"It is important to remember that Judaism is not Old Testament religion, but rather a rejection of the Biblical faith altogether in favor of the Pharisaical, Talmudic heresy.
Like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Unification Church, and other cults, it claims to be based on the Bible; but its actual authority comes from the traditions of men. Jesus was quite clear: Judaism denies Christ because it denies Moses. Orthodox Christianity alone is the true continuation and fulfillment of Old Testament religion (see Matt. 5:17-20; 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47; 8:42-47).”
Like I've been saying, you can define criticisms of that foreign country as "bigotry", and that charge will quiet some of the criticism.
But it eventually backfires, since if the only way to criticize that country's reprehensible behavior if to be labeled a "bigot" (of a special sort), then people will accept it.
Then the scheme backfires, and you get an increase in real bigotry.
We have seen this error before. We're seeing it again now.
William, I think it is fair to criticize Israel, but using distorted words like genocide, open-air prison, or taking the words of terrorists as facts - keeps the discussion very shallow. It is within these shallow discussions where criticisms appear anti-semitic. But not when you gain a deeper knowledge of the subject matter. Most Americans, for example, do not differentiate between American Jews and Israelis when their cultures are as different as Americans and Japanese. And few Americans understand the huge cultural differences within the arab world or within a single arab country). It is like trying to have a discussion about Japanese, Koreans, and Thai and having only the word "oriental" available to you. The shallowness is pervasive. The war is not even about Israel vs Palestinians. It is about the future of the Middle East. It is about Islamic extremism (which has affected 100+ million people). Instead we get in the media these silly shallow arguments based on the most inflammatory rhetoric that fills this ignorance vacuum. Just saying.
Israel was created in terrorism, has been ruled through terrorism and continues to terrorize any non-jews who refuse to accept jewish supremacism.
American jews and Israeli jews are the same when it comes to opposition to non-jews who oppose jewish supremacism.
The distinction between 'American jew' and 'Israeli jew' may be important *to jews* but it's jewish supremacism to think your petty tribal distinctions should be important to non-jews.
Open air prison is too weak. Concentration camp is a better phrase. Israel’s blockade is exceedingly petty. They do not allow the Gazans to dig wells. That is why you see plastic water tanks on the top of every Gazan home. If you want to dig a well you have to get IDF permission. They routinely deny it. Then brag about how they “supply water to the Gazans” and cut off water when they want.
Certainly worse treatment than Americans did to Japanese during WW2 so internment camp isn’t strong enough.
One of 1000 examples. You will ignore this and not call Israel evil for it. Because you are dual loyal.
What surprises me isn't the hypocrisy, which is as evil as it is commonplace. It is the comments here suggesting Rufo is writing merely descriptively. Why would he write an article saying "this thing is bad, it is enabled by lack of gatekeepers and quality control" if not to argue by implication that gatekeepers and quality control is needed? We don't need gatekeepers. Let the internet be free and open and accept the consequences. If this is what he believed, he would have stated such to differentiate his position from what he is suggesting via the clear and obvious implication of his words.
Precisely so. The commenters arguing that there is no prescriptive implication are being deliberately obtuse. Rufo is arguing for the re-establishment of bright red lines in public discourse. He doesn't say it openly, because he knows that calling directly for censorship on behalf of his donors is a bright red line on the right. But that is what he is doing.
Many people have written that the Neo-Nazi marchers in Skokie are bad, and that they were enabled by American free speech law, WITHOUT implying that the proper response is to gut the First Amendment to censor neo-Nazis. In fact people generally write something like that when they discuss the Skokie case. Free speech is overall good, it leads to some vile people expressing themselves like in Skokie, but overall it's worth it. Rufo is writing something very similar here. It's good Musk bought twitter and loosened speech laws. This did lead to antisemitic speech but overall free speech is worth it.
Fun fact - the Skokie march was a false flag lead by a Jewish man named Frank Cohn (changed name to Collin). He was friends with ACLU lawyers. Right wing parties disavowed him. Your head will spin if you try to count the lies:
Thank you, this does help me appreciate that he isn't necessarily implying 1A infringement is the solution. That said, he is clearly lamenting a lack of gatekeeping, and this taken with the rest of the piece comes across as his attempt to rectify this.
Gate-keeping by whom and to what purpose? Say what you want about 'neo-Nazis' and 'anti-Semitism' at least they've kept the 'faith unwavering' for almost a century during which time 'conservatives' have fluttered from position to position like canaries in a cage.
So why should weak-tea race-mixing liberals like Rufo be given the keys to the kingdom and not the very people he says ought to be excluded?
'Conservatism' is the political expression of a particular kind of learned helplessness resulting from self-lobomization.
