I saw some of the more pertinent excerpts of this on another stream.

On J's:

Taylor: Not all J's are bad. Some of them are White. Posits the existence of hypothetical good J's but names none. The J's are proponents of race denialism. I don't think he connects them to the recent rise of CRT.

EMJ: All J's are bad. Names some of the worst J's, e.g. Ignatiev and Spectre. J's are trying to undermine Christianity rather than Whites. The J's have been proponents of race denialism but they are now proponents of CRT (while still effectively biological race denialism, it clearly accords a higher place to race than colourblindness) to divide people (same thing that colourblindness advocates like Rufo claim, which is also the Marxist stance).

On race:

Taylor: Race exists. It is a meaningful identity.

EMJ: Race perhaps exists but is not a meaningful identity regardless. The promotion of race as a meaningful identity is done by 'oligarchs' (his words) to divide people.

On White success and dominance of the world:

Taylor: White success is something innate to Whites. They would still have ingenuity, etc. regardless of their creed.

EMJ: White success is the result of Christianity. The success of non-Christian Ancient Greece and pre-Christian Ancient Rome was God's 'preparation' (his word) for Christian Europe. Almost certainly believes if Africa becomes Christian enough then it will inherit the same success that Europe once had, and that the failure of Africa is because they have not sufficiently realized Christianity (he claims the African Church has endemic corruption, for example).

I think Taylor had the more sensible take on race and White success, whereas EMJ tries to reduce White success to Christianity, an argument which leads to all sorts of unintended consequences that easily derail it. For example, there is no positive correlation between success and Christianity in Africa or elsewhere outside of the West, despite the reasonable albeit strongly criticized and problematic efforts of past thinkers like Max Weber to posit that Christianity or parts of it (Protestantism for Weber) have a causal role to play in wealth creation and other forms of success. EMJ has the slightly more agreeable take on the J's (the problem probably exists on a biological-psychological level innate to most or all J's and isn't so much a deliberate plot by conspiratorial, powerful J's in a back room somewhere—indeed, I suspect they cannot help but be subversive), although they're probably intent on undermining anything that is external to their group, which would include both Christianity and Europe. EMJ simply ignores their subversive effect on anything non-Christian.

Given that the leading figures associated with CRT are DiAngelo and Ignatiev (plus Kendi, the useful black goy), it certainly seems that CRT is the next step for the J's more generally. I suspect the purpose of CRT's promotion is that racial equality has already long been reached through colourblindness, but colourblindness cannot provide arguments for why overt White inferiority/subjugation must be realized. So they need a new ideological framework to replace the dominant colourblind framework, so that Whites will outright accept explicit inferiority/subjugation rather than start complaining once they realize that equality between White/non-white within White societies is not the desired end, but in fact merely a stepping stone towards erasing them.