William Shakespeare was a number of things: an actor, a writer, a playwright. But more generally, he was an artist of the highest caliber, and arguably the greatest, most illustrious dramatist ever produced by the White-European race. Of course, like all artists, Shakespeare had his detractors, individuals like George Bernard Shaw and Ludwig Wittgenstein who both felt that his work was sensuous drivel designed for the masses, but therein the critique of those who disparage his work, lays the appeal of Shakespeare. The enduring attraction of Shakespeare, and the reason why his work is often criticized by other intellectual luminaires, is the broad appeal engendered within his work. The literary subjects and themes present within the writings of the great “Bard of Avon” are articulated so brilliantly, and brazenly even, that they possess a visceral quality, a quality which has historically – and still presently – greatly resonates with his audience. Like all great literary figures, Shakespeare the man spoke through the characters of his works, and it was from his unique and unrivaled mastery of the English language that he was able to present, clearly and with precision, a variety of complex and often nuanced ideas that have endured throughout the ages.
Moreover, the influence of Shakespeare has transcended the confines of the literary world, and the presence of his work is quite literally felt in all aspects of European culture, from literary to pop-culture. One could argue that Shakespeare has become a phenomenal force of European culture, an integral component of Western civilization itself. However, it is Shakespeare’s influence, specifically the position his works hold and its intrinsic value to the Western tradition, which presents the postmodern, dissolutive left with a number of problems.
Like all artists, Shakespeare was a product of his time, and his time was that of Elizabethan England. The first stirrings of race-realism, at least of the scientific type with which we are familiar today, wouldn’t come until the early 19th century, when the writings and theorizations of Count Arthur de Gobineau would hit the world stage. But Shakespeare was very much racially aware. In fact, up until very recently, all European peoples and their constituent societies, were not only racially aware (to varying degrees, of course) but would presumably find the current degenerative cesspool in which Western civilization finds itself mired to be abhorrent, if not outright blasphemous to the natural order of the cosmos. Shakespeare was very much a product of his time, a racially aware European man, and his writings reflect this indisputable fact. The power and the enduring legacy of Shakespeare’s work, and its importance to the Western literary canon, have made it a target of the postmodern left.
In the present, the current modus operandi of the transformative left is the inversion of all values, akin to what Friedrich Nietzsche noted of the semiticized Christianity of his day. To Nietzsche, the Christianity of his age was degenerative because it sought to invert the natural order and was thus “hostile to life.” It has been argued quite frequently that modern-day liberalism is a secularized and bastardized form of a now defunct and overly semiticized Christianity, and that as such the radical left has been disfiguring the racio-cultural products of Western civilization for its own nefarious purposes, i.e., the dissolution of all White-European people.
Shakespeare, like every other writer or artist born before the age of political correctness, has been the target of a similar manipulative process. Like all great European artists, Shakespeare existed in an environment that did not shy away from truth; ergo, topics like race, inequality, traditional sex roles – and a whole litany of other themes that liberals fear and despise – figure prominently in the Shakespearian experience.
The subject of race, for example, plays a central role in the Shakespearean tragedy, Othello. The protagonist of the eponymously titled play was a Moor, a blackamoor according to the vernacular of the day, and as such, most contemporary establishment commentators now interpret the play in a manner sympathetic to Othello. Conventional wisdom states that Othello, and his White wife Desdemona, are tragic figures, framed in just such a way by the liberal establishment to elicit sympathy for an interracial relationship, doomed by the same systematic racism which still plagues the world today in the 21st century. In times past, Othello was a warning against miscegenation and of the misery and degeneration that that act propagates. Throughout the play, all the characters acknowledge, both explicitly and implicitly, that Desdemona’s relationship with Othello is an act of debasement, but these facts are by and large ignored or outright marginalized. It is of the utmost importance to remember, that since time immemorial, much to the chagrin of the concerted efforts of a great deal of postmodern liberal propaganda, all European peoples viewed race as an extension of the concept of the other, of the social outsider. Race was an intrinsic sociocultural conceptualization, a biological fact, of the Elizabethan era, and of all preceding and proceeding European historical eras until the 1960s. In fact, in 1601 A.D. Queen Elizabeth issued a proclamation that all people of black ancestry be expelled from her realm. This royal proclamation serving as historical proof that interracial relationships were far from sympathized with in the Elizabethan era.