There is no intellectual answer that supports taking out debt and spending our goodwill while allowing Israel to drag us into war. The censorship and smearing will continue.
Online communities are literally where the "whole world" comes together to converse. Like it or not, it's a form of the public square, so it absolutely is the same thing as censorship to gatekeep the topics of that conversation. It's one thing to have reasonable rules for people to not harass or threaten others, but it's another thing entirely to claim "holding this particular unpopular view, in and of itself, shall now constitute harassment of others and be penalized as such." Let all voices speak in the public square and each choose whom they want to interact with independently. We don't need a nanny state on the internet.
But Rufo is wrong that gatekeeping improves conversation. It merely narrows the field and keeps out discomforting perspectives. That might seem good but it’s better to know about and counter dumb ideas in real time.
I don’t read Rufo’s post like that. He’s saying that the lack of censorship has allowed antisemitic trash to be posted. This is just a true descriptive, positive claim. This is not a normative claim calling for more censorship.
It's also allowed communist totalitarian anti-American propaganda (i.e., Democrat Party rhetoric) to be posted as well. Should that be censored as well? Who gets to decide what speech should be allowed?
Oh noes, are people are saying mean things about the tribe picking our pockets to mass murder women and chidden who may get us into WWIII? Nooooooooooo!!!!! Anything but that!
I read the article the quote is from. It would have been wise for Rufo to clearly state that he doesn't believe censorship is the answer in his conclusion. I think it's pretty clear that he believes arguing against conspiracy theories is important and that they shouldn't be left unchecked. (let truth win via debate, don't censor)
That is not clear to me at all. To say that a lack of content moderation leads to an increase of opinions that other people do not like is just making a factual statement.
Apparently some people think that just stating that lack of censorship leads to bad opinions being expressed is the same as calling for more censorship. I wonder if Brunet also thinks that pointing out that the 1A people protected neo-Nazis is the same as calling for the repeal of the 1A.
"This ideological vacuum is compounded with relaxed censorship policies on platforms like X, thanks to its new owner, Elon Musk."
I am glad that Chris Rufo has openly stated that what he desires is censorship - i.e. less relaxed censorship. It is always gratifying to me when fascists self-identify as it helps me judge the credibility of their opinions going forward.
Please, Rufo did not openly state he wants censorship. It appears CB has stirred you up with this mis-interpretation --- and you're running with it. Tead what he had to say. It was interesting. Just saying.
I will take your advice and go back and reread - but I warn you I am a free speech absolutist and a firm believer that bad speech can only be defeated by good speech.
The "relaxed censorship" he seems to bemoan is due largely to the fact that Elon Musk no longer takes his marching orders from government agents. Indirect censorship like this is even more insidious than out and out government bans. Secretly making private entities do the dirty work distorts the "marketplace of ideas" - inevitably in favor of the ruling elites. Coopting corporations to toe the line - willingly or otherwise - on government decreed policy and orthodoxy is classic fascism.
Well I read Rufo's article carefully and there is much to praise in it as he argues for traditional American ideals of fair play and tolerance and bemoans the excesses of extremists of all political stripes. I won't say "but" at this point because that first sentence was sincere. My concern is as follows:
Rufo's argument does get ambiguous in some places like his unfortunate wording "relaxed censorship." Is he saying a little bit of censorship is good? Maybe, maybe not.
Another troubling sentence is "Should we fail to restrain their growth [of the extremists], we will have two large factions in the United States that want to abandon the principles of colorblind equality, fair play, and judging individuals on their own merit." Again, this begs the question of "by what means?" Restraint is a strong word with connotations of physical force.
Rufo lays out some very laudable ends, but he owes us clarity on the means.
If he truly favors open, unfettered, muscular debate - if he means that all men and women of good will should ban together to call out and denounce the extremists when and wherever they rear their ugly heads, then I am with him.
If he is somewhat slyly calling for just a wee bit of censorship and a tiny bit of government force to pull us all back onto the straight and narrow, then I will continue to deem him a fascist - just one without the moral courage to say so.
He is though, he's just scared to say it as he'll look like a hypocrite. What else is the intention of an article stating "this speech on X is extremely bad"?
Although I won't RKD4NJF, the young man is right 97 percent of the time.
I am glad to have found you.
I wasn't aware of your work, but your willingness to admit you got it wrong on the real reasons behind Claudia Gay's firing is admirable and true patriotism.
I will support you wholeheartedly as long as you stay authentic and just call it like you see it.
I pray for you, for Nick, and for the few who have courage to speak truth to power in this world we live in.
