a Based and Brave reply to Chris Rufo
This was written by my friend, Based and Brave, please go follow her:
The latest Chris Rufo article for COMPACT is the most batshit insane thing I’ve read in my life. Let’s break it down.
Chris begins his article by acknowledging that there is something deeply wrong with our politics that demands a direct response, yet he seems unable to pinpoint exactly what it is.
Could it be that Americans across the political spectrum have identified a shared concern: the influence of a foreign nation over our country’s resources and political decisions?
That would indeed be a deeply troubling issue for America, as it fundamentally conflicts with the nation’s core principle of prioritizing its own interests.
But in Chris’s view, it seems, that couldn’t possibly be the case.
According to Chris, the real issue must be that people are losing their minds over ‘identity-based ideologies.’
Surely, it couldn’t be that Americans—on both the right and left—have independently come to see themselves as moral beings who are deeply disturbed by blatant acts of genocide.
No, in his view, it must be the oppressor/oppressed narrative at play, and because Palestinians have ‘a slightly darker skin tone,’ people are only pretending to care about the relentless, horrifying deaths of innocent children to align themselves with an identity.
It couldn’t possibly be that people feel physically sick, guilty, and unable to focus at work after witnessing video after video of children’s lives being violently ended.
‘No, impossible!’ Chris insists. ‘That’s all just fake identity politics. Left, right, everyone—if you’re not supporting Israel, you’re just lost in insanity. Only by supporting Israel can you have the correct identity.’
Ironically, Chris doesn’t seem to recognize the glaring contradiction in his argument. He himself frames the issue through the lens of skin color and power dynamics, judging the morality of this cause by those terms and declaring himself the ultimate arbiter.
In his eyes, only the Jewish community—specifically the elite, or ‘elite human capital’ (EHC) as they’re now termed—can be in the right here. The views of these elite Zionists, according to him, trump those of all other people, whether on the left or the right.
He then goes on to refer to “Palestinians as the forever victims,” completely ignoring how the top protected class for “victimhood” in America is the Jewish population.
No other group has more comprehensive legal protections, financial support, and institutional backing. For instance, anti-Semitism is explicitly recognized and penalized under U.S. hate crime legislation, which increases penalties for crimes motivated by anti-Jewish bias. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly Title VI, has been expanded to include protections against discrimination targeting Jewish people, treating anti-Semitism as a form of discrimination based on ethnicity or national origin.
Additionally, the U.S. allocates millions annually through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, helping synagogues, Jewish schools, and community centers bolster their security. Holocaust education is mandatory in numerous states, with curricula designed to raise awareness about anti-Semitism and the dangers of hatred, ensuring that the Jewish narrative is preserved and promoted.
Furthermore, questioning or denying the Holocaust is illegal in over a dozen countries, including Germany, France, Austria, and Poland. In these countries, individuals who publicly deny or even question aspects of the Holocaust have faced legal prosecution, jail time, and fines. Those who have spoken out against established narratives have, in some cases, had their bank accounts shut down, credit cards canceled, visas and passports revoked, and have been demonetized on social media platforms. It’s worth noting that no other historical event is shielded by such legal protections, nor is it illegal to critique any other ethnic or religious group in this manner.
In the U.S., there have been legislative efforts to further codify this “forever victimhood” status into law. The recently proposed antisemitism bill, HR 6090, aims to make it illegal to criticize Israel or its government under the pretext of combating anti-Semitism. If passed, this would mark a significant shift, as it would be the first instance in which criticism of a foreign government could be penalized as a form of hate speech in the U.S.
Through these legal, financial, educational, and political measures, the Jewish community’s status as a protected group has been codified into our actual laws, solidifying a perpetual state of victimhood. This not only grants unique privileges and protections but also entraps them within a narrative of vulnerability, limiting open discourse and reinforcing the idea of perpetual persecution rather than allowing for genuine dialogue and critique.
Also, all lost on Chris.
He then describes how this codified victimhood and the concept of “Israel as identity” must be strictly adhered to by everyone, warning that those who step out of line will face the same consequences as Ye, whom he dismissively labels as simply “having had mental breakdowns” whenever he has voiced opinions that have challenged Chris’s narrative.
Similarly, Candace Owens is portrayed as someone who “no longer understands where the lines of Jewish supremacy lay.”
According to him, she once did, thanks to her associations with elite Jewish Zionist employers and partners, specifically “The Daily Wire” and Ben Shapiro.
He implies that her former connections shielded her under the umbrella of “Jewish victimhood protection” rules on platforms like YouTube and X, but now, without those alliances, she too risks facing repercussions.
In this way, he frames adherence to these unwritten rules as essential for anyone wanting to maintain their platform, suggesting that to deviate is to invite censorship, demonization, or worse, as determined by the forces protecting this codified status.
Chris then blatantly pushes for further censorship on X, contradicting everything he once claimed to stand for, all in an effort to force both the left and the right to align with his own brand of identity politics and against his own view of what constitutes “hate speech.” By doing so, he seeks to completely silence any dissent.
He ends his narrative still completely dumbfounded as to how two seemingly disparate groups of humans could band together over blatant human atrocities committed by other humans. It’s just beyond him. The only explanation in his mind could be that they are jealous, resentful, and looking for someone to blame. Not that they are against the actual suffering and loss of innocent lives, or the unchecked power that enables such acts. It seems Chris has a lot of growing to do in the moral and empathy departments.
Speaking of morality, he goes on to mention how one of the most important parts of American citizenship is to “play by the rules.”
I’m curious what Chris would say about the many illegal and immoral methods employed by members of the Jewish “Elite Human Capital” class throughout American history to accumulate their vast wealth via commodities, stock, and junk bond markets—methods that have caused significant harm to other citizens.
