Jared Taylor sur l’apocalypse française de Guillaume Faye

Jared Taylor revient sur son admiration pour Guillaume Faye, leur amitié née de leur première rencontre, et bien sûr, sur les thèmes apocalyptiques qui parsèment son œuvre: la fin de la race et la survie dans l’effondrement de la société.

Voici la préface de Jared Taylor à l’ouvrage final et le plus radical de Guillaume Faye La Guerre Civile Raciale

Comme je parle la langue de Molière, j’ai eu la chance de faire la connaissance de quelques grandes figures du mouvement nationaliste français. J’ai le plus grand respect pour ces hommes et ces femmes qui se battent pour leur peuple, mais celui qui m’a le plus impressionné dès la première rencontre fut Guillaume Faye.

Je me souviens très bien de l’occasion. C’était en 2003. J’avais été présenté à Faye par un ami commun et nous nous étions rencontrés dans un petit restaurant.

À l’époque – et c’est encore vrai aujourd’hui – de nombreux Français patriotes hésitaient à utiliser le mot qui me semble essentiel pour comprendre la crise à laquelle la France est confrontée : le mot “race”. Mais après une heure passée avec Faye, je me suis surpris à penser : “Ce type comprend parfaitement le problème, peut-être même mieux que moi. Et il a une vision claire de ce qu’il faut faire – peut-être plus claire que la mienne”. J’ai été frappé par la puissance de son esprit, sa passion pour la vérité et son amour pour son peuple. Ce fut le début d’une amitié qui dure depuis plus de quinze ans.

Vivant sur des continents différents, Faye et moi ne nous sommes pas vus aussi souvent que nous l’aurions voulu, mais je l’ai invité à deux reprises à prendre la parole lors des conférences de la Renaissance américaine que j’organise. À chaque fois, il a charmé ses auditeurs avec son accent et les a émus par son éloquence et sa perspicacité. Et pour moi, chaque voyage en France était naturellement l’occasion de longues conversations avec lui.

Peu à peu, grâce aux efforts d’Arktos Media, ce grand philosophe de la crise de l’Occident est devenu plus connu des anglophones. Des mots comme “archéofuturisme”, “ethno-masochisme”, “xénophilie” sont désormais bien connus de ceux d’entre nous qui suivent les événements en Europe. Guillaume Faye compte désormais parmi les porte-parole les plus connus de la survie de notre peuple.

Le livre que vous tenez entre vos mains est certainement le plus noir, le plus lucide et le plus franc que mon ami ait jamais écrit. Il s’agit d’une analyse brillante de la menace mortelle que représente pour nous l’immigration massive de personnes non blanches.

Je cite les funestes prédictions de la postface du livre :

Il y a trois hypothèses concernant la suite des événements. La première, la pire, serait celle de la soumission. Pour faire la guerre et pour vaincre, il faut être deux. Si, face aux envahisseurs étrangers, les Français blancs ne se défendent pas, il n’y aura pas de guerre. Ce sera le pourrissement, l’effondrement sans vrai combat ni vengeance isolée.

 

C’est une possibilité que je n’exclus pas du tout.

La deuxième hypothèse, c’est l’éclatement d’une guerre civile raciale avec défaite des autochtones Français et des Européens ethniques, ayant contre eux leur propre État collaborateur. Il s’agit d’un scénario évoqué notamment par Jean Raspail.

 

La troisième hypothèse, c’est celle d’une guerre civile victorieuse, avec des conséquences historiques incalculables, dont l’effondrement de tous nos paradigmes politiques.» Quoi qu’il en soit, nous ne pourrons pas échapper à des troubles majeurs dans les années à venir. En effet, l’Europe occidentale sera bientôt le théâtre d’un inévitable tremblement de terre.

 

C’est du Guillaume Faye à l’état pur. Tandis que d’autres peinent à saisir l’ampleur du problème et à en esquisser les contours, Faye va droit au but, les choix fatidiques qui s’offrent à nous sont : la soumission, la défaite ou la victoire. Rien d’autre; “la convivialité du vivre-ensemble n’est possible qu’entre populations biologiquement et culturellement apparentées. Tout le reste n’est que faux-semblants. Nous ne voulons pas vivre avec ces gens-là. Un point c’est tout”.

Et bien entendu, la France n’est pas la seule nation blanche en péril. Toute l’Europe occidentale et les nations d’outre-mer fondées par les Européens sont confrontées à la même crise d’aliénation – et pour les mêmes raisons. L’esprit de capitulation des Français si impitoyablement décrit par Faye, s’applique mot pour mot aux élites dirigeantes et médiatiques, de l’Allemagne au Canada en passant par la Nouvelle-Zélande. Seules les nations protégées par ce que l’on appelait autrefois le rideau de fer ont échappé – du moins pour l’instant – aux effets du poison ethno-masochiste. Cette détermination manifeste du blanc à provoquer sa propre destruction est sans précédent dans l’histoire de notre espèce, et personne ne la décrit mieux que Guillaume Faye.

L’un des trois choix que ce livre propose à la France est la soumission.

Je ne peux imaginer de pire destin, de plus atroce pour une nation qui a tant apporté à notre civilisation. Et pourtant, pour les raisons que Faye explique à la fois avec tristesse et avec fureur, un tel destin n’est pas impensable. Un effondrement tout aussi vil et méprisable est également possible pour mon propre pays. Si jamais notre peuple se réveille et se construit un avenir aussi glorieux que notre passé, ce sera grâce aux efforts d’hommes brillants et infatigables comme Guillaume Faye.

Je suis reconnaissant et profondément honoré que mon ami de quinze ans m’ait dédié ce livre. Je me réjouis également qu’il l’ait conjointement dédié à mon camarade Sam Dickson, qui a été l’ami et le co-combattant de Guillaume pendant plus de quarante ans. Sam Dickson a fidèlement et courageusement combattu les forces qui allaient transformer l’Occident et il admire la France et son peuple aussi profondément que moi.

Il se joint à moi pour adresser ce message aux lecteurs de ce livre : Français et Américains, nous sommes le même peuple. Votre combat est notre combat !

Traduction Jeune Nation

Source

Jared Taylor on Guillaume Faye’s French Apocalypse

Jared Taylor on Guillaume Faye’s French Apocalypse

Jared Taylor reflects on his admiration for Guillaume Faye, recounting their first meeting and enduring friendship, while highlighting the dark, apocalyptic themes of race, survival, and societal collapse in Faye’s Racial Civil War.

This is Jared Taylor’s preface to Guillaume Faye’s final and most hard-hitting work, Racial Civil War.

Because I speak French, it has been my great good fortune to become acquainted with some of the major figures in the French nationalist movement. I have the deepest respect for these men and women who are fighting for their people, but the Frenchman who most deeply impressed me from the very first meeting was Guillaume Faye.

I well remember the occasion. It was in 2003. I had an introduction to Faye from a mutual friend, and we met in a small restaurant.

At that time — and it is true even now — many patriotic Frenchmen hesitated to use the word that I think essential to understanding the crisis France faces: the word “race.” But after an hour with Faye, I found myself thinking: “This guy understands the problem perfectly — maybe even better than I do. And he has a clear perspective on what must be done — maybe clearer than my own.” I was struck by the power of his mind, his passion for truth, and his love for his people. It was the beginning of a friendship that has lasted for more than fifteen years.