Thanks for your commitment to truth and I hope one day soon that you and Nicholas will sit down together and discuss things.
We are strong individually, but our power is immeasurable when even a few of the immovable Christian White Men stand up.
I’m not buying what you’re selling. He is pointing out a problem. Nowhere does he suggest that these people should be censored. He is shining a light on the problem, drawing attention to it. Your headline is misleading.
Rufo and others need to accept the fact that the species is going through an adaptation period where all must learn to correctly perceive intellectual / emotional threats - not just physical ones. It is a tedious but necessary process that will take a long time. Censorship provides a false security that makes the plebes dumber.
The Village Idiots have new costumes and rants, but we will learn to live with them as our ancestors did.
Chris, your interpretation of Rufu's words are IMHO inaccurate. Rufo never called for X to add tighter controls. He just pointed out what happens with a lack of controls. Rufu says, and I quote:
"Should we fail to restrain their growth, we will have two large factions in the United States that want to abandon the principles of colorblind equality, fair play, and judging individuals on their own merit. "
One can restrain the racialism with controls, but more so, by speaking out against hate.
Chris, you know I posted a thoughtful reply to your last substack - which you posted on X - which became an anti-semetic hate fest. It appears your audience on X is a right-wing anti-semitic crowd. Is that okay with you?
If anything, Rufu called for people to argue against the slippery slope of racialism. I think you should too.
Do yourself and the world a favor and tell everyone that you are not a racialist or a racist. That you apposed Ms Gay because she was a plagiarist, not because she was black. That you apposed the wife of a large donor because she was a plagiarist not because she and her donor husband were jewish. Tell everyone where you stand against the promotion of racial hate. Do something about how you are viewed.
As one your subscribers said, "I think you lost your way."
Yet another shameless shill for Israel. Good news is now everyone sees right through people like Rufo.
I can't believe I used to give that little rat $5 a month.
Rufo I now see is an actual enemy.
You call yourself a Catholic?
"It is important to remember that Judaism is not Old Testament religion, but rather a rejection of the Biblical faith altogether in favor of the Pharisaical, Talmudic heresy.
Like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Unification Church, and other cults, it claims to be based on the Bible; but its actual authority comes from the traditions of men. Jesus was quite clear: Judaism denies Christ because it denies Moses. Orthodox Christianity alone is the true continuation and fulfillment of Old Testament religion (see Matt. 5:17-20; 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47; 8:42-47).”
-- David Chilton, Paradise Restored, Ch.20
Sounds a lot like the same crap I hear antiSemites say, mmmm
They're right.
And you're sick.
nothing is more sick than worshipping Jews like yourself
an anti-Semite is someone who simply acknowledges the truth about many Jews that they don't want the goyim to figure out
LOL
Like I've been saying, you can define criticisms of that foreign country as "bigotry", and that charge will quiet some of the criticism.
But it eventually backfires, since if the only way to criticize that country's reprehensible behavior if to be labeled a "bigot" (of a special sort), then people will accept it.
Then the scheme backfires, and you get an increase in real bigotry.
We have seen this error before. We're seeing it again now.
William, I think it is fair to criticize Israel, but using distorted words like genocide, open-air prison, or taking the words of terrorists as facts - keeps the discussion very shallow. It is within these shallow discussions where criticisms appear anti-semitic. But not when you gain a deeper knowledge of the subject matter. Most Americans, for example, do not differentiate between American Jews and Israelis when their cultures are as different as Americans and Japanese. And few Americans understand the huge cultural differences within the arab world or within a single arab country). It is like trying to have a discussion about Japanese, Koreans, and Thai and having only the word "oriental" available to you. The shallowness is pervasive. The war is not even about Israel vs Palestinians. It is about the future of the Middle East. It is about Islamic extremism (which has affected 100+ million people). Instead we get in the media these silly shallow arguments based on the most inflammatory rhetoric that fills this ignorance vacuum. Just saying.
Israel was created in terrorism, has been ruled through terrorism and continues to terrorize any non-jews who refuse to accept jewish supremacism.
American jews and Israeli jews are the same when it comes to opposition to non-jews who oppose jewish supremacism.
The distinction between 'American jew' and 'Israeli jew' may be important *to jews* but it's jewish supremacism to think your petty tribal distinctions should be important to non-jews.
Open air prison is too weak. Concentration camp is a better phrase. Israel’s blockade is exceedingly petty. They do not allow the Gazans to dig wells. That is why you see plastic water tanks on the top of every Gazan home. If you want to dig a well you have to get IDF permission. They routinely deny it. Then brag about how they “supply water to the Gazans” and cut off water when they want.
Certainly worse treatment than Americans did to Japanