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.

Chess from the racial perspective

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


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.