Living as we do on different continents, Faye and I have not seen each other nearly often enough, but I invited him twice to speak at the American Renaissance conferences that I organize. Each time, he charmed his listeners with his French accent and moved them with his eloquence and insight. And for me, every trip to France naturally included long conversations with Faye.

Gradually, thanks to the efforts of Arktos Media, this great philosopher of the crisis of the West has become better known to English speakers. Words such as “archeofuturism,” “ethno-masochism,” and “xenophilia” are now well known to those of us who keep abreast of events in Europe. Guillaume Faye is now among the very best-known spokesmen for the survival of our people.

The book you now hold in your hands is certainly the darkest, bravest, and frankest book my friend has ever written. It is a brilliant analysis of the mortal threat to us of massive non-white immigration.

I cite the following ominous passage that justifies the book’s title:

There are three possibilities concerning the sequence of events.

The first, the worst of them all, would be that of submission. It takes two to wage a war, and if our white Frenchmen do not defend themselves against these invaders and foreign aggressors, there will be no war. What will result instead is decay, collapse without real combat or isolated acts of revenge.

This is a possibility which I cannot exclude.

The second possibility, a terrible, distressing and unthinkable one at that, is the outbreak of a racial civil war resulting in the defeat of French natives and other ethnic Europeans, who would have to fight against their own collaborationist state. This is a development mentioned particularly by Jean Raspail.

The third possibility is that of a victorious civil war with incalculable historical consequences, including, of course, the collapse of all our political paradigms. Whatever the case, we will find it impossible to evade major disorders in the coming years. Indeed, Western Europe will soon be the setting for an inevitable earthquake.

This is pure Guillaume Faye. While others fail to grasp the extent of the problem — or even the form or nature of the problem — Faye cuts straight to the fateful choices we face: submission, defeat, or victory. He writes that there is no other choice because a “convivial living-together is only possible when it involves populations that are biologically and culturally related. Anything else is but a sham. We do not wish to live with these people. Period.”

There actually is a fourth possibility, which is voluntary, peaceful separation. There are a few modern examples: the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and the separation of the Czechs from the Slovaks.

In the former Yugoslavia, separation was mostly violent, but Slovenia was born virtually without bloodshed.

In all these cases, however, there was a crucial difference from that of France: These nations were (re)established in territories that had been historically populated by distinct peoples. In France, an alien population with a ruthless will to power and united by a triumphalist religion threatens the native population, and the entire country is at stake. Peaceful separation is hard to imagine.

And, of course, as Faye writes so clearly, France is not the only white nation in peril. All of Western Europe as well as the overseas nations built by Europeans face the same crisis of dispossession — and for the same reasons. The capitulationist spirit of the French that Faye describes with such penetration applies word for word to the ruling and media elites everywhere from Germany to Canada to New Zealand. Only those nations that were sheltered by what we used to call the Iron Curtain have escaped — at least for the time being — the effects of ethno-masochist poisons. This apparent determination of the white man to bring about his own destruction is without precedent in the history of our species, and no one describes it better than Guillaume Faye.

One of the three choices this book outlines for France is submission.

I cannot imagine a more miserable or ignoble fate for a nation that has contributed countless treasures to our civilization. And yet, for the reasons that Faye explains both with sadness and with fury, such a fate is not unthinkable. A similarly contemptible collapse is likewise possible in my own country. If our people awaken and build for themselves a future as glorious as our past, it will be thanks to the efforts of brilliant, tireless men such as Guillaume Faye.

I am grateful and deeply honored that my friend of fifteen years has dedicated this book to me. I also rejoice in his having jointly dedicated the book to my comrade Sam Dickson, who has been Guillaume’s friend and co-combatant for more than four decades. Sam Dickson has faithfully and courageously fought the forces that would transform the West and he admires France and its people as deeply as I do.

He joins me in this message to the readers of this book: Frenchmen and Americans — we are the same people. Your struggle is our struggle!

Racial Civil War is Guillaume Faye’s final work. Order the limited leather-bound edition now — only 7 copies left (out of 50) — before it’s too late, right here at the Arktos Shop.

 

“Our” Man in Israel

Introduction

The issue of dual loyalty is an ancient one. As noted in a previous TOO article,

[Stephen] Walt points out that Ross has a long involvement with pro-Israel activist organizations, such as being director of WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank headquartered in Washington, DC].

But Ross’s ties to Israel are even deeper than that. Until his appointment as Middle East envoy in the Obama Administration, from 2002–2009 Ross was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. This organization has assumed the role of long term planning for the Jewish people, not only in Israel but also the Diaspora. The JPPPI is an independent think tank that reports to the Israeli government and has close ties with other Jewish organizations. Its mission is “to promote the thriving of the Jewish people via professional strategic thinking and planning on issues of primary concern to world Jewry. JPPPI’s work is based on deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people with Israel as its core state.”

The JPPPI’s report Facing Tomorrow 2008 is interesting because it focuses on the threat of Iran and but also because it sees people like Stephen Walt as a threat to Israel:

The Jewish people must, as the highest priority, develop an appropriate response to the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and to global stability as a whole. While there is no ambiguity about the need to do so in Israel, it is necessary to mobilize Jewish opinion around the world as well. The American Jewish community cannot be intimidated either by a post Iraq syndrome in the United States, or by the false and pernicious allegations of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, or former President Carter.

In other words, Jews around the world are encouraged to mobilize to combat the threat to Israel represented by Iran. The assumption is that Jews have common interests as Jews no matter what country they happen to live in. Dennis Ross is doing his best to promote exactly this view within the Obama administration.

One might think that such a view would leave Jews in the Diaspora open to the charge of disloyalty, but the problem is easily finessed: Jews in the Diaspora are told to frame Israel’s concerns about Iran as a global threat, not simply as a threat to Israel.

Of course, that’s what we are seeing now. But we needn’t be naïve. Jews like Dennis Ross are clearly far more loyal to Israel than to the US. Speaking as a psychologist, they wouldn’t be able to see a conflict of interest between the US and Israel if it was staring them in the face. Indeed, as Gore Vidal said of Norman Podhoretz, they are unregistered agents of a foreign government.

In a sane society, there would be a huge groundswell of public opposition to Ross’s appointment–as there has been for a number of Obama’s appointments. But that won’t happen.

Since there has been no groundswell of media or public opposition to pro-Israel operatives like Ross at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it’s not surprising that the practice continues. Amos Hochstein is a good contemporary example. Israel and the powerful Lebanon-based Shiite Hezbollah militia are on the brink of open warfare, conflict that could trigger U.S. intervention and escalate to a regional or even a world war. To date these dangers have attracted little notice from the American mass media, ever eager to divert and dissemble from the direr consequences of the Washington regime’s one-sided support for Israel. Small wonder, then, that the media should evince the same reluctance in investigating the shadowy past and dubious allegiance of Hochstein, the emissary the U.S. recently dispatched to “mediate” between Hezbollah and Israel. The following is a brief foray into the workings of the Israel Lobby in the Biden Administration, as well as a primer on the perks of being Jewish in America.

