wild to be able to speculate as to the reasons for this strange occurrence in this particular species, but we do know that wild geladas spend a great deal more of their time in an upright sitting posture than most other similar monkey species. If this is a more typical posture for them, then it follows that by having signals on their chests they can more readily transmit these signals to other members of the group than if the markings only existed on their rear ends. Many species of primates have brightly coloured genitals, but these frontal mimics are rare.

Our own species has made a radical change in its typical body posture. Like geladas, we spend a great deal of time sitting up vertically. We also stand erect and face one another during social contacts. Could it be, then, that we, too, have indulged in something similar in the way of self-mimicry? Could our vertical posture have influenced our sexual signals?…

Given this situation, one might very well expect to find some sort of frontal self- mimicry of the type seen in the gelada baboon. Can we, if we look at the frontal regions of the females of our species, see any structures that might possibly be mimics of the ancient genital display of hemispherical buttocks and red labia? The answer stands out as dearly as the female bosom itself. The protuberant, hemispherical breasts of the female must surely be copies of the fleshy buttocks, and the sharply defined red lips around the mouth must be copies of the red labia. (You may recall that, during intense sexual arousal, both the lips of the mouth and the genital labia become swollen and deeper in colour, so that they not only look alike, but to change in the same way in sexual excitement.) If the male of our species was already primed to respond sexually to these signals when they emanated posteriorly from the genital region, then he would have a built-in susceptibility to them if they could be reproduced in that form on the front of the female’s body. And this, it would seem, is precisely what has happened, with the females carrying a duplicate set of buttocks and labia on their chests and mouths respectively. The use of lipsticks and brassieres immediately springs to mind, but these must be left until later, when we are dealing with the special sexual techniques of modern civilisation…

With varying cultural conditions, the spread of the anti-sexual garments has varied, sometimes extending to other secondary sexual signals (breast coverings, lip-veils), sometimes not… The female covers her breasts, and then proceeds to redefine their shape with a brassiere. This sexual signalling device may be padded or inflatable, so that it not only reinstates the concealed shape, but also enlarges it, imitating in this way the breast-swelling that occurs during sexual arousal…

The act of suckling is more of a problem for females of our species than for other primates. The infant is so helpless that the mother has to take a much more active part in the process, holding the baby to the breast and guiding its actions. Some mothers have difficulty in persuading their offspring to suck efficiently. The usual cause of this trouble is that the nipple is not protruding far enough into the baby’s mouth. It is not enough for the infant’s lips to close on the nipple, it must be inserted deeper into its mouth, so that the front part of the nipple is in contact with the palate and the upper surface of the tongue. Only this stimulus will release the jaw, tongue and cheek action of intense sucking. To achieve this juxtaposition, the region of breast immediately behind the nipple must be pliable and yielding. It is the length of ‘hold’ that the baby can manage on this yielding tissue which is critical. It is essential that suckling should be fully operative within four or five days of birth, if the breast-feeding process is to be successfully developed. If repeated failure occurs during the first week, the infant will never give the full response. It will have become fixated on the more rewarding (bottle) alternative offered.

Another suckling difficulty is the so-called ‘fighting at the breast’ response of certain infants. This often gives the mother the impression that the baby does not want to suck, but in reality it means that, despite desperate attempts to do so, it is failing because it is being suffocated. A slightly maladjusted posture of the baby’s head at the breast will block the nose and, with the mouth full, there is no way for it to breathe. It is fighting, not to avoid sucking, but for air. There are, of course, many such problems that face the new mother, but I have selected these two because they seem to add supporting evidence for the idea of the female breast as predominantly a sexual signalling device, rather than an expanded milk machine. It is the solid, rounded shape that causes both these problems. One has only to look at the design of the teats on babies’ bottles to see the kind of shape that works best. It is much longer and does not swell out into the great rounded hemisphere that causes so much difficulty for the baby’s mouth and nose. It is much closer in design to the feeding apparatus of the female chimpanzee. She develops slightly swollen breasts, but even in full lactation she is flat-chested when compared with the average female of our own species. Her nipples, on the other hand, are much more elongated and protrusive and the infant has little or no difficulty in initiating the sucking activity.