In Elizabethan England, blacks were the enemy-other, the outsider, not only because of their presumed relationship with recently liberated Spain, the then penultimate nemesis of England, but because of their distinct alien otherness. Up until very recently, miscegenation was neither widely practiced nor promoted, at least not on the scale it is today. Even today, interracial couplings make up a small fraction of all pair-bond relationships, and the verity of this fact is evidenced by the close genetic relatedness of all White people, particularly when contrasted to the other races of the world. In previous ages, Iago, the main antagonist in Shakespeare’s Othello, was considered a lecherous Machiavellian villain, while in the present, many postmodern critics have imparted, by inversion, a whole slew of other qualifiers onto Iago. Iago is now a racist, a chaotic evil villain, who does things which are neither rational nor logical, but for some pleasurable sense of schadenfreude. Being in the possession of a clearly defined sense of racial identity, particularly if one is White, is now of course not only perceived as being anachronistic and thus socially taboo, but now increasingly unscientific and illogical. Iago did undermine the authority of Othello, not out of malevolence, but presumably for hierarchical position. The establishment pushes the narrative that all “racists” are low-IQ individuals who live in trailer parks and shout at the television set while drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon beer. One of the hallmarks of Western, Faustian civilization, is the eternal quest for prestige, and in turn immortality, through individual action and deed; and Iago, though treacherous, was clearly acting within the milieu of the Western tradition, as he recklessly sought glory and destroyed both himself and those around him as a result. Othello, being a blackamoor, was an outsider, an enemy-other, and Iago treated him as such. Iago manipulates Othello so brilliantly that the latter actually murders his own wife, Desdemona. Of relevance, and irregardless of the moral or immoral probity of the actions of Iago, the current establishment now categorizes all White men as being tantamount to Iago: we are all potential murderous monsters, villains, living in a world we are told would be better without us and our race.
The Merchant of Venice, one of Shakespeare’s most artistically, and stylistically, beautiful plays, is lampooned by numerous contemporary commentators as being repulsively anti-semitic. In his monumentally important work, Culture of Critique, Dr. Kevin MacDonald quite succinctly points out that accusations of anti-semitism are an evolutionary strategy utilized by Jews to offensively mitigate any resistance to their penetration and exploitation of Gentile host cultures. The alleged themes of anti-semitism of The Merchant of Venice should be viewed from this perspective. As a point of historical fact, in 16th century Venice, various laws were promulgated by the Doge (i.e., the Duke, Ruler) of the Most Serene Republic against the city’s rapidly growing Jewish population, designed to protect the citizenry of Venice. Various financial malpractices and improprieties, ranging from usurious lending to outright blackmail and extortion, were the standard operating procedures for many of the Jewish intelligentsia residing within the Venetian Republic until such practices were outlawed and a Jewish quarter established in San Girolamo in 1516 A.D. 
Shylock, the Jewish moneylender and principal antagonist in The Merchant of Venice, is portrayed by nearly all contemporary sources as being the stereotypical Jew, and thus paraded around as some type of tragic, misunderstood victim. What many contemporary members of the establishment fail to grasp is that The Merchant of Venice was an example of the medieval morality play, which was extremely popular in the age of Tudorian England. The personality characteristics of Shylock are exaggerated and hyperbolic, but this is deliberate and not a byproduct of systematic intolerance, as posited by postmodern critics. Shylock is deliberately the stereotypical Jew because the purpose of the morality play is to illustrate, by allegorical character personification, various moralistic themes surrounding societal notions of good versus evil. In The Merchant of Venice Shylock’s demanding of a “pound of flesh” seems far-fetched, because it is allegorical, meant to metaphorically illustrate the evils of greed and avarice. Moreover, it is important to remember that Jews were expelled from England by royal edict in 1290 A.D. by King Edward I, and The Merchant of Venice, written some 300 years later, served as a metaphorical remainder of why.