Hochstein’s  importance

To be sure, media reports have not slighted Hochstein’s great influence in the Biden White House or his meteoric career. He has been described as “one of President Biden’s closest confidantes [who] has worked with him for many years,” while another Washington insider calls Hochstein “the person who bridges State, Treasury, the White House and Energy”
Fittingly, one of Hochstein’s titles is “Special Presidential Coordinator.”

Yet the media have underplayed, and often ignored, a key fact about Hochstein in his role as an impartial arbiter between Hezbollah and Israel: his birth, youth, and military service in Israel.

Beyond those bare facts about his origins, Hochstein has been remarkably unforthcoming about his life before he arrived in the United States in 1974. While nearly every successful denizen of the D.C. is eager to brandish Ivy League/Seven Sisters (or the equivalent) educational credentials, one may scour the internet (including his page on the usually resume-rich LinkedIn job-hunting site) without finding anything about Hochstein’s education, college or secondary.

Just as murky are the circumstances by which Adam Hochstein, a 21-year-old immigrant with unknown credentials, became a congressional staffer within a year of his arrival in this country, working for Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CT) who, like Hochstein, is  a Jew.

Despite his youth and inexperience, Hochstein carried out important assignments for Gejdenson. Not yet 25, he traveled to North Korea in 1997 to report on its economic and military situation; still in his twenties, he undertook negotiations with the Iraqi government (against the advice of the U.S. State Department) aimed at “resettling” thousands of Palestinians there in exchange for loosening some of the crippling sanctions then in force there.

Well before 9/11, Hochstein advocated acting against Iraq for harboring “weapons of mass destruction” in a press release issued by Congressman Gejdenson, and soon afterward he was serving as senior advisor to a senator and a governor. Like many members of the permanent government, Hochstein has used hiatuses between his party’s dominance to work in lobbying and industries close to government, in his case capitalizing on energy policy expertise that he seems to have acquired with no expertise in the field. He’s evidently done well, at some point becoming a partner in two D.C. restaurants and a movie theater.

Under Obama, Hochstein (without known diplomatic training or experience) rapidly climbed the ladder at the State Department to become America’s chief energy negotiator, deeply involved in efforts to block Russian natural gas from Europe and to facilitate Israeli access to energy.

During the Trump presidency, Hochstein served on the board of Ukraine’s natural gas company, Naftogaz.

Hochstein’s knowledge of the ins and outs of Ukraine’s shady corrupt energy industry is evidently considerable. In his testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, Hunter Biden stated that Hochstein had advised him merely to be “very careful” in serving on the board of the notoriously corrupt Burisma corporation.

Hochstein also seems to have had a role in the “whistle blowing” that led to Trump’s first impeachment resulting from a phone call interpreted by Democrats as pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden family corruption in Ukraine, and to have been advising Zelensky before his election.

It’s also interesting that there is a lack of definitive information on Hochstein’s current citizenship:

According to one report, a State Department source has claimed that he is “not a dual national,” but refused to state if he has renounced his Israeli citizenship, and in fact gave no [details as to Hochstein’s American citizenship.] So the question raised, unanswered— Hochstein’s citizenship is evidently a “carefully guarded secret.” Not acknowledging Hochstein’s Israeli citizenship would be useful because, for example, in Lebanon, where Hochstein has been involved as an American negotiator on the Israeli conflict with Hezbollah, “it is normally illegal for an Israeli” to visit Lebanon.

Even Hezbollah at the time did not comment on the mediator’s nationality or military past, with leader Hassan Nasrallah saying they will “not express an opinion or position related to the demarcation of borders”.

Given all this, it’s hard to disagree with this quote originally from Ha’aretz:

…the American brokerage farce, whose players are almost all American Jews, some of them former or future Israelis. If the United States is a side in the conflict, then it should say so and conduct the negotiation as though Israel is its protégé. And if it really wants to be an honest broker, then come on – Amos Hochstein?…

Shut Up and Obey: How Democracy Can’t Survive Disagreement

Do you need to translate Indonesian into English? Or Filipino into French? Japanese into German? No problem. Artificial intelligence will do all of that with ease. But there are some vital translations that AI won’t currently perform. It won’t translate English into English. Or French into French. Or German into German. Why is this a problem? Well, if you read leftist newspapers or websites in any of those languages, you’ll find that they often need translating into the same language. For example, here’s some English from The Guardian that needs translating into English:

  • Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, is an immensely divisive figure who has helped polarise his country. (source)
  • Divisive messages from public figures are directly linked to tipping some people into violence on the streets. (source)
  • The radical right is growing in confidence as it attempts to push what [Hope Not Hate] called “divisive, populist, anti-immigration, climate-sceptic policies”. (source)
  • By giving oxygen to these divisive and dangerous individuals, Suella Braverman is legitimising fringe far-right elements that threaten our cohesion and democracy. (source)
  • It’s part of a populist approach: choose a well-known institution and level divisive accusations at it. (source)

The English word “divisive” is a favorite of the left, but it needs translating into English. In fact, it needs translating twice. In all the quotes above, it first of all means “in disagreement with the left.” But fundamentally it means “Shut up and obey.” If you disagree with the left, you’re dividing opinion and destroying unanimity. That’s obviously a wicked and hateful thing to do. After all, the left are infallibly correct and impeccably moral. Anyone who disagrees with leftist ideas about race or migration or transgenderism or Islam is a Bad Person. And Bad People need to be silenced.

Democracy means leftism

If you disagree, you’re being divisive and proving that you’re a Bad Person who needs to be silenced. Otherwise you’ll be a threat to democracy – which is another favorite word of the left. Again it’s an English word that needs translating into English:

  • With Trump surging, democracy is in peril. (source)
  • [Bernie Saunders’] assessment of a Trump victory in November is sobering. “It will be the end of democracy, functional democracy.” (source)
  • As Germany’s postwar constitution turns 75, threats to its democracy are looming. (source)

By “democracy,” the left mean “leftism.” That’s why, for the left, it’s perfectly democratic to import millions of Third-World folk against the will of the White majority. Third-World migration strengthens our democracy. Anyone who objects to it is divisive and a threat to democracy. In other words, Third-World migration strengthens leftism and objectors are wickedly disagreeing with leftism.

Keen to vote for more migration

Of course, leftism now includes so-called right-wing parties across the West. For example, the British Conservative party was in power for fourteen long years. But it did nothing to enact the will of the Whites who voted for it and everything to increase the power of non-Whites and the left. The Tories presided over a massive increase in Third-World migration that has imported millions of votes for their supposed political rivals on the left:

Voting for the first time in a British election, Prathesh Paulraj and other immigrant voters are excited to take part in the July 4 ballot, hoping they can influence change in the country that they have chosen to call home. The opposition Labour Party is widely expected to win by a landslide, replacing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party which has been in power for 14 years.

Refugees and immigrants from Commonwealth countries, mainly former territories of the British Empire such as Nigeria, India, and Malaysia, are eligible to vote in British elections.

Paulraj, 27, who came to Britain in February last year, said he was excited to cast his vote after missing the election in his native India. “In my country, they don’t allow people from other countries to vote. … I came here on a student visa, but they are giving us an opportunity, like British citizens,” said Paulraj who works part-time as an ambassador at his university in Manchester, northwest England.

