top of page
  • Writer's picture738

EMJ, the whites, and the Irish


EMJ said: “The current invasion of Ireland is predicated on getting the Irish to self-identify as white so that the oligarchs can then eliminate them as racists. Varadakar said exactly that. Any Irishman who identifies as white has internalized the commands of his oppressors.”

He is correct.

I rarely use “white” because it plays into the current leftist framework. I sometimes use “white” if absolutely forced into it—rather like the word “God”. So if you asked me what I am I would say “British”, then “English”, then “Welsh”—Father (English) > Mother (Welsh) = British. I wouldn’t say “I’m white”, unless we talked about my biology or the forced demographic category “white British”.

In practice, you’ll find that non-whites do not identify as British—certainly never as English. I’ve never found a non-white who will say, “I’m British” (outside staged propaganda videos). It’s just never brought up, everyone just knows “don’t go there”—and certainly you will never, outside propagandists, find people who say “I’m English” who are non-white (and mean it). So, in practical terms, the concepts are isomorphic anyway.

The reason not to use “white” is twofold:

(1) It’s American, this idea of “whites” and “People of Color” comes from an American historical experience that is imposed on everyone within their empire, where there are the English (Dutch/Germanic) settlers, the Red Indians, and the blacks—hence “the white man”, “the red man”, and “the black man”.

And the white man lives in a primarily Anglo cultural environment which is diffused by other influences, the result being a nebulous “white culture”. The now vanished American anxiety over the lack of “the great American novel” really reflects the fact that there is no American Shakespeare or Goethe—no “national poet”.

In fact, the American Shakespeare is really Shakespeare, except, due to the treason that led to the revolution, it can’t be admitted—and in the 20th century, due to the rise of mass popular culture, America was granted a Jewish culture, with some Anglo frills, such as the odd Sleepy Hollow adaptation from Hollywood.

(2) If you identify as “white”, you will get caught in the leftist dialectic where “the whites have no culture”—and the left will be correct because “white” is an ahistorical concept that can be filled with whatever you want, partly because America herself, for the above reasons, has no culture.

If you say “I’m white” you’re straight into the “have you addressed your white supremacy?” dialectic—you’re on the back foot if someone says “the whites have no history”, for example, because there is “British history”, “French history”, “European history” but no “white history”. They actually want you to get into “Black History Month” versus “there is no white history”—where you will be without social tokens, like a yearly Waterstone’s display, to support you (crucial in these games).


It is the left that likes “white”. Personal example: I had an altercation with a liberal woman where I said, as regards a street outside an arts venue, “It’s not very English out there.” She immediately had hysterics and said, “You mean white! You mean white!”. So it’s the left that will draw it down to race in this sense.

Note that I would never naturally say “it’s not very white out there”, that would be a totally awkward and unnatural formulation—it’s the left that’s comfortable with this designation, because it’s quasi-scientific and not rooted in the historical reality and how people really conceptualise their selves.

In actuality, “Britishness” or “Englishness” has a blood aspect and an historical aspect and the two cannot be separated. I say “blood” rather than “race” because blood is a non-scientific concept, it’s more like “breed” for dogs. The way we live is not scientific—it is not about genetic tests or blood groups—we live as embodied historical and spiritual entities. We have ties of blood, of history, of language—we have a destiny.

All that is lost if you default to “white”—you are, at best, a biological unit of categorisation without a history; or, per the left, you are a cultural unit that is entirely malleable and was invented for reasons of “oppression”—and can be made and remade at will.

If you must use a wide-scale designation say “European”, because someone who said “Europeans have no culture” would look stupid at once (Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, and so on in a very long list).

“White” really only exists in colonial contexts—America, or, in England, with Kipling and “the white man’s burden“ (Kipling was a liberal imperialist—notice how the left has always had a facility with “whiteness”). “White” always takes you into the conceptual territory of “settler-colonialism” and “imperialism”—of “white man”, “red man”, “black man”. “European” short-circuits that “master-slave”, “victim-oppressor” paradigm.

The reason white nationalists like the “white” designation is that they are democrats (i.e. they are an iteration of the left). They think “the more, the better”; so they have a very generous definition of “white”, even on biological grounds, so as to include all of Russia sometimes, because then there’s “1bn whites” or however many there are—and there’s safety in numbers in this asinine belief system.

This also goes along with a self-pitying victim narrative, with the Jews as “capitalist exploiters”, undergirded with the idea that there will one day be a generous welfare state for “whites only”—not to forget the mandatory sentimental feminism about “our girls”, as raped by foreign men, who need to be saved.

This is because, like all moderns, these men worship women—which is ironically why they are enslaved in the first place. The Jews, for example, dominate Europeans because Europeans worship women not * and so also worship all feminine things—homosexuals, blacks, Jews, and so on (these all being passive feminine groups in relation to Europeans, hence woman-like, so worshipped).

Jones pushes it a bit too far—he wants to exclude all racial explanation, so that the fact Cromwell invaded Ireland shows that there is no “white race”. Well, people fight wars for many reasons—but, as sub-races, the Irish and English are different (just like spaniels and labradors are different).

That’s another reason to avoid “white”—it makes you think that somehow French, German, English, and so on are all the same. Anyone who interacts with these breeds knows they’re not, they’re very distinct actually; and would not be easily organised in a common political unit, which is what white nationalists want (because bigger is better, so they think—being democrats who value quantity, in this case “the EU, but racist”).

Jones is a Catholic, so his underlying position is against “race idolatry” and for the “universal Church”—which would be conceptualised, in his framework, as particularly against Jewish racial exceptionalism (i.e. the Jews are the real racists, who make up false anti-racism like Marxism, whereas the Christians are the true universalists—and the Jews need to melt into the universal Church and stop being like Hitler, being the “superior race apart”). I don’t buy that, because race is real—people should just stay true to breed—but his basic point as described above is correct.


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page