Because our females have rather a heavy suckling burden and because the breasts are so obviously a part of the feeding apparatus, we have automatically assumed that their protruding, rounded shape must also be part and parcel of the same parental activity. But it now looks as though this assumption has been wrong and that, for our species, breast design is primarily sexual rather than maternal in function.

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.

How did white women get their cute appearance?

(Brief answer: we designed them)

Peter Frost is a Canadian anthropologist. His main research interest has been the role of sexual selection in highly visible human traits, notably diverse hair and eye colors. Other interests include vitamin D metabolism in northern hunting peoples and gene-culture coevolution, such as genetic pacification due to the state monopoly on violence (reduction of propensity for personal violence).

Grégoire Canlorbe: You are best known for your claim that the most plausible origin for the light coloration of skin in Europeans is sexual selection rather than natural selection. Could you remind us of your argument?

Peter Frost: It’s not just light skin. It’s also the extraordinary variety of hair and eye colors. I prefer to begin with them because they are much less explainable by anything other than sexual selection.

Take hair color. Most humans have black hair and one allele for hair color. Europeans have over two hundred for colors ranging from black to blond. The conventional explanation is straightforward: As humans entered higher latitudes, with less solar radiation, there was less selection for dark skin and, consequently, an accumulation of defective alleles for pigmentation. So the number of hair colors grew as a side effect.

That scenario has two problems. First, the genetic linkage between skin color and hair color is weak. If we took all humans with black hair, we would have a group with the full range of skin colors. Second, millions of years are needed to accumulate that many alleles through relaxation of selection. Yet modern humans have been in Europe for scarcely 45,000 years.

Did Europeans get their hair colors from the Neanderthals? According to a study of five alleles for red hair, one of them seems to be an archaic introgression, but the others are of modern human origin. Even if we assume that all of the alleles for hair color had slowly accumulated during the long existence of the Neanderthals, the timeline is still too short—at most three quarters of a million years. Furthermore, even if they all had a Neanderthal origin, we would still need to explain how they reached their current prevalence. Europeans today are only 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal.

That’s not all. Eye color, too, diversified during the same 45,000 years. So two polymorphisms—for hair and eye color—have developed in parallel with different genetic causes and within the same limits of time and space. There must have been a process of selection. Something helped preserve those new colors and pass them on to subsequent generations.

That something, in my opinion, was sexual selection. It begins when too many of one sex have to compete for too few of the other. The latter are in a buyer’s market and can pick and choose among prospective mates. Conversely, the “sellers” are in a worse position and must market themselves as best they can. They succeed by attracting attention and holding it as long as possible, typically by means of bright colors.

Sexual selection is consistent with the evolution of European hair and eye color in four ways:

First, the European color pattern has become more developed in one sex. Specifically, hair and eye colors are more varied among women than among men, with infrequent colors more common among women and frequent ones less common. A UK Biobank study found that red hair is especially prevalent among women, followed by blond hair and light brown hair. Conversely, the same study found that black hair is three to five times less common among women than among men. The different eye colors are likewise distributed more uniformly among women. These sex differences seem to be due to the action of estrogen during fetal development. A Czech study found that face shape was more feminine in blue-eyed men than in brown-eyed men, as if a single factor had feminized both face shape and eye color.

Second, dark colors have given way to brighter colors, even though new dark colors could have been created. Hair is carrot red, not beet red. Eyes are light blue, not navy blue. Brightness increases visual impact, causing the observer to watch the image longer and keep it in memory longer.

Third, broad-spectrum colors have given way to narrow-spectrum, “pure” ones. A pure color has relatively few wavelengths and is restricted to a narrow slice of the visible spectrum. Such colors don’t happen by accident. They are unusual in the natural world and almost always serve to attract attention, either as a warning coloration or as a means to attract a mate.