Teh Wen Sun, a 33-year-old Malaysian student from Salford, not far from Manchester, said she did not see much difference between the two main parties, but she was keen to vote for a party that is more receptive to immigrants. …

Oyinkansola Dirisu, 31, a support worker from Manchester who came to Britain in 2022, said she was looking forward to voting for Labour, and said she wanted whoever won power to make it easier for people like her to move to Britain. (“UK election gives hope to first time immigrant voters,” Reuters, 3rd July 2024)

Importing non-Whites to strengthen anti-White leftism is true democracy

Why did the Tories not remove the right of foreign students and other obviously non-British migrants to vote in British elections? Well, because doing that would be a threat to democracy. In other words, it would prevent votes for the left. Non-Whites like Prathesh Paulraj vote for leftist parties which then import more non-Whites to vote for leftist parties which then import more non-Whites to… The governing elite of the Conservative party never made the slightest effort to end that leftism-strengthening cycle. There’s a simple reason for that: the governing elite of the Conservative party are themselves leftist. More precisely, they’re leftist for Britain while being rightist for Israel.

Booty without scrutiny

This is because the elite in the Conservative party are either Jewish or controlled by Jewish money. Jews like Sir Ehud Sheleg and Sir Mick Davis regularly occupy the hugely powerful but rarely scrutinized post of party Treasurer. Sheleg is an Israeli citizen who has openly stated that his first loyalty is not to Britain. He told the Jewish Chronicle in 2019: “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.”

Jewish moneyman Ehud Sheleg put Israeli Jews first and British Whites nowhere

Yes, second to his homeland, which does not allow migration from the Third World, let alone allow Third-World folk to vote in its elections. But Ehud Sheleg and other fervent Zionists in the Conservative party want Britain only to offer unconditional support to Israel, not to copy Israel’s majority-favoring politics. In Israel, it’s good that the will of the Jewish majority is obeyed. In America or Britain, it would be very bad for the will of the White majority to be obeyed. Instead, the will of the Jewish minority must be obeyed. And so America’s and Britain’s borders remain open to the Third World. That’s true democracy, folks!

Fatal Antigone: Between Modern Lawfare and Cursed Heredity 

Authors and their literary heroes are always subject to conflicting interpretations in different historical contexts. Sophocles’ tragedy Antigone was performed quite differently in the Greek city state of fifth-century Greece than it is in contemporary versions crafted by modern producers and directors beholden to modern literary critics. The story of the mythical and rebellious princess Antigone raises a haunting question whether all we have learned so far from our Western cultural treasure trove, be it from Homer’s epics, Biblical proverbs, or from Shakespeare’s verses, or for that matter from the US Constitution, is just apocryphal nonsense or perhaps a conman job resulting in a terrible waste of time for gullible readers and theater audiences. Projecting our modes of conceptualization into the mindset of our distant ancestors is a game of wishful thinking.

Sophocles’ play Antigone is the centerpiece of Western legal, philosophical and political thought. The play conveys a timeless interaction between the rule of positive law versus the notion of unwritten justice, known also as natural or divine law.  Antigone believes that in accordance with divine laws she must provide for a decent burial for her dead brother, irrespective of his brother’s insurrectionist past and despite the fact the he was accused by their  uncle Creon of what we would call today “terrorist activities.” In Antigone’s mind, divine or natural laws honoring dead kinsmen must precede the written law of her city of Thebes however much the law of her  city strictly forbids memorial service to enemies of the state. As she claims in her defense: ”

Justice, enacted not these human laws
Nor did I deem that thou, a mortal man
Could’st by a breath annul and override
The immutable unwritten laws of Heaven.”
(1)

But what god or  which gods? What divine justice did Antigone have in mind? Most modern scholars overlook the fact that the Ancients had a radically different concept of religion and justice than modern lawmakers in the US or EU. Ancient Greeks or Romans could not possibly conceive of the end-time salvation religions like monotheistic Christianity, Islam or Judaism. The Greco-Roman mindset and its conceptualization of the hereafter can in no way be substituted by Christian-inspired notions of justice. Therefore, analyzing Antigone through glasses of Christian self-denial or guilt feelings is a nonstarter. In prodding the self-perception of early Christians, Walter Otto, the well-known authority on the spiritual legacy of Antiquity, makes the following critical statements about Christian sense of justice;  Instead of pride reigns fear. The fullness and bliss of life have vanished; dignity and distance have been abandoned and the freedom of the spirit has been stifled.” (2)

Those who cheer up Antigone are oblivious of the fact that modern Western legalism and the concept of natural law is largely influenced by the Judaic-centered religion of a vindictive, revengeful, self-centered, Semitic and totalitarian god who must be obeyed and who resolutely rejects the presence  of other gods — and therefore the possibility of existence of other truths or any other forms of justice. “If we reject such considerations as ‘antisemitic,’ we burden ourselves with new forms of ban on thought and discourse that dangerously restrict our reflection on history. … The capacity to historicize and relativize oneself is a precondition to any genuine tolerance.” (3)

These words by Jan Assmann, a renowned modern expert on Semitic religions, certainly do not come as a consolation to American January 6 Capitol protestors, who, similarly to Antigone had also their ideas about justice when rejecting the rapidly enacted voting legislation that had propelled Joe Biden into the White House. Much like Antigone’s outlawed and demonized brother, the January 6 demonstrators were quickly dubbed by Biden’s DOJ commissars with hyperbolic and criminalizing qualifiers such as “insurrectionists,” “seditious individuals,” “obstructers of justice.” Most of them have subsequently faced stiff penalties. However, the same judicial travesty when applied to the upholding of the liberal judiciary in the US and EU is neatly covered in the garb of the liberal rule of law which even King Creon would not object to. Most scholars—in fact most readers or viewers of Sophocles’ Antigone—are justly horrified over King Creon’s inhumane decision to refuse the burial of Antigone’s insurrectionist brother Polynices, leaving his corpse to rot in the field amidst vultures instead. However, modern law and opinion makers in the EU and US are fully in agreement that even eighty  years after World War II, countless burial locations of killed or deceased National-Socialist or Fascist officials and soldiers scattered all over Europe should remain banned from the public eye, with their distant next of kin being denied access to their graves. Former US president Ronald Reagan’s visit to the military cemetery in Bitburg in Germany in 1985 and his unintended homage to the fallen German Waffen SS soldiers was met with massive criticism all over the liberal and Jewish-run media. (4)

In recent times, a Catholic memorial service that has been regularly held each May 13th over the last thirty years in the Austrian village of Bleiburg in memory of Croat victims of communism was banned by the Austrian government on the pretext that this was the “largest mass gathering of European Nazi sympathizers.”  (5)

One could go on and on with the judicial lawfare or state-sponsored criminalization of the defeated side and mention the case of fallen Confederate soldiers. General Robert E. Lee’s statues have been smeared and torn down, his name likely to be soon branded in high school history manuals with the label “forerunner of modern white supremacism.” 

The Revisionist trap

Everybody nurtures a conception of Antigone analogously to how one thinks about a household pet. Over the last century Sophocles’ play has been performed hundreds of times all over Europe and the US and will likely continue to attract comments from literary critics for centuries to come. Likewise, everybody judges Antigone’s defiance of Creon’s decrees in his own way. Everybody fits her fate within his own legal, religious or political framework when it best befits his preconceived bias or value judgments. A right-winger will praise harsh measures taken by King Creon who endeavors to secure peace and order in his city threatened by a looming civil war. Modern antifascist activists or LGBTQ+ activists, let alone some modern ageing menopausal drag queen will, by contrast, construe Antigone’s effrontery as a sign of worldwide transsexual/gender liberation.

