I had intended for this part to go right away more into problems with Tanstaafl and his assessments, but I realized belatedly in my haste (compounded perhaps by fatigue) in moving past Jared Taylor, that I had done a disservice, not only in failing note the theoretical errors in his White advocacy, beyond just being too friendly to Jews, wanting to include them in our advocacy group, as there are several important theoretical errors that Taylor makes, errors which I am continually calling attention to and which I’ve noted Taylor, making as well – thus, I’d done a disservice to my own position in saying “he’s about as good a White advocate as one kosher friendly can be.”
Perhaps that is true if being kosher friendly corresponds with other theoretical errors that he’s making, but these mistakes are probably not corrollary. Thus, I was not only doing a disservice to theoretical accuracy, not only a disservice in misrepresenting my own position with regard to Taylor’s (!), but it ran astray of the thread’s coherence, as Taylor is very much of the right wing Boomer perspective that this (Generational Astrology) thread is about correcting.
So, before we move on to Tanstaafl and others, let me set out a few more corrections regarding Jared Tayler’s Boomer cancer…
While one can understand the motive of Jared Taylor to be Jewish friendly, to welcome them among our White advocacy group, as going against them the greatest taboo of the Boomer generation, and dangerous for their power to hurt opponents; that power, by the same token, incentive to try to get them on your side, to see the potential for alignment.
Lets move beyond that wish, as we are talking to an audience who recognizes that the Jews advocate for themselves, that they have different interests which are generally indifferent where not largely antagonistic to ours. Hence, our advocacy should not include them, both for their indifferent/antagonistic patterns from the ground and for their indifferent/antagonistic power from the top down.
The best that can be said for Taylor in this regard, by those sufficiently aware of the J.Q., is that he is providing a stepping stone into White advocacy by not broaching two heresies at once, he can talk about the obvious affront to White interests in the imposition of blacks; while not hitting the third rail of anti-Semitism and either frightening newbies or drawing them into likely risk of being stigmatized, suffering grievous penalties and being taken out of the White advocacy game altogether, along with himself.
In truth, if you are honest enough and care enough to address the issue, “why are we subject to blacks being imposed upon us?” you are going to come to the J.Q. anyway. One might add, perhaps the worst thing that Jews have done to Whites is impose blacks upon them; hence, if they did not do that, they might not be so bad. That’s a naïve stance as the patterns and rule structure of Jewry bear out. However, one can understand Taylor’s wish and move beyond his post WWII Boomer constraint, as Anti-Semitism has been unthinkable.
However, criticism of Jewry is thinkable for some right wing die-hards of the Boomer generation and even more so for subsequent generations; but before we move on to correcting epistemic blunders in their reactionary over focus, and chase after red capes, lets address where Taylor’s own right wing Boomer objectivism runs afoul of proper systemic theory.
The first matter to note of Jared Taylor’s theoretical misdirection is his suckered, boomer chase of red-caped (misrepresented) social constructionism.
Jared wants to prove that race is real. In fact, after “White advocate” his second most important designation for himself is “race realist.”
“They”, the ever more apparent enemy (according to the Jewish marketing scheme) that is “The Left”, you see, want you to believe that race is just this mere social construct, “a mere optical illusion” as Taylor likes to feel clever for saying in criticism of the red cape.
What Taylor fails to appreciate is that adding the word “mere” or “just” before social construct is a sign that what is being discussed is not social constructionism proper.
If people think that they can make up whatever they merely like about racial existence or not, irrespective of what most sane people can verify to be the patterned facts, that not social, it is solipsistic and flies in the face of social constructionism’s anti-Cartesian raison detre.
Worse, this Boomer denunciation of social constructionism for its (((red cape))) misrepresentations of social constructionism, as if it maintains that race is not important or not real at all, diverts from the crucial reason for its conception, which is to take our people’s attention back into Praxis, our interactive social relations, our indebtedness, accountability and agency in reconstructing our people as a social systemic group.
So, Boomer Jared has cancer, along with his kosher friendliness, he has the cancer of one who is chasing the (((red cape))) misrepresentation of an important (White) Post Modern concept. It is an important concept to get right for our people especially, who, in being so Augustinian, objectivist/Cartesian prone and individualist, need the sensitization, the attention to social connection in Praxis, to call us back to our species, systemic interests from the modernist, Cartesian estrangement.
The next place where Jared’s Boomer cancer manifests is in his I.Q. nationalism.
Jared places great emphasis on I.Q., apparently unaware of its limited utility and that it is counter productive in important ways.
Overall racial I.Q. comparisons can work to raise the esteem of Whites to some extent, particularly if compared to blacks and browns, against bad will and rather stupid arguments proffered from the international liberalism of Marxists and anti-White Cultural Marxists.
However, that is one of the limitations to the I.Q. and genetics sort of rebuts – the main utility that they have is against bad will and rather stupid arguments.
We are defending our race (genus European) and its species (ethnicities), not I.Q. or even the accomplishments of I.Q. per se. True, the products of our genius are not only an added benefit, but crucial to our survival. However, ethnonationalism protects these differences. It is primarily bad will arguments that will need to be defended against when it comes to populating functions among our ethnostates; these bad will arguments may benefit from an I.Q. rebut; e.g., if someone were to say that you should not be able to discriminate against their retarded son, that they should be allowed to engineer a high-rise building, and the only reason that you are discriminating against them is because of race, or some other prejudice (class eliteism maybe).
On the other hand, if a black person, or a Jewish person has a higher I.Q. than your son or your daughter, should you then say that they are a fit replacement, your new child?
This is Luke Ford level absurdity, raising the (((Steve Sailer))) (((red cape))) of “HBD”, human biodiversity, which is supposed to be a horizontal criteria in respect for qualitative niche differences, including among and between races, but red caped into a vertical, singular, quantifying criteria about “I.Q.”
….and how convenient a red cape for Jews, as their Ashkenazi register among the highest in General Intelligence
…no nepotism or manichean deception involved in their elite niche hegemony, oh no… its all objective merit.
I.Q. nationalism, unless you believe like Jared, that Jews are huWhite like us, and not all the more capable of destroying us for their high I.Q., actually works to our detriment.
It doesn’t work very well against East Asians either.
It is like a magic trick or a card trick to distract attention from the fact that we are defending species, human ecologies, not a single variable.
Human ecologies generally have qualitative niche components. There are many potentially important qualities that group members may have to contribute besides I.Q. in the overall corrective, balancing systemics, homeostasis of a human ecology.
We are far better off thinking in terms of incommensurabilty and commensurability, that is to say, how someone fits in our group (or not), rather than chasing the red cape of “equality” that the I.Q. argument is supposed to resolve.
And as I have argued many times, the false comparison of a singular criteria which does not respect niche ecological differences is likely to instigate hubris and reciprocally escalating diatribe as opposed to fostering pervasive ecology by respect for necessary niche contributions in and between peoples.
It is held to be fundamental of Right Wing Boomerism that there is “there is no such thing as equality’ …one should “be against equality”, even.
Are you inspired to join them yet? I didn’t think so.
Not only is there no such thing as equality, you don’t even hear it much from so called leftists.
It is primarily a red cape which makes right wingers look bad when they chase it.
“I’m against equality”… I believe in hierarchy, with me on top in my crass, false comparisons, and you subservient or forever struggling to be on top.
‘Inspired to join yet? I didn’t think so.
“That’s just the way it is” – the fantasy warrant of the right, one like Jared Taylor, who wishes to make quick work of accountability like that.
It invokes a damning, inevitable fate, which many will NOT find inspiring indeed.
In fact, this kind of argument will scare them for its disrespect. That is part of why Jared Taylor has so many problems despite being Jew friendly.
Objectivist arguments (ungauged as feedback accountable in the calibration of relative interests in and between groups) in lieu of relative group ecological interests can disingenuously serve to distract from aspects and doings – other than a blindered, narrow view of merit – that have had Jewish hegemony in niche power and influence as profound ever – a fact they wish to distract from as their qualitative, relative ethnocentric difference is of a different tribe who are largely indifferent where not antagonistic to our group interests. While they are in greater power than ever; and can buy off right wingers and liberals for their complicity.
Naturally we don’t want our positive attributes dragged down, to amplify malfunction, but again, I.Q. rebuts are largely limited to staving-off bad will, typically stupid arguments.
And you can see the danger in the I.Q. focus that it is largely serving Jewish interests; while running the hazard of isolating one group or area of Europeans – who would be good breeding material for elite Jews in Jared’s scheme (further removing them from accountability to their indebtedness to our social capital); whereas ethnonationalism would serve to protect those distinctions anyway, while not running the risk of throwing under the bus and perhaps even creating antagonism rather than crucial allies among other components of our human ecology, other parts of Europe which may be more a necessary part of our systemic function and survival than one realizes at first blush, in addition to being perhaps more talented than one realizes.
Finally, the I.Q. and genetics rebut can indeed be used in bad will itself against social justice and to further supremacism, imperialism, exploitation as opposed to ethnonationalism and its coordination. If these arguments are not made judiciously and with the wisdom of ecological thinking (facilitated by ethnonationalism), they can generate unnecessary antagonism within and from without our genus; thus increasing the difficulty of maintaining our group systemic homeostasis, not reducing it.
Jared’s quest for pure objectivism as such is part and parcel of his Boomer outlook, which reaches back before its Modernist apex to its roots, seeking relief from the guilt trips of a Jewish imposed religion; a passive aggressive relation to Jewry which was compounded by the Nazi epic, compelling many Boomers of Jared’s type to a quest for relief from guilt trips, to pure innocence and warrant, a purity spiral into rational blindness to one’s subjective and relative group interests, unable to see blame in Jewry.
…the problem had to be in us: our “pathological altruism.”
One can almost understand how Tanstaafl would react to this with paranoia enough as to think that anybody who was not on board with Hitler and looked for holes in our systemic outlook, was under the same kind of sway as Jared Taylor, thinking that Jews were off limits when it came to serious blame.