Fourth, a single color has given way to a variety. A color grabs attention not only by being bright within a narrow slice of the spectrum but also by being novel. If a particular color becomes too common, it will be less novel and less attractive, and the pressure of sexual selection will shift to more unusual ones. A variety of colors will thus coexist and grow in number as more appear through mutation.

But why would sexual selection be stronger in Europe than elsewhere? Keep in mind that most Europeans did not look European until late in time, almost at the dawn of history. As late as the Mesolithic, pale skin and diverse hair and eye colors were confined to Scandinavia, the Baltic countries, and areas farther east. The oldest dating of blond hair goes back 18,000 years in central Siberia. We know all this from DNA in human remains. Inferential methods place the emergence of pale skin within the same time frame: 19,000 to 11,000 years ago according to one research team, and 19,200 to 7,600 years ago according to another. That’s more or less the last ice age, and long after modern humans had come to Europe. As a Science correspondent wrote: “The implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years.”

We still need more data, but it seems that the current European phenotype arose during the last ice age, some 10 to 20 thousand years ago, among hunting people who inhabited the plains stretching from the Baltic to Siberia. Their women were subjected to strong sexual selection for two reasons. First, men were fewer in number. In a hunting society, male mortality increases as hunters cover longer distances, and average hunting distance is longest in open northern environments. Second, polygyny was less frequent. Since men provided almost all the food, the effort of providing for a second wife and her children was impossible for all but the best hunters. With few polygynous men, and fewer men altogether, women were in a tough market—too many competing for too few. Even slight improvements in attractiveness could make a big difference.

Why didn’t the new phenotype survive in Siberia? First, the colder and drier climate kept human numbers smaller than in Europe, the Gulf Stream being too distant to exert its warming and moistening influence. So the effects of sexual selection could not survive and accumulate as much, especially when the population contracted at the height of the ice age. Other humans then moved in as the climate turned warmer. Nonetheless, as shown by ancient DNA, the new phenotype did persist in south-central Siberia as late as the fourth century. Its population base had probably become too small to ensure its long-term survival.

Final question: Why are Europeans diverse for hair and eye color but not for skin color? The reason may be a pre-existing sex difference that oriented sexual selection in one direction. In all human populations, girls become lighter-skinned during adolescence, with the result that young women are noticeably fairer than young men. A fair complexion was traditionally valued in women, who would make themselves even fairer by avoiding the sun, by wearing protective clothing, and by using face powders. This gender norm has existed across all cultures with one exception, albeit a big one: the tanning craze of Western women since the early 20th century. Thus, at least in premodern times, fairer women were preferred, and such a preference, under intense sexual selection, would eventually drain the gene pool of alleles for dark skin. This may explain the strange albino-like skin of Europeans.

This episode of intense sexual selection probably did much more than change hair, eye, and skin color. Those effects are the most obvious, and the hardest to explain otherwise.

Other effects might include changes in hair form. Hair form was originally thick and straight across northern Eurasia. It then diversified in Europe during the same narrow timeframe that saw hair and eye colors diversify. From being thick and straight it became thin with diverse textures. About 45 percent of Europeans now have straight hair, 40 percent wavy hair, and 15 percent curly hair. The cause was probably the same desire for novelty that created the palette of hair and eye colors. A novelty effect has in fact been shown in an Austrian study, which found that women tend to change their hair form to a less common one.

__________

Read it all on American Renaissance.

Published in: on March 14, 2020 at 12:01 am  Comments (7)  

Pride and Prejudice (2005 adaptation)

In the early hours of the day after midnight, I began to watch once again the 2005 film Pride and Prejudice, based on Jane Austen’s novel. I felt really tired and had to suspend the function, already after two in the morning. I left when, advised by Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley struggles with himself to propose to Jane Bennet. Tonight I will see the rest.

Over the years I have talked about that movie, even since the old incarnation of this site. While what I said last week is true, that even seemingly benign films contain a subversive mustard seed that can grow, in this P&P adaptation there is no bad seed. It is a movie that may well have been filmed in a parallel world in which Hitler had won the war.

