web analytics

Category: Chess

Categories
Chess Psychoanalysis

The human side of chess, 3

‘Psychology is the most important factor in chess’.

—Alekhine

In pursuit of a metaphorical king

This booklet is not only written for the hobbyist. If you are not a chess player, you can ignore the algebraic notation of the games that appear in this chapter and read exclusively my literary comments. I will be told that very little will be learned by studying my games or those of any other player other than what FIDE classifies as IM, International Master or GM: a Grand Master of the board (above the GMs there is only the world champion). I doubt that is true. Defeats that cause us humiliation are experienced by all: champions, teachers, club players and ordinary fans. And the best therapy for both the professional and the amateur is to meditate, and eventually write, about what has hurt us. While it is impossible for me to write a confessional testimony about the insights of an alien mind, I can talk about my emotions during games. In this chapter I present four games that I played with humans and one that I played with my computer.

The score sheets (1) for the games I played in tournaments in my teens and twenties, which were not FIDE endorsed tournaments, have been lost. At that time I was going through a great family storm and got rid of both my collection of chess books and my equipment to play—a story I have heard from other young people. It was precisely because of the problems at home that, like many others, I had taken refuge in the skirts of Caissa. I didn’t keep my youth games from tournaments, when I really fell in love with the goddess of chess, for the simple reason that my family problems stifled any interest in keeping them. Three of the games collected here, whose score sheets I kept, I played already in my twenties and thirties, when the family storm had passed.

My proposal in this chapter is to invite the player to talk about his emotions through his own games. The fan will be able to play with much more confidence after formally analysing those emotions, so that he knows himself a little better. It is a therapy not only about our defeats and setbacks: we also have to explain why some chess players suffer so much when we extract a victory from the opponent. The causes for which the chess player suffers are complex. It is known that intuitive psychology is not his forte. Lacking insight, even some world champions have ruined their lives as soon as they are crowned with the laurel of victory. What many ordinary professional and amateur chess players evade is the knowledge of how they were treated as children, and take refuge in Caissa as I did as a teenager.

Hardly any attempt has been made to write about the psychology of the chess player from the inner experiences of a player. Of the chess fans I know, no one takes seriously, for example, the study of the psychoanalyst Reuben Fine, The Psychology of the Chess Player. Fine argues that the game’s phallic symbolism is obvious: that the king represents the penis; the checkmate the castration, and other sublime imbecilities. Ernest Jones himself, Freud’s most orthodox acolyte and a great chess fan, speculates foolishly about ‘the mother and the paternal penis’ when addressing the simple fact of the change of the figure of the grand vizier into queen when the game supposedly transformed in its passage from the Arab world to the West. It is with the desire to show the player from the inside, rather than from psychoanalytical theories of no value, that I present my intimate confessions as well as some observations about my opponents.

______________

(1) For a Glossary of chess see: here.

Categories
Autobiography Chess

The human side of chess, 2

Introduction

When I sat down to write this book, I was officially retired from chess. It was the talks with Rafael Martínez, an old friend from a park where I played chess many years ago, that motivated me to confess what I have thought about the game since my retirement.

(Left, in 1975 outside of ‘La Cabaña’ I played my first game in the park with Señor Cervantes.)

My goal here is to break various taboos. In the first chapter I address a topic hardly touched by other chess players. I am talking about the emotions that affect the player during the game: a topic that I address by analysing my emotions in some games that I have played in tournaments. There are very few chess players, and one of them was the Mexican grandmaster Marcel Sisniega (a pure Aryan about my age, who passed away in 2013), who describe their moods after the rounds. I haven’t read Crónica Personal de un Torneo de Ajedrez of Sisniega, but I suppose that the descriptions I make here are more crude and direct.

In a short passage in the second chapter I try to show that chess treatises omit the biological cause that some play better than others. I also venture a program that I consider useful to face the emotions not only in defeat, but for the average player to understand and accept his skill level.

For centuries, chess theorists have avoided going into the subject of personal tragedies that have led some to seek solace in the game; tragedies that have devastated the sanity of some masters, grandmasters, and even world champions. This blind spot has existed from the 1620 treatise by Gioacchino Greco, considered the first chess professional, to Kasparov’s recent work on his predecessors. The motto of the inveterate tabletop gamer seems to be:

Elude the Knowledge of Thyself

Avoid settling accounts with the existential sting that made you seek comfort in an activity as elusive as the game of chess or any other game.

Among chess players there have been cases of crossing the line from simple escapism to madness. In the third chapter I break with the biggest taboo not only in the community of players, but of humanity in general. I talk about the cause of disorders of the spirit and what we can do when a loved one suffers a psychotic crisis. The fate of Carlos Torre, the best Latin American chess player after Capablanca, serves as a paradigm for me to point out what we should never, ever do when a family member suffers a crisis: go to the psychiatrist.

After that important chapter I include an epilogue about what I think of the game.

Juan Obregón, who gave me some information about Carlos Torre, probably has the largest number of interviews from people who knew the Mexican grandmaster. But without the help of the late Alfonso Ferriz, the great lover of the game-science in Mexico, it would have been impossible for me to collect the most relevant information about Torre. It saddens me that my conclusions from the same information that Ferriz so generously provided me cast a shadow over this wonderful person who was Don Alfonso; and I publish this little book not without some remorse in order to expose private matters that could help the West to regain its sanity.

