Read this site’s featured article.
Categories
Last year I read Danny Vendramini’s Them & Us on Kindle. Now I’ve reread it in print.
Reading on Kindle should only be done with mediocre books. It’s astonishing how much information is lost in a screen-based read, unlike on paper where we can use a yellow highlighter and jot down numerous footnotes—a practice that helps us absorb the content.
The fact that Them & Us was one of the few books that greatly improved my worldview doesn’t mean it’s without flaws. Far from it! Vendramini is as liberal and anti-racist as other authors who revolutionized my way of thinking. I’m referring to Lloyd deMause and Alice Miller’s work on the mistreatment of children; how Richard Weikart demonstrated that Hitler was privately a pantheist highly critical of Christianity; and how historian Tom Holland showed that Christian values were transmuted into the ethno-suicidal ethics of contemporary Westerners.
It doesn’t matter that all these authors, including Vendramini, are archetypal liberals. What matters is that it’s perfectly possible to use their findings for the cause of 21st-century National Socialism.
Vendramini published his book in 2009, after Jorge Velasco and an associate of his, “Varg,” wrote their lengthy essay on the new racial classification. An abridged version of that essay appears as an appendix in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. But now that I’ve reread Vendramini’s book and better understood its content, I realise that Velasco and Varg relied on accepted wisdom about Neanderthals, who, according to Vendramini, have been anthropomorphised by naïve and politically-correct scholars to the point of being considered human.
František Kupka relied on Marcellin Boule’s scientific interpretation of Neanderthal remains found in France.
I’m writing this post because our point of view must be consistent, especially in the texts linked in the featured article. So yesterday I removed a couple of pages from Velasco and Varg’s essay, where the authors failed to notice that prehistoric Neanderthals resembled apes, not humans.
The February 2026 edition of The Fair Race can be read here, and it’s the one now linked in the featured article. However, the PDF of that appendix without this recent censorship is still available on this site, here.
Categories
Norse hygiene
Categories
Webbon’s
interview – 8
This episode was about race. Fuentes calls himself a race realist, and he starts his interview well, as if he were a reader of Jared Taylor.
But after the ninth minute, Fuentes says that the biggest problem is individualism. Here begins the eternal blindness, since we have already said that individualism is an epiphenomenon of the “spiritual terror” (Hitler’s words) that Christianity introduced into the Aryan collective unconscious, especially in its Anglo-Saxon version. Not seeing the beam in one’s own eye is a leitmotif of Christians like Nick Fuentes and Joel Webbon.
Then Fuentes began to talk about black Americans. When Webbon intervened speaking about the various religions, he openly said that for him, “religion would trump race” and that the racial factor is not deterministic, although he is sympathetic to racial realism.
I think this dialogue shows why the Jared Taylor school of racialism has failed: it isn’t anti-Christian. In the real world, it’s impossible to expel people of colour with such a lukewarm philosophy. It’s no wonder that when I discovered white nationalism (I was living in Spain), a Swede said that this American movement was weak. Paradoxically, Webbon then said a great truth: that all contemporary whites are (1) suicidal, (2) suffer from toxic empathy, and (3) are cowards. He added that that’s why the West is falling apart. I couldn’t agree more!
Unfortunately, shortly after, Webbon, after saying that blacks are generally impulsive and lazy and Jews are subversive, states that as a Christian he shouldn’t hate them or deprive them of certain rights. And everything Fuentes says afterward in his dialogue with Webbon doesn’t suggest a National Socialist-type racism. It’s the same old timid crap we see throughout the American racial right. At 39:50, for example, Fuentes gives the example of a black family, albeit educated, moving nearby and asks the rhetorical question of whether any of us would have a problem with that. As a good Christian, Webbon answers no, and then Fuentes gives the same example with a Chinese, Indian, or Mexican family.
It couldn’t be clearer. Fuentes and Webbon are also suicidal, suffer from toxic empathy, and are cowards. Nick is somewhat aware of this, as he goes on to say that this dynamic ends up with 90% non-white people in a neighbourhood that was previously all-white. But he doesn’t seem to realise that Christian ethics caused the problem in the first place; that 10% is similar to not worrying about the first cancerous cells in your body and only starting to worry when metastasis takes hold.
Then I was surprised that when Webbon asked Nick how the races originated, Fuentes mentioned Adam, and that the various races arose from him. Is Nick a Catholic fundamentalist (liberal Catholics believe in Darwin)? The fact that they then talked about Cain, the Tower of Babel, and Noah’s offspring, as if all of that were historical, doesn’t even warrant a response from me.
Then, at this point, Fuentes says he is completely against racial hatred. Compare this to what we recently said about Cro-Magnons hating Neanderthals. (By the way, my next article will be about Vendramini’s book, which I’m about to finish reading for the second time.)
Queen of Chess is a newly released documentary about chess grandmaster Judit Polgar. I understand the documentary focuses on her father’s efforts to train her and her two sisters to become grandmasters (GMs), and on her games against then world champion Garry Kasparov.