The necessity of readaptation, reappropriation, revisionism, or probably outright scriptural or legal fraud applies to all fields of science and law, often coming in handy as a tool for academic zealots or nascent political movements in search of cultural and political hegemony. Some contemporary conventional wisdoms, however, must never be revised or questioned. While it is a common and a legally acceptable practice in the US/EU to historicize, that is, inflate or deflate the number of victims of communism or dispute the veracity of distant historical facts and figures, the process of historical revisionism must stay off limits when applied to Jewish World War II victimhood. Any reinterpretation, any new reassessment of the Jewish World War II narrative is a felony in almost all Western states. By contrast, all scientific or literary adaptations, including the fate of Sophocles’ Antigone are given free reign of reinterpretation. Cases of literary reappropriation abound. The late eighteenth-century German playwright Friedrich Schiller was elevated to the level of the spiritual founding father of twentieth-century National-Socialist Germany. His name was adorned in 1935 by dozens of flowery words by hundreds of National-Socialist academics who honored Schiller’s legacy by bestowing the new Germany with the all-year-round headline the “Schillerjahr” (the Year of Schiller) on the occasion of the 130th anniversary of his death. A prominent German lawyer, also a high-ranking National-Socialist politician, Hans Fabricius, wrote in his essay a glowing praise of Schiller:

Schiller as National Socialist! With pride we must salute him. With pride and gratitude. Because no one knows if and what we would be without him. (6)

Latter-day communist and liberal intellectuals didn’t lag much behind with their revisory eulogies. Schiller’s dramas enjoyed great popularity in what was to become the Soviet-ruled East Germany (DDR). Especially popular was his drama Wilhem Tell which depicts the eponymous Swiss freedom fighter (seditious terrorist?). Tell refuses to pay homage to the hat of the late medieval Hapsburg ruler who was terrorizing Swiss peasants. Nowadays we may be disgusted at the sight of those times when European citizens were obliged to kiss the feet of their local rulers, while forgetting that our contemporary liberal deities also require mandatory public worship. Once upon late medieval times, politicians had to kneel down in front of their rulers; now they have to take the knee in front of non-White criminals or stage pilgrimages to the supremely sacred Yad Vashem.

And today’s Schiller? The spirit of the time has changed, along with the arrival of the new liberal ruling class who has tuned up Schiller’s verses to a new set of globalist, multiracial, foreigner-friendly, transgender edicts. Now Schiller’s verses from his Ode to Joy have become the official anthem of the multiracial European Union. The same methods of reappropriation of an author (or when needed demonization), bordering on outright literary or historical fakery, is the inevitable fate of all Western classics and critical historians.

Antigone’s travails know no end. On February 6,1944 around 8 pm, in the midst of US and British nightly aerial bombardments of France (7), the revamped play Antigone was staged by the French nationalist playwright Jean Anouilh at the Paris Théâtre de l’Atelier. Despite power cuts and the freezing cold, the play had a large audience turnout, earning the author an accolade from the German and Vichy government officials in the audience. After the end of World War II, or the so-called Liberation of France, Anouilh’s Antigone did not disappoint his earlier communist detractors because he made Antigone sound like the chief female symbol of antifascist resistance. Thus, the mythical and rebellious Antigone turned after World War II into an antifascist figurehead in the eyes of European leftwing literati. She was remolded into the mirror image of the Spanish communist heroine La Pasionaria or the much-acclaimed American writer and drunkard Ernest Hemingway who after World War II openly bragged about killing dozens of disarmed “Kraut soldiers.” (8)

In the fall of 1944, Anouilh along with thousands of other French nationalist intellectuals was on edge as waves of massive purges were being carried out by self-styled antifascist liberators — with the full benediction of American/UK legislators. Anouilh’s skill for allegorical plots and his irony-clad literary style, however, helped him weasel in and out and survive the vengeful shooting gallery of the antifascist victors. This was not the case with hundreds of his colleagues and fellow travelers who ended the winter 1944/45 with a rope around their neck. (9) The late 1944 Paris scenario was a postmodern reenactment of the duel between the two Antigone’s brothers who had killed each other in their quest for the throne. The much-decried modern cult of wokeness, the religion of political correctness, the dogma of cancel culture, along with their leagues of virtue signalers did not start yesterday — their origins must be traced to 1945. Or even further back to Sophocles’ Antigone and her doomsday father/brother Oedipus…

 Genes as natural law

“In large measure, our fate is in our genes”. (10) This quote by the American molecular biologist James Watson may shed in hindsight additional  light on the fate of Antigone. And for that matter it can better explain the behavior and sociopolitical choices of people throughout the ages. We can change our lifestyles, we can change our citizenship, we can learn or unlearn our acquired cultures, but for now at least, we can’t change the DNA passed down to us from our distant ancestors. No wonder that Watson’s words come as a shock to modern social science theorists and lawmakers who, despite empirical data to the contrary insist on the sole role of the economic and political environment in shaping human behavior. Some contemporary American scholars complain that “Most political science degree programs do not require any coursework in the life sciences, much less genetics.” (11) Their words basically echo belatedly the words of German biologists and geneticists who fell into disgrace after 1945.

The above observations are by no means novel; similar — albeit more expressive and now banned — German words such as “Ahnenerbe” (ancestral heritage), “Erbanlagen” (hereditary factors), “Rassenhygiene” (racial hygiene) were used hundreds of times by hundreds of German psychiatrists, geneticists, physicians, criminal law experts and historians during the fateful years of 1933–45. For obvious political reasons, after World War II such German appellations had to be shred and gradually replaced by vague, neutral and more academically and politically correct terms such as behavioral genetics, evolutionary biology, and sociobiology, in an attempt by contemporary race scientists to clear their names in advance from any tentative suspicion of harboring racism or “Nazism.” When one looks at Antigone’s fate from the point of view of her genetic makeup, the entire play obtains a deadly different meaning.

Antigone was a progeny of kinship inbreeding; her father Oedipus was a husband of her mother Jocasta. Both Antigone and her father Oedipus, whom she had faithfully accompanied until his tragic death, were children of the same mother. Her doomsday fate resulting from the incestuous bond between her father-brother Oedipus and his mother Jocasta had been predetermined on the day she was born. It comes as a big surprise that Antigone’s genetic makeup has never been studied in the analysis of her rebellious behavior. In addition, one must also wonder, what made Sophocles and ancient Greek playwrights, as well as their future readers and viewers relish such morbid tales of incest and kinship killings — all the more as the ancient Greeks had laws allowing parents to physically remove their handicapped children. In fact, Antigone’s father, Oedipus, as a newborn baby had been ditched in the wilderness by his parents, most likely because his parents had suspected their lineage of carrying a serious genetic flaw, thus spelling doom for the city; Sympathy with the decadents, equal rights for the degenerates — that would be the deepest immorality, that would be the very perversion of morality!” wrote a prominent German lawyer in reference to Nietzsche and his attitudes towards the legislation of ancient Greeks. (12)

What was crossing Sophocles’ mind when he wrote Antigona will never be known with certainty. Very likely he wrote the Oedipus trilogy having in mind how mixed interracial marriages or incestuous bonds are bound to cast a curse on entire ancestral lineage and in the long run destroy the life of a tribe or ingroup in the Greek polis. German scholars in National -Socialist Germany insisted on the careful choice of partners and a good insight into the family tree of both the wife and her husband. Crime and heredity are deeply interwoven, since recessive criminal genes of one or both partners may lead to disaster for future distant offspring.

Just as research on human heredity must not disregard the fact that man, in contrast to all other living creatures, is spiritually determined, we must request today from social science that it also takes into account the biological process which is closely linked the mental/spiritual process. (13)

The above quote is from a prominent German medical doctor who was dealing with crime and heredity in National Socialist Germany and who also proposed an academic curriculum fusing natural science and social science research into a single whole. He added an ominous remark that wouldn’t sound well in the ears of left-leaning college professors: “And no one can deny it: biologically based psychopathology and social science are much closer to each other than psychopathology and experimental physics.” (14)

With each regime change, such as the one that occurred in Germany and Europe, and to some extent in the US in 1945, comes along inevitably the change in political dogmas. Each time a regime change happens the new ruling class must automatically doctor up new “paradigms” in order to make scientific research fit better into their dominant ideology. Just as the story of ancient Greeks, their racial and genetic makeup, their beliefs and their mores were a foremost topic of interest to German scholars after the National Socialist takeover, so has the liberal-communist dogma of interchangeability of human races become a new myth of our times.

The Greek man always feels himself to be a son and heir: from his ancestors he inherits property and dominion, rank and fame, the noble shape of his body, strength, power, courage and achievement. The two belong together, for one is inconceivable without the other. … We are familiar with the hereditary curse in the Oresteia, which always beget new bloodguilt. This is not the revenge of a jealous god, but the natural effect of a natural cause, a fate that extends to several people, given that the family is a unit of blood. (15)

How do those ancient Greek tragedies square away today with the issue of the much-debated topic of natural laws vs. legal positivism in modern jurisprudence, especially in the US? Imposing universal rights and the concept of dignity across the board on all peoples worldwide has had so far little positive effects in terms of securing a lasting multiethnic environment or world peace. An indigenous man from Borneo or Sumatra has a different idea of natural laws and its derivative human rights than a merchant from Queens. A Palestinian-American will have a different concept of natural law and the underlying justice than an American Jew. An African-American DA conducting court proceedings involving a White American defendant will likely file a different motion than a White defense attorney representing his White client.

The American common law, unlike European civil law brags of the superiority of grand juries when passing a final verdict on an indicted suspect. But if a jury is composed of more than half of different non-White or mixed-race jurors, it is highly unlikely that the judge will hand down a just sentence, and it’s relatively unlikely that a White suspect will be acquitted.  The multiracial US and its protectorate, the multiracial EU, are more and more in the process of copying the policy of the ex-communist judiciary in Eastern Europe and Soviet Uinon where the verdict against political dissidents was known before the staged trial had even started. One good thing about Antigone is that she harbored no illusions about her fate. She had known all along that she was by her bloodline destined to die young and that she could not expect any salvation, either from people or the gods.


Notes:

  1. Sophocles, Antigone, transl. Storr, (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1912). p.15
  2. Walter Otto, Der Geist der Antike und die christliche Welt (Bonn: Verlag F. Cohen, 1923), p. 36.
  3. Jan Assmann, The Mosaic Distinction or the Price of Monotheism. Transl. by David Lorton / Litrix.de 2004, online, p.9.
  4. David Green, “This Day in Jewish History, 1985; Ronald Reagan Sparks Storm with Visit to German War Cemetery”, Haaretz, May 4, 2016. https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2016-05-04/ty-article/.premium/1985-reagan-visits-german-war-cemetery/0000017f-f460-d47e-a37f-fd7c41730000
  5. Hasnain Kazim, „Neonazis in Kärnten; Gedenken mit Hakenkreuz und Hitlergruß“, Der Spiegel, May 10, 2018. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/oesterreich-neonazi-treffen-in-bleiburg-kaernten-a-1206675.html
  6. Hans Fabricius, Schiller als Kampgenosse Hitlers (Berlin: Verlag Deutsche Kultur-Wacht, 1934), p. 164.
  7. Jean Claude-Valla. La France sous les bombes américaines :1942-1945 ( Paris : Les Cahiers libres de l‘histoire, Nr.7, 2008).
  8. Wolfgang Stock, „Hat Ernest Hemingway im Krieg wirklich 122 Deutsche getötet?“, Der Spiegel, December 21, 2023. https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/ernest-hemingway-hat-der-schriftsteller-im-krieg-wirklich-122-deutsche-getoetet-a-3bb3b624-78d6-4c87-880a-207daed266ab
  9. Dominique Venner, Histoire de la Collaboration (Paris : Pygmalion, 2000), pp. 515-516.
  10. D. Watson, quoted in Time, March, 20, 1988.https://time.com/archive/6702116/science-the-gene-hunt/
  11. Peter K. Hatemi and Rose McDermott, “The genetics of politics: discovery, challenges, and progress”, Trends in Genetics, October 2012, (Vol. 28, No. 10, p. 528). https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0168-9525%2812%2900111-4
  12. Kurt Kassler, Nietzsche und das Recht (München: Verlag Ernst Reinhardt, 1941), p.67.
  13. Friedrich Stumpfl, „Verbrechen und Vererbung“, Monatsschrift für Kriminalbiologie und Strafrechtsreform, 29. Jahrgang, Heft 1 (München: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1938), p.2.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Walter Haedicke, „Die Anschauungen der Griechen über Familie, Herkunft und Vererbung“, Volk und Rasse, 12.Iahrg., Heft 10, (München-Berlin, 1937), pp. 371-372.

 

 

Roberta Kaplan as a Jewish Type

Jewish lesbian Roberta Kaplan is a prominent leftist attorney involved in lawfare against the Charlottesville demonstrators, against Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carrol case, as well as in victorious efforts on behalf of gay marriage. As I wrote in a  previous article on Roberta Kaplan, she “is a good example of what makes Jewish activism so effective: smart, well-connected, hyper-aggressive, in the context of a court system sympathetic to her causes.” Well, her hyper-aggressiveness and general abrasiveness seems to have caught up with her, along with micromanagement (she seems to be a control freak).

I bring her up because I think she is a Jewish type and a big reason why the Jewish community is so successful. I am certainly not saying that all Jews are like this, but such people are important in whatever occupation they are in.

Jewish aggressiveness has long been noted as a general characteristic of Jews, e.g., here (pp. 26-30), seen also in Kaplan’s “relentless … pursuit of success”:

In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades to Jewish poor attempting to get more than the usual charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.” The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way. . . . The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other. Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.”

The other thing that’s obvious here is that Kaplan is depicted as interpersonally abrasive. Clearly, she doesn’t care whether other people like her, especially I suppose if she is in a superior position. For Jews, being disliked by non-Jews goes with the territory. In traditional Jewish ethics, non-Jews have no moral standing and their opinions don’t matter unless they threaten the individual Jew or the Jewish group as a whole.  On the other hand, most White people–and especially White women—care deeply about being liked, resulting I think stems from their evolutionary history.

