Skeptic Arguments against JQ

One should always ask why they are overrepresented, but the more important question is what they do with their power. An Elite can be sufficiently talented to the elite and still make bad decisions. That's the general frame working class concerns operate from: "yea, you're rich, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the common good"


Firstly, "that's like SJWs" is not an argument and, ironically enough, is how SJWs behave. They love to compare things to Nazism or other poisoned labels. Moreover, a cursory glance at our society reveals the reason these are nto equivalent. It is seen as morally praiseworthy say pro-black and pro-Jewish things. It is seen as morally condemnatory to be pro-white, see the ACLU tweet http://archive.is/wXju1. In fact, based on footage from the Boston Free Speech Rally, being anti-white is used as social proof for being a "good person".

Sargon doesnt seem to get that  the fundamental delusions at the heart of groups like BLM are not shared by the JQ. Probably why he wont take on someone like Andrew Joyce who would make this readily apparent

Firstly, it is illegal to discriminate against blacks, which shows that society favors blacks if anything. Or seeks restorative justice for them. This is not the same for us and whites. Suggesting which grievances have more substance as it shows which group society actually favors even if there are not equal outcomes. This is not only contrary to BLM's claims of an anti-black society, it also applies to Jews in many cases. In many nations, it is illegal to be anti-semitic too. And our Congress is mulling over a law to outlaw criticism of Israel. Which again, shows a preference for Jews. Or at least political power on the part of Jews being pushed toward pro-Jewish causes in the same way the political power of the black voting bloc translates to a pro-black bias in policy and society.

But most importantly, the JQ presupposes a high IQ on the part of Jews. This is a fundamental difference between the two positions. Because it isnt coming from the lens of thwarted equality, but from the recognition that Jews are a distinct group with different interests from the White Majority.

I mean, Gaddhafi used black african soldiers to keep his own people in line rather than Libyan men for this very reason.

Do skeptics not realize it is fallacious to argue entirely from comparison? Gaddhafi used subsaharan African soldiers whenever he wanted to oppress his own Libyan people because he knew they would have less sympathy for a different group. Same idea with Jews, less organic attachment.

Furthermore, the difference between the JQ and social justice narratives is there are laws against discriminating against minorities and women. This matters a lot, it goes to show that our society favors those groups if anything. We also have laws against criticizing Israel being proposed, many nations have laws against anti-Semitic speech, and holocaust denial. So, would that suggest we favor jews? Who unlike women and blacks aren't economically less powerful (and therefore lack the same moral dimension)

 And this was not always the case, there was a time in America where one could argue society was holding these groups back and favored white men. Which dispels the conceit that narratives about groups misusing their elite positions or gaining something unfairly aren't always wrong right? What matters is the evidence right?

Feminists are wrong because men and women coevolved to care for one another, especially men for women. Unlike ethnic groups.

Black grievance narratives have a long history of being supported by Jews, and argue that essentially every bad outcome or disparity between themselves and whites is due to whites. Whereas the JQ presupposes cunning and guile (in other words, a high IQ) on Jews. Again, it is fallacious to say that mistaken narratives disprove the general idea that groups fail to care about one another's interests.

Besides, blacks are not wrong to say whites don't really look out for black interests in a general sense. Are they? If you think the welfare state ruined blacks then you have to concede this point.

Or comparing it to diversity demands, the central lie at the heart of the diversity racket is this notion that representation results in restorative justice for nonwhites and women, who have to deal with a bigoted society impeding their abilities and potential. again, not an issue with the JQ. At least not the central point.

Also, demands for diversity are counter-majoritarian. Whereas the JQ is arguing a minority doesnt have the majority's interests at heart. aWhichnd as a result cant be acting in the common good. one rarely has a problem with when critiquing ocieties deemed unequal. Syria is a kleptocracy because alawites do better than sunnis, or more prominently.... this suggests what th jq is most similar to

If the JQ is similar to anything, it is similar to working class concerns about the rich not having their interests in mind. Because that narrative doesn't necessarily imply the rich aren't going to be smarter than the poor which is the central conceit of social justice narratives. Unless you're a social darwinist, which almost nobody actually is, you have to concede there is something valid to this. Especially when Jews primarily are arguing in favor of less capable groups entering

Or, to be modern the JQ is most similar to the Globalist Upper class narrative

Or, the demand for community policing by blacks, which argues they know best how to run aspects of their own society


--------------
Yea, except we admit they have a higher IQ and stuff. Really if you want to equate the JQ narrative with anything, we're arguing a successful but disconnected Elite is pushing policy away from our interests and the common good of society... which is the same as the narrative of the 'Working Class v Globalists' that Sargon pops off about.

Look into the non-black leaders of the civil rights movements and who pushes this race-baiting cultural marxism in academia. The jews have been accused for centuries of stirring up trouble between religious and ethnic groups in the countries they live.