There are several readings we could make of the film. Personally, the actress who plays the blonde Jane represents, in flesh and blood, the ethereal nymphs that I place on the sidebar: the inspiration of David Lane. If there is something that I fail to understand in the white nationalist movement, it is this lack of praise for the most beautiful specimens of the Aryan race. I just do not get it. Eros’ force about women like Jane should, on its own, move millions of whites to Lane’s words. And I don’t mean only ‘That the beauty of the white Aryan women shall not perish from the earth’, but the consequence of Eros, lots of children: ‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children’.

The other issue is marriage. If ours is the darkest of all times, it is because they inverted values in everything related to sexuality and the reproduction of the Aryan race. Needless to say, salvation consists of transvaluing values as they were before, in the world of Austen. But with the exception of Anglin and Devlin, who, among the white nationalists, insists so much on the subject? This is one of the many reasons I don’t take the movement seriously. In Hitler’s Germany, on the other hand, the sacredness of marriage and Aryan reproduction was primordial.

As I said, tonight I will finish watching the movie where I left after midnight. Those who want to capture the spirit of this site, what moves me to write, will have to buy the DVD of P&P and watch it from time to time. The music of Dario Marianelli, the landscapes of bucolic England, and even the buildings—for example when Mr. Darcy proposes to Elizabeth—should move the deepest fibre of the white man.

If you visit my Facebook or Twitter pages, you will find the same painting of Claude le Lorrain above the pages. It is known that the wealthy 19th-century English tried to bring the beautiful architecture of some paintings of le Lorrain (paintings that I contemplated during my last visit to London’s museums) to the countryside of the island. The building that served as a refuge from the copious rain for the future couple, when Mr. Darcy proposes to Elizabeth, is the perfect framework for the fourteen words (or twenty-eight, if we are to count the two meanings of the Lane words).

Art, architecture, Aryan beauty, Puritan sexual customs, the 14 words, good music (the very antithesis of what whites listen today), bucolic landscapes—it is all the same. Hitler, who sometime in his life wanted to be an artist, saw it clearly. When will white nationalists see something so obvious?

Choose your future spouse

The city of Sparta had forty-three temples dedicated to various Gods and twenty-two temples dedicated to the heroes (including those of the Iliad), whose deeds inspired the flourishing generations; more than fifteen statues of Gods, four altars and numerous funerary tombs. There was also a temple dedicated to Lycurgus, worshiped as a god. In a city the size of Sparta, the number of religious buildings was very noticeable.

In religious ceremonies, men and women—particularly those in the age of dating—attended, entirely naked as they did during the processions, the tournaments, the beauty contests and the dances. This already implies that the Spartans were not ashamed of their bodies, but that proudly displayed them whenever they could because they were robust, well-formed and harmonious. These events were festivals of beauty, Dionysian ceremonies in which the body was worshiped and beautified by effort and sacrifice. According to Plato, a beautiful body promises a beautiful soul and ‘beauty is the splendour of truth’.

The athletic custom of shaving the body hair and smear oneself with oil before a competition was of Spartan origin, although the Celts were given to body shave before battles. They sought thereby to extol the body; give relief, volume, detail, brightness and ‘life’ to the muscles, thus proudly displaying the result of years and years of gruelling physical training and strenuous efforts, probably to find the best partner and/or gain prestige.

The guilt and sense of sin that Christianity tried to impose in the field of body pride, made a man ashamed of the very things he was proudest. Judeo-Christian morality, by condemning hygiene, care, training and the preparation of the body as ‘sinful’, ‘sensual’ and ‘pagan’ gradually achieved that the European population—converted into an amorphous herd whose attitude to any hint of divine perfection was met with resentment and mistrust—forgot that their bodies also were a creation and a gift from the Gods.

For young people of both sexes such festivals served to become familiar with each other, because we think that Sparta was a city with few inhabitants; where, thanks to public ceremonies, everyone knew everybody by sight and was integrated into the popular. It was at these events where you watched and choose your future spouse.

(Passages from one of Evropa Soberana’s essays in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.)

Published in: on September 6, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (1)