I haven’t seen the documentary because I don’t have a Netflix account, but I’m concerned that it was directed by Rory Kennedy, the youngest daughter of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. For example, the official Netflix trailer begins with a couple of lies: “Chess was a man-dominated sport” (reality check: chess is a male-dominated sport), and “Women were not allowed to play in male tournaments” (this is like claiming that women weren’t allowed to play American football against a team of males!).
Rory Kennedy has also made documentaries addressing topics such as the treatment of prisoners of war and the border wall policy with Mexico. She announced her support for Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate and later endorsed Hillary Clinton. After Biden withdrew from the race, Kennedy endorsed the mulatta Kamala Harris.
Yesterday I learned of the existence of the documentary that Kennedy filmed about Polgar: the woman who has played chess the best in the history of the game. Although I haven’t seen the documentary, I’ve been hearing very favourable opinions about it. What’s most irritating is that some chess YouTubers parrot the claim that Polgar’s example will “close the gap” for future generations of female players who are inspired by the Hungarian GM. These YouTubers base their arguments not on facts, but on the ideology that has infected the Aryan collective unconscious: egalitarian liberalism, the doctrine of despising our biological realities.
It was precisely to expose such dishonesty that I included my sarcastic essay “On Beth’s Cute Tits” in the book that gave the anthology its title. My essay contains this passage:
Some media outlets publish articles with titles such as “Is The Queen’s Gambit a true story?” They claim that the series is inspired by the woman who has reached the highest level of competition in tournament chess: the Hungarian Judit Polgar, now retired from competition but still commentating on professional chess games. But Polgar’s life was very different from that of the fictional Beth Harmon. True, in real life Polgar once beat world chess champion, Garry Kasparov. But what Netflix fans ignore is the outcome of all their matches. In real life, Kasparov beat Judit Polgar 12-1, with 4 draws!
I think it is important to present the scores of the best female chess player in history, Polgar, in her games against male world champions (to date, no woman has ever been crowned world chess champion). The source for the list below is Chess Life, an American magazine that is mentioned several times in the Netflix miniseries:
Kasparov – Polgar: 12-1
Carlsen – Polgar: 10-1
Anand – Polgar: 28-10
Karpov – Polgar: 20-14
Topalov – Pogar: 16-15
Kramnik – Polgar: 23-1As we can see, Polgar is at a disadvantage against all her contemporary world champions. The only champion with whom she kept an almost equal 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 Kramnik, Polgar took real beatings. These are the hard facts of real life that no more feminist HBO or Netflix series are going to change. They want us to believe that women are interchangeable with us when it comes to physical activity and, now, intellectual sport.
I confess that Polgar is a good person. Although she’s retired from formal competition, I’ve seen her comment on games in international tournaments with other GMs, and I enjoy her commentary. But Netflix’s use of her life is outrageous. And the saddest thing is that today’s Aryan men, whom I’ve dubbed “lobotomized eunuchs,” don’t rebel against this narrative.
For those visitors who haven’t read it, now’s a good time to check out our multi-author anthology, On Beth’s Cute Tits.
Categories
Polydoros
Categories
Shrink quote
One day, my psychologist told me, “Those who need therapy don’t come. Their victims do.”
That day I understood everything.
Today I received this WhatsApp text in a chat group for chess players. It portrays what we have been calling the “trauma model,” the antithesis of mainstream psychiatry.
I read the below post here:
The NS Worldview rejects Christianity as racially universalist and fundamentally foreign to the Germanic way of life.
The Christian fundamental laws, which were forcibly imposed on the Germanic people, stand in stark contrast to the Nordic-Germanic worldview. The Church teaches the equality of all people. It also puts this into practice within its sphere of influence. Anyone can become a Christian, whether Aryan, Jew, or Black. Thus, a unified humanity was to be created by eliminating all racial differences between peoples.
The dogmas of the Catholic Church originated in the Orient. They were shaped under Byzantine influence. The Germanic way of life, which alone corresponded to the German national character, had to give way to an unnatural Christian dogma.
The dogma of the Catholic Church states that human life on earth is filled with sin. The better afterlife is supposed to redeem them from it. “Love your enemies,” “Thou shalt not kill” are fundamental tenets of this faith. Motherhood, for the Germanic woman the fulfillment of her existence, is sinful.
The unnatural seclusion in a monastery or convent is pleasing to God. With all these beliefs, Christianity was alien to the nature of the Nordic-Germanic people. Through the doctrine that all people are equal before God, the Church destroyed racial consciousness. The Jewish blood element penetrated and weakened the peoples.
Only Adolf Hitler’s various laws for the preservation of the purity of Germanic blood and the elimination of foreign races from the national community put a stop to this.
I’d like to change the subject slightly.
I don’t want to talk about all the torture in this Mexican prison related to the cartels. But I do want to mention that in one type of execution, the victims had their eyes and feet taped, were wrapped in plastic, and put alive into a freezer meant for livestock. After a couple of days, the Mexicans were frozen solid. They called a butcher and cut them into small squares, which were later fed to the pigs.