With regards to The Merchant of Venice, some critics go so far as to state that Shakespeare is actually sympathetic to the plight of the Jews. Firstly, this assertion is rendered moot when one considers that the Jews had been expelled from England in 1290 A.D. and separated from the general population in Venice beginning in 1516 A.D.; thus the possibility that Shakespeare was some type of antediluvian social justice warrior is pure postmodern absurdity. Secondly, it completely ignores the fact that Shakespeare was not “humanizing” Shylock to make him appear more sympathetic to the audience, as this is a perspective colored by modern prejudices, but rather was more likely bringing the character to life, making him appear human and thus open to ridicule, so as to illustrate why Jews were expulsed from England in the first place. With the above assertions in mind, most modern-day literary critics revert to claiming that the interpretation of The Merchant of Venice, like all of Shakespeare’s work, is a matter of relativism, and thus open to interpretation. This is of course patently absurd and clear evidence of the illogical nature of the postmodern academe. Above all things, the purpose of The Merchant of Venice was to illustrate the conflict of the enemy-other, of the Jewish propensity for exploitative fiscalism versus the European preference for socially responsible mercantilism.
Another of Shakespeare’s more controversial works, a comedy no less, and thus one dreadfully distorted by the liberal establishment, is The Taming of the Shrew. The vast majority of critical debate surrounding this particular piece emanates from its apparent “reactionary” nature. Contemporary critics posit that because The Taming of the Shrew presents traditional, biological, sex roles, that this Shakespearean masterpiece is somehow misogynistic. The final speech given by Katherina, i.e., the shrew, at the play’s end, is most often used to highlight the misogyny intrinsic to this comedy. Katherina’s final speech has undergone a curious evolution in terms of interpretation. In the not so distant past, consensus was that the speech was meant to be ironic while in the present the most widely accepted theory is that the speech is not just literal, but framed in a manner which clearly and unabashedly highlights not only the submissiveness, but also the inferiority of woman to man. I would first and foremost state, that yes Katherina’s speech is meant to be taken literally, and in accordance with the fact that the play is a comedy, it is presented to the audience in a comedic manner. But to presuppose that the literal nature of the speech is a justification for the total and misogynistic subservience of woman is not only absurd, but clearly a palpable example of the Nietzschean notion of the weak promoting their own slave values and calling it morality.
The current trend of radical egalitarianism, particularly of the gender variety, masquerading as a type of liberation theology, helps to explain why this preposterous interpretation is taken even marginally seriously. Up until very recently, men and women participating in traditional pair-bonding relationships in European societies were heterosexual and monogamous, and families were nuclear. At present we are witnessing a total inversion of this biological reality. In The Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare is not celebrating, let alone proposing, the subjugation of women, but merely illustrating, via the written word, the tremendous amount of importance that traditional, biological-based pair-bondings serve. The basis of racial and thus civilizational success is premised upon reproductive fitness, and thus its perpetuation is both a personal and societal responsibility. Conversely, in the present age, the importance of family and thus genetic continuity via reproduction, is not considered important, a fact evidenced by rapidly diminishing birth rates among the native White population. Curiously, the basis of the postmodern Western world is premised upon the notion of hyperindividualism and socially atomizing liberation. Contemporary success is predicated upon how few duties and obligations the individual can emancipate themselves from, and the family unit is one such Western duty, nay institution, which has suffered from this trend. In The Taming of the Shrew, Katherina was not “subjugated” by her suitor Petruchio or by some abstract and oppressive patriarchal system, but rather by her own realization that she possesses a higher, more sacred duty, i.e., marriage and motherhood. Furthermore, Shakespeare is not only acknowledging, but markedly illustrating that the maintaining of social order starts with the hearth and home and expands outwardly.
In closing, Shakespeare is an essential component of not only the Western literary tradition, but more crucially of Western civilization itself. Most saliently, as White-Europeans, Shakespeare is an integral component of our people’s unique racial patrimony: his work should be cherished and preserved not just for posterity’s sake, but for the enrichment of future generations of our descendants. The various degenerative forces of the postmodern world seek to destroy all that we European people hold dear, including our culture, in a protracted effort to destroy our race. As a racio-cultural phenomenon, Shakespeare belongs to all Europeans. With this in mind, it is important that we preserve the integrity of his legacy, because if it becomes lost to us, we will most assuredly lose a critical piece of ourselves. In times past, Shakespeare, the “Bard of Avon,” was considered the “national poet” of England, but I would argue that in truth he is the “national poet” of all the peoples of Europe.
 Carl H. Nightingale, Segregation: A Global History of Divided Cities (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2012).