The New York Times: 

Prominent Lawyer Roberta Kaplan Departs Firm After Clash With Colleagues

The well-connected attorney, who founded a powerhouse firm at the dawn of the #MeToo era, has faced complaints that she mistreated and insulted other lawyers.

… Her departure followed months of internal frustration over Ms. Kaplan’s conduct toward other lawyers, according to people familiar with the matter. Those concerns led her colleagues to remove her from the firm’s management committee and precipitated her departure. …

Ms. Kaplan and her wife are deeply connected to the Democratic Party and she has been a heroic figure to many liberal activists. In addition to litigating the Supreme Court case that laid the groundwork for the national legalization of gay marriage, she became a leader of the #MeToo movement. …

Another Times article, “How a Trump-Beating, #MeToo Legal Legend Lost Her Firm.”:

In the eyes of many of her colleagues, including the firm’s two other named partners, Ms. Kaplan’s poor treatment of other lawyers — ranging from micromanagement to vulgar insults and humiliating personal attacks — was impairing the boutique firm she had built, the people said. For one thing, they said, she was jeopardizing its ability to recruit and retain valuable employees. …

Many former employees said they were proud of the work they had done and admired Ms. Kaplan’s fearless pursuit of big targets. But they also said the workplace environment she had presided over could be unbearable. This went beyond normal gripes about tough bosses. Ms. Kaplan’s behavior was at times such an issue that a top lawyer at another firm who was her co-counsel in a case reprimanded her over her conduct, and a progressive legal coalition nixed her from a list of candidates for federal judgeships because of her reputation for mistreating employees, according to lawyers familiar with both episodes. …

Like many other ambitious young corporate lawyers, Ms. Kaplan was relentless in her pursuit of success — so much so that her future wife, Rachel Lavine, a Democratic operative, once offended her on an early date by comparing her to a Bolshevik willing to spill blood for the sake of victory. …

Ms. Kaplan’s timing was impeccable. She pitched her firm as a progressive bastion that would combine trailblazing public interest practice with civil and criminal litigation. The goal was to win big rewards for worthy causes while also making its lawyers rich. The cherry on top: The firm was run by a legal giant in a field largely bereft of female leaders, much less gay women. Liberal lawyers jostled to join. …

From the start, Ms. Kaplan’s behavior alienated some of her new hires.

“Robbie was a screamer, she yelled a lot, and that was not an experience I had before,” said Christopher Greene, who had joined from the powerhouse law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. “Now it was part of my day to day, and the office wasn’t big.”

Many former employees recalled hearing Ms. Kaplan berating colleagues for their supposed incompetence and lack of intelligence. (Most would speak only on the condition that The Times not identify them, citing fear of professional repercussions.)

In the midst of the #MeToo movement, Ms. Kaplan told colleagues that she was too smart to ever have been sexually assaulted, according to Seguin Strohmeier, another early hire, and two other former associates who also heard the remarks.

Ms. Kaplan’s lawyers said in a letter to The Times that she had never “suggested that anyone can be ‘too smart’ to be sexually assaulted because that is obviously not true.”

Five employees at the firm recalled inappropriate comments Ms. Kaplan made about colleagues’ looks. Once, she told a female associate that the associate was more suited to “back of house” work because of her appearance. Another time, Ms. Kaplan said the same associate was too much of a “dyke” to clerk for the Supreme Court, Ms. Strohmeier recalled. Other times she used gender-specific insults.

Ms. Kaplan’s lawyers denied that she criticized employees’ appearances and said she “is hardly the only experienced trial lawyer prone to salty language at times.”

Many former employees recalled Ms. Kaplan’s publicly berating case managers, who are young, low-ranking employees. Once she verbally attacked a case manager who disobeyed her command not to include meatballs in a pizza order. Ms. Kaplan’s fury was so remarkable that a lawyer took notes, which The Times reviewed. The notes described the meatball incident as one of a few examples in which Ms. Kaplan “publicly derided” the case manager “both to her face and behind her back.”

Mr. Clark and Ms. Tent, the lawyers for Ms. Kaplan, said this was inaccurate. “To the extent Ms. Kaplan gave instruction about what food to order, it was typically to order too much rather than too little food,” they wrote.

To the frustration of some colleagues, Ms. Kaplan at times insisted that she review in advance certain emails that partners planned to send externally. On occasion, she became irate when this edict was violated. …

Near the end of 2021, Ms. Kaplan’s lawsuit against the white supremacists in Charlottesville went to trial. It was a high-stress environment; Ms. Kaplan was targeted with antisemitic threats. She told some attorneys on the multi-firm team that they didn’t deserve their law degrees. She threatened to ruin one’s career.

Nations Are Not Notions: Thoughts on the European Football Championship 2024

Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne. That’s one. Beethoven’s Violin Concerto in D major. That’s another. And Bergkamp’s goal for Arsenal away at Newcastle in March 2002. That’s a third. What are they? Supreme examples of sublime art-forms created by the Whites of north-western Europe. Classical art, classical music, and soccer are three White inventions that have delighted and dazzled the world.

Bernini and Bergkamp create beauty (images from Infogalactic and Sky Sports)

I would say that all three are art-forms that seek to stir emotion, elevate the spirit, and create stunning beauty. In fact, I’d relate soccer to a fourth world-conquering White art: ballet. I’ve always seen the appeal of soccer, but I never saw the appeal of ballet until a female friend persuaded me to watch some. And I was impressed. Ballet is not just great art: it had much more in common with soccer than I realized. There’s a parallel grace and athleticism, a parallel striving to challenge the boundaries of gravity and physiology. It’s just that soccer appeals most to heterosexual men, not homosexuals, and that a game of soccer is like two separate ballets being performed at once on the same stage. Each team is trying alternately to design and to disrupt. It wants to design patterns with the ball that create goals for itself and to disrupt the goal-hunting patterns of the other team.

Scale-spanning spectacle

That’s why a good goal is such a special event. The patterns in ballet are beautiful, but they follow a fixed script, are practised and perfected in rehearsal, and aren’t attacked on stage by half the performers. In soccer, there can be no fixed scripts and patterns are constantly under attack, are constantly failing and faltering. When a pattern succeeds and a goal is scored, it’s order being imposed on chaos, light breaking through darkness, a seed sprouting and flowering amid mud and muck. You can say the same of scores in other sports, of course, but what makes soccer special is the clarity with which you can see the patterns failing and succeeding on the stage. The ball is large, round, and highly visible. It rolls and curves and flies, but it doesn’t move with eye-defeating speed or regularly disappear amid a mass of bodies. Soccer is the supreme stadium sport, combining perfectly with White architecture and organization to create a visual and emotional feast for huge crowds around the world.

But at the same time soccer is perfect for kids to play at a moment’s notice on a patch of concrete or waste-ground. It spans scales like no other sport, combines simplicity, cerebrality and spectacle like no other sport, and is easy to understand and play like no other sport. That’s why it’s conquered the world like no other sport. It’s a game with a globe that has gone global. But don’t expect gratitude or praise for the Whites who invented it, perfected it, and popularized it among other races. Many of the non-Whites who insist that “Whites have no culture” will be avid followers of the game, supporters of one or another of the British and European clubs that laid its foundations and powered its rise to global success. Soccer is world-conquering White culture, but in winning the world it somehow lost its Whiteness. The race that gets celebrated in modern soccer is not its necessary creators and continuing sustainers, but its inessential contributors: not Whites but Blacks. Soccer would not exist without Whites and would continue to exist without Blacks.