Categories
Chess Red terror

The human side of chess, 1

Preface of 2021

Although I have been a chess fan, I have only participated in one tournament duly endorsed by the International Chess Federation (FIDE in its French acronym) in 2004, which gave me a provisional rating of 2109 (the current world champion’s rating is 2847). However, after my racial awakening I cannot see my old hobby as I used to see it. Some facts from the life of world chess champion Mikhail Botvinnik (1911-1995), who won the chess crown just after the Holocaust of millions of Germans (read Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm), will illustrate my current point of view.

According to Soviet politician Nikolai Krylenko, Botvinnik exhibited the features of a true Bolshevik and Botvinnik’s celebrated student, Garry Kasparov, described his mentor as a staunch communist, a child of the Stalin regime. In his memoirs, Botvinnik himself acknowledged that he was lucky in life because his interests coincided with those of his society. ‘I am a Jew by blood, a Russian by culture and a Soviet by education’, he said.

Estonian Paul Keres may have won the crown after world champion Alexander Alekhine suddenly died in 1946. In fact, Alekhine had practically offered him the crown by allowing him to challenge him to a title match when Alekhine was already in full decline. Young Keres made the mistake of his life by rejecting the kind white glove. I would venture to claim that the outcome of the 1948 tournament, which crowned the ethnic Jew Botvinnik as Alekhine’s successor, was the logical conclusion of the ideological Judaization of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together), and the degradation of Estonians in Stalin’s post-war society.

Alekhine was my idol when I was a teenager. He had belonged to the Russian aristocracy and in 1909 in Saint Petersburg he received from Tsar Nicholas II a beautiful vase of Sevres. It was the award for having won a national junior championship. It was Alekhine’s most prized possession, and when he decided to leave Russia due to the Red Terror, the vase was the only item he took with him. He even had it in his room the night he died in Portugal (see cover of the book above), fleeing to the westernmost country of Europe on accusations of having collaborated with the fascists. If the Europeans had been sane they wouldn’t have harassed him, as the fascists had been the only ones to face the red threat, unlike the Anglo-Saxons.

Interestingly, Kasparov, whose Jewish surname was Weinstein before changing it, confesses in his book about his predecessors that as a child he was Botvinnik’s favourite pupil. While his mentor played the role of teacher with other children, the former champion had regular contact with the young Garry for fourteen years—something that, Kasparov acknowledges, greatly helped him in his career to win the sceptre of chess. Life was difficult for him and his mother in those days, and Botvinnik did his best to help them and provided them with food stamps.

Currently the Norwegian Magnus Carlsen is the world chess champion, the sixteenth champion. All conventional lists of world chess champions begin with the Austrian Jew Wilhelm Steinitz. My list adds one more champion: the American Paul Morphy, as we will see in this book. To date, I am not aware of any list that reveals the ethnicity of six of the seventeen champions, if we add one more to the list starting with the number zero. The following dates indicate the year in which they conquered the world crown. Note that only one Latin American has conquered it:

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) exiled in France
5. Max Euwe (1935) Holland
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

Seventeen years ago I wrote the book that appears below and circulated it to a couple of friends who love chess. Since then I have changed the way I saw the world, so I have modified some passages of the text. For example, on YouTube you can see an interview this year between chess grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura and Kasparov. The Japanese used the feminist slogan ‘close the gap’ with the former champion when saying that women would have to participate in chess tournaments in the same numerical proportion as men. Nakamura didn’t realise the biological impossibility of such a desire, as we recently demonstrated in On Beth’s cute tits (see our book list on page 3).

If I get to play other FIDE-endorsed tournaments next year, we’ll see how much my rating goes up, or down, compared to my rating the year I wrote this book…

C.T.
June 2021

Categories
Chess

A metaphorical king

Left, the American Paul Morphy (1837-1884), who should be considered the first world chess champion. Bobby Fischer, the other American champion, would officially win the international crown in 1972.

For translation into English, I am reviewing En Pos de un Rey Metafórico (literally, ‘in pursuit of a metaphorical king’), a brief book on chess I wrote in 2004. So I won’t be adding many entries on this site (just like I wasn’t adding many entries while reviewing On Beth’s Cute Tits).

Categories
Blacks Chess Pseudoscience Racial studies

Classification of life

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Chess Feminism Mainstream media

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).

Categories
Chess Mainstream media

CNN lies

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

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

Categories
Chess Feminism Infanticide Mainstream media Metaphysics of race / sex

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:

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 pages 99-116 of On Beth’s Cute Tits should read them 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.

Categories
Chess Red terror

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.

Categories
Chess WDH radio show

Boring team White!

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

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

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

American Renaissance

Black Pigeon Speaks [Youtube]

Black Pilled [Youtube]

Breitbart News [Normie]

Brother Nathanael

Chateau Heartiste

Counter-Currents Publishing

Daily Stormer

David Duke

Gates of Vienna [Gates of Tel Aviv]

Infowars [Normie]

Jean-Francois Gariépy [Youtube]

(((Lauren Southern))) [Youtube]

Majorityrights

Mark Collett [Youtube]

Mark Steyn [Normie]

Millennial Woes [Youtube]

Occidental Dissent

Occidental Observer (The)

Political Cesspool (The)

Quillette [Normie]

Radio Free Northwest (*)

RamZPaul [Youtube]

Reddit (Debate the Alt-Right)

Red Ice TV

Richard Spencer Podcast (The)

Right Stuff (The)

Roosh V

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

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

Steve Sailer

Styxhexenhammer666 [Alt Lite – Youtube]

Taki’s Magazine

Tara McCarthy [Youtube]

Trad News [Cuck News]

Unz Review

Way of the World [Cuck] (Youtube)

VDARE

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

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

Any volunteers?