Bernini’s Daphne and Apollo. 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.

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.