Facially and phonetically alien

Those stark facts will be never be acknowledged in the mainstream, of course. But here are two more facts: Blacks are very good at soccer and many of soccer’s greatest players have been Black. That’s players, not coaches: Blacks excel athletically in sport, not intellectually. They can play at the highest level, but not organize teams or devise tactics and adapt them as games flow and shift. Take the half-Black, half-Algerian Kylian Mbappé. He’s currently one of the world’s best players, but I’m confident that he won’t go on to be one of the world’s best coaches. Or even one of world’s better coaches. As I write, he’s the star player for France in the European Soccer Championship 2024. After all, he was born in Paris, elder son of two French citizens, so he’s fully French and perfectly entitled to play for the French national side. Right? No, wrong! Mbappé isn’t French and shouldn’t be playing for France.

Olivier Giroud and Kylian Mbappé: spot the true Frenchman

There’s a simple reason for this. Nations are not notions. In other words, nations are not defined by words or concepts. Instead, they’re defined by blood and belonging. Etymology, the history of words, isn’t often a reliable guide to current reality, but you can rely completely on the etymology of “nation.” It comes from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Nations are born, not made. They’re based on bonds of blood, they’re cemented by shared history. But Kylian Mbappé doesn’t share blood or history with the true French. When you set him beside another star of the French team, Olivier Giroud, the contrast is almost ludicrous. Giroud is clear-skinned and well-groomed, has classically refined features, looks both intelligent and athletic, and seems as French as his name. That’s just as it should be, because he is French (with some ancestry from the brother-nation of Italy). Set beside Giroud, Mbappé looks like a troglodyte and doesn’t look French in the slightest. After all, his father is Black and his mother is Algerian. His very name says that he isn’t French: Mbappé is African, not European. It’s phonetically alien, just as Mbappé himself is facially alien. It isn’t just his dark skin and non-White features. He has dead, soul-less eyes. I don’t know how well those eyes reveal his character and psychology, but I do know that Blacks and Algerians in France are hugely over-represented as murderers, rapists, and thieves.

White boys should not idolize Black Bukayo

That’s part of why Blacks and Algerians are noxious for the nation of France, just as Blacks and Pakistanis are noxious for the nation of Britain. But I would prefer to say the “nations of France” and the “nations of Britain.” I don’t think that either France or Britain is a true nation. No, they’re what you might call combi-nations, uniting smaller White nations under a single name. For example (and inter alia), France absorbed a true Celtic nation in Brittany just as Britain absorbed true Celtic nations in Wales, Cornwall, and northern Scotland. Even England within Britain could be divided into smaller and stronger nations. But it’s not wrong that there’s an English national soccer team behind which the Whites of northern and southern England can unite. Like France, England is playing as I write in the European Championships. And like France, England fields Black players who aren’t English and shouldn’t be playing in a competition for European nations. You’ve seen the contrast between Olivier Giroud and Kylian Mbappé in the French team. Now try the contrast between Harry Kane and Bukayo Saka in the English team:

Harry Kane and Bukayo Saka: spot the true Briton

Kane is White and fully British; Saka is Black and not British at all. He plays soccer very well, but doesn’t belong in the English national side. He should be playing for a Black national team, contributing to a supreme sporting spectacle for Black crowds bonded by blood to him and his team-mates. I don’t think Saka should be playing for the English club Arsenal either. Young White fans should not be idolizing Black sportsmen and Black sportsmen are very useful in the leftist project of dilution and destruction. Leftists use Blacks to dilute nationhood as they work towards the golden goal of destroying White nations. Blacks don’t belong in England or France. Or in Spain or Portugal or Germany or Austria, all of whom are still playing in the European championships as I write and all of whom are fielding Black players who are facially and phonetically alien.

The power of alphabets

That’s why I don’t enjoy watching those notionally national teams any more. I can admire the skill and appreciate the goals, but I abominate the noxious notionhood that sets Whites who belong by blood beside Blacks who don’t belong at all. However, although I can’t enjoy watching Spain or Germany any more, I’ve definitely enjoyed watching two other teams. That’s because they embody not noxious notionhood but natural nationhood. One of those teams isn’t White or European and some would say the same of the other. Who am I talking about? Turkey and Georgia, that’s who. Geographically they’re next-door neighbors; culturally and linguistically they’re worlds apart. Turkey is Muslim, Georgia is Christian, for example. But they have something big in common at the European championships. They’re fielding true national teams with not a Black in sight. The two teams met right at the beginning and although I didn’t like the result — 3–1 to Turkey — I did enjoy the Turks’ skilful soccer and savor the way that all her goal-scorers were fully and phonetically Turkish: Müldür, Güler, Aktürkoğlu. That’s four umlauts (and one breve). And those umlauts are more significant than they might appear. The Turkish leader Kemal Atatürk (1881–1938), who was possibly part-Jewish, tried to turn Turkey into a secular European nation and cut her off from the Ottoman period. As part of that, he mandated the Roman alphabet for the Turkish language, which had formerly been written in Arabic script.

Atatürk was abolishing a border, dismantling a linguistic wall. Or rather, he was abolishing one border even as he established another. Use of the Arabic alphabet had aligned Turkey with Arabs and the East; use of the Roman alphabet aligned her with Europeans and the West. Turks no longer needed to struggle with a new alphabet when they learned French or German or English. In more ways than one, Atatürk diluted Turkey’s Islamic identity with the stroke of a pen. Alphabets can be powerful as political tools, not just as linguistic ones. You can also see that in Turkey’s neighbor Georgia, which has maintained its own unique alphabet for its own unique language down many centuries. Language and alphabet have undoubtedly helped tiny Georgia maintain her nationhood even as giants like Turkey and Russia have regularly seized her territory and crushed her independence. The Jewish language Yiddish offers another example of the same thing. Yiddish is more or less a dialect of German and if it were written in the Roman alphabet, it would always have been readily accessible and at least partly comprehensible to gentiles who spoke German.

Bonded vs Blackened

But Yiddish is in fact written in the Hebrew alphabet, so it isn’t accessible or comprehensible to outsiders at all. Jews wanted to maintain their nationhood, so they put up a linguistic barrier. Atatürk wanted to remake Turkish nationhood, so he pulled down a linguistic barrier. But he could never have succeeded in making Turkey European and in a perfect world they wouldn’t be playing in the European Football Championships. But the world isn’t perfect and as it is I think Turkey are doing Europeans a service by playing there. They aren’t just playing attractive soccer: they’re showing Europeans what a true nation looks like.

Georgia are doing the same. They’re ranked 74th in the world but they beat Portugal, who are ranked sixth. Georgia are bonded by blood; Portugal are blighted by Blacks. Georgia also play with far more spirit and unity than England, but I think that’s easy to explain. The Georgian team embodies natural nationhood; the English team embodies noxious notionhood. Kylian Mbappé and Bukayo Saka are undoubtedly very good players, but they’re French and English only on paper. Olivier Giroud and Harry Kane are French and English in the way that truly counts: by blood. Soccer is a game with a globe that has gone global, but it also reveals the limits of globalism. Blacks don’t belong in European teams. Nations are not notions.