The problem is not that hard-liners on the jews have any trouble discussing the ideas of the soft-liners who downplay or ignore them. It’s that the soft-liners are soft-headed and regard hard-liners as somehow worse than the jews. (E.g. Cattrell’s remarks about “Nazis”, or Taylor description of discussing race and the jews as two distinct forms of being a “crank”.)

I think it would be highly advantageous if softer nationalists were to say, ‘No enemies to the harder end.’ That would mean Taylor welcoming Duke back at Amren conferences, and MacDonald not being afraid to speak to Linder on a radio show, for example. Cattell’s bibliography and footnotes include the likes of Oliver, so he was doing the right thing.

I don’t know that there’s a need for harder nationalists to say, ‘All are enemies to the softer end,’ and for Robertson not to recommend Cattell and so on.

I read Moral Laws Within-Groups and the Fallacy of Universalization hoping he would provide some clue that he understood that there was an obstacle. Instead I found this hopeless utopianism:

There is in Beyondism a common glory of evolutionary endeavor, toward the wonder of a spiritual understanding beyond anything we now possess. Beyondism contrasts with the universalist religions, however, in agreeing to diverge in all values but this fundamental agreement to join in evolutionary movement. It expects men to adventure and explore in distinct genetic and cultural communities. Indeed, it asks them to stake their lives and their happiness on the divergencies, i.e., to stand or fall with the success or failure of their own guess at the future.

In imagining a “fundamental agreement to join in evolutionary movement” it seems he neglected to consider active opposition.

The jews aren’t interested in anything like Beyondism. They’re interested in what’s best for the jews. What’s more, they don’t just politely opt out of what the Other wants to do. They compel the Other to do what’s best for the jews. Until their agency is recognized and undone nothing like Beyondism is possible.

Beyond the jews, the general problem remains. What’s-best-for-all-of-us schemes don’t work because inevitably some subset determines that what’s best for them involves subjugating some other subset. Any system which discounts us-vs-them cannot prevail against those which do not. See, for example, “liberalism”.

If we think Cattell is wrong about Freud or the Third Reich, that should be commented upon when it comes up, but otherwise, so what? Cattell was right about the two things he is notable for, and on those issues he is useful to us, and rightly perceived as threatening to those who stand in our way.