For instance, consider the companies linked to Michael Milken that emerged from the Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bond scandal, such as Apollo Global, BlackRock, and Leonard Green & Partners. Milken’s own conviction for securities fraud and insider trading marked one of the largest financial scandals in American history, highlighting the unethical practices that paved the way for these firms’ rise to prominence.
Where do these actions fit within the “Israel only” identity politics scheme of meritocracy and fair play that Chris envisions? How do practices that prioritize profit over legality and integrity align with the supposed American ideal of playing by the rules?
Lastly, Chris references a letter written by George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, RI, in 1790. He highlights how “this letter offers a model of how American principles can assimilate minority groups, particularly American Jews,” noting that some scholars see it as the first instance of Jews being welcomed as full citizens in a modern national polity. However, it would be wise for Chris to also consider Washington’s advice from his Farewell Address in 1796. While he celebrates the letter to the Hebrew Congregation for its inclusive message, he overlooks Washington’s equally important caution against becoming overly entangled with foreign nations.
Washington warned against forming permanent alliances, emphasizing the need for national independence and neutrality: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.” Washington’s guiding principle was clear: America should engage in commerce but remain cautious of deep political ties that could compromise its autonomy. Yet Chris’s push for an “Israel-only” identity politics runs counter to this ideal, as it demands unwavering loyalty and stifles any form of dissent, effectively forcing conformity to a singular narrative.
By promoting a rigid identity framework that prioritizes allegiance to Israel, Chris ignores the broader American philosophy of independence and neutrality. Instead, he pressures both sides of the political spectrum to align with his vision, marginalizing those who dare to question or step outside of these boundaries. In doing so, he risks entrenching the very kind of entanglements and conflicts that Washington warned against, undermining the core values of American citizenship that he claims to uphold.
As Boomer Truth draws to a close, the can of worms re-opens.
HR 6090 is a bad bill but
One: Rufo literally wrote an article about how it's bad and should not be passed in Bari Weiss' The Free Press: https://www.thefp.com/p/dont-expand-dei-dismantle-it . The Free Press also published https://www.thefp.com/p/even-antisemites-deserve-free-speech and https://www.thefp.com/p/where-free-speech-ends-and-lawbreaking-begins . I recommend reading them. The Free Press is as close to an embodiment of the Jewish EHC view as you will get, and they definitely support free speech for antisemites. They have ACLU people and free speech lawyers writing about it, come on.
Two: While HR 6090 is certainly a bad bill, it definitely DOES NOT make it illegal to criticize Israel or its government. First of all, the IHRA definition explicitly says that criticism of Israel like that of any other country is not antisemitic. Yehuda Bauer who just died was behind drafting it, and is a big leftist and strong critic of the settlements. It says that calling for the elimination of Israel is antisemitic. All the bill does is extend the same civil rights law bullshit to other groups to Jews. It certainly would not make criticism of Israel illegal. In fact, it wouldn't make calling for the elimination of Israel illegal, at least not any more current civil rights law makes it illegal to talk about race and IQ. Something that can be used as evidence in a civil rights hostile environment case is not the same as banned speech.
"No other historical event is shielded" ... yeah, why don't you go to China and start talking about June 4 1989? Such a bullshit claim. Or go to Poland and say the Poles collaborated with the Nazis. Didn't they try to criminalize that? It's not like June 4 1989 killed 5.7 million Chinese people or anything. Yeah, why don't you try to imagine how long a Chinese David Irving would last? "Nor is it illegal to criticize another ethnic group"... dude there are people in Western Europe who get arrested for posting videos about race and IQ on the Internet. Look at France, where Jew Eric Zemmour got fined for talking about black and Muslim crime, whereas far-leftist Melenchon openly supports Hamas and calls for the destruction of Israel, and no one has gone after him. Pro-Hamas Muslims, antisemitic Muslims, Holocaust denying Muslims never get persecuted by European states. The Holocaust denial laws are only ever enforced against white people. Look I definitely support free speech, think Skokie was decided correctly, strongly oppose laws against Holocaust denial and so on. But you totally misrepresent the situation. You cannot be serious.
"America's top protected class for victimhood is the Jewish population"... please, tell that to Harvard and the New York Times. Tell that to pro-Hamas BLM protesters. Tell that to the civil rights bureaucracies which consider Jews white. Tell that to the Jews who were "white" and couldn't get monoclonal antibodies in our anti-white apartheid state. Tell that to the paternal Jew Joshua Katz. Tell that to the Jew Ilya Shapiro. What fraction of civil rights lawsuits involve Jews? Do you want to guess the number? Griggs lawsuits involved Jews? Why don't you tell that to the Jewish taxpayers? The Jews, who with the possible exception of Indians are probably America's highest IQ, richest, most successful group, who have the highest human capital and produce the most economic value and money robbed from them at gunpoint by the federal government (which we call "taxation") and given to low IQ whites in West Virginia and to low IQ blacks everywhere.
"People are only pretending to care about ... deaths of innocent children". Yeah well, of course the deaths of innocent children is bad. Who is to blame? Hamas, which puts children at risk and shoots them in the head and neck, not Israel who tries to avoid civilian casualties. I'm sure Israel makes mistakes, but they are clearly the good guys and as a rule try not to kill civilians when they can help it. Unlike Hamas. Do you really think that these people so critical of Jewish influence are just motivated by humanitarian concerns toward the Palestinians? If that were the case, why are they so silent on Sudan? Low decoupling. You can say all you want about Jewish influence in the US without strongly criticizing Israel.