This was a common practice around 2011 or 2012, not too far from the US.
Incredibly, many of these felons who had belonged to cartels are already free because, regarding the sanctity of human life, Mexican criminal law follows Christian mandates (“Love your enemies,” “Thou shalt not kill”). There is no death penalty in Mexico (these freezing were apparently done under the orders of the cartel, not the Mexican state).
In an ethnostate the ethical way, according to our scale of values, would be to kill them all. There wouldn’t be any prisoners, not even those like the gigantic penitentiaries Bukele built in El Salvador. These kinds of criminals would simply be wiped out.
Considering that many cartel members are free (I’ve most likely run into them on the street) and wield enormous power in this country—veritable states within a state!—do you grasp our concept of transvaluation of all values? Human life has no value except the value our internal ethics assign to it.
Heil Himmler!
Categories
Athena
Hail Pallas Athena, born from the head of Zeus,
Goddess of the city, giver of glorious victory.
Categories
Sermon
by Gaedhal
A Red Giant, to oversimplify, is a star that has lost its core, and this causes it to go hyper, such that it destroys planets astronomic units away.
The supernatural core of Christianity keeps it tethered to the social mores of the first century. Jesus and Saul are terminuses beyond which the inherent subversiveness of orthodox Christianity cannot go beyond.
However, when a Christian becomes a humanist, then he/she has slipped from orthodox Christianity’s moorings. The newly deconverted “humanist” now finds himself/herself on an open sea of utter craziness. It is like that clip of Rebecca Watson, where she says that whenever she deconverted from Christianity, she ipso facto became a humanist. It is almost as though “secular humanism” is just an aggressive form of Christless/Godless Christianity. “Secular humanism” is what is left when the myths and miracles have evaporated.
“Secular humanism” is like an axiological residue of Christianity.
When Christianity loses its supernatural core it goes hyper, and destroys habitats such as Rhodesia and South Africa, in the same way that the sun will destroy our earth, one astronomic unit away from it, when it goes hyper, in about 4 billion years. This is why I call it “atheistic hyper-christianity”. You [the editor of this site] call it neo-Christianity.
I constantly see Leftist atheists trying to shame Christian Nationalists into being more Christlike, i.e. into adopting the suicidal teachings of the sermon on the Mount. As Ragnar Redbeard put it: the preachifier of the Sermon on the Mount is “the true crown prince of evil”. Ayn Rand also says that an enemy who destroys one is less evil than an enemy who convinces his victim to destroy himself. Jesus is the personage who persuaded the formerly white West to destroy itself, with suicidal teachings such as turn the other cheek; resist not evil; and welcome the xenos/stranger/foreigner.
Categories
Scrivener
Our PDF on neochristianity, which extensively quotes passages from Tom Holland’s book, Dominion, is central to understanding this site. Therefore, I was interested in watching this video defending Holland against the criticism of a secular humanist, Stephen Woodford, even though the video’s author, Glen Scrivener, is a Christian:
I discovered the video because Richard Carrier, whom I’ve been discussing recently, has tried (here)—like Woodford—to refute Holland with a string of strawman arguments!
That doesn’t mean I agree with everything the Christian Glen Scrivener says about the atheist Carrier, whom he calls an “incredible fringe historian” because Carrier doubts the existence of the historical Jesus. Nor does it mean I accept Holland’s neochristian morality, who, in one of the clips within the video embedded above, says that the Judeo-Christian idea of man created in the image of God has given dignity to humankind. (Savitri Devi has written that this Judeo-Christian idea has caused animal abuse in the West by considering every wingless biped on the planet as brothers, at the expense of animals.)
However, Glen Scrivener’s video is relevant in showing how secular humanists distort Holland’s thesis because they are deeply troubled, and feel threatened, by the idea that Christianity gave rise to the secular values of the West today.
Why does it bother them so much? (here we see another atheist in a series of videos strawmaning Holland by quoting the Old Testament when Holland is talking about the New Testament). Keep in mind that secular humanists are not Nietzscheans. If they were, instead of embracing today’s Western values—such as equality (see my recent instalment of Might is Right)—they would repudiate them.
Like Tom Holland himself, all these atheists who criticize Holland are actually neochristians. Glen Scrivener is not a neochristian but an Anglican Christian. On this site, we are against both, but more so against secular neochristians because they have taken Christian ethics to the stratosphere, as Holland aptly demonstrates in the final chapters of Dominion.
Recall this site’s seminal article metaphor of the Red Giant (neochristianity) star that burns up all the nearby planets: a metaphor for ethno-suicide throughout the West. For example, in the video Glen Scrivener said that out-group altruism originated in Christianity because it didn’t exist in pre-Christian times. What Scrivener omits is that this deranged altruism—which we call Jesus deranged syndrome—, is precisely what is causing the English roses of his country to be sucking the dicks of some orc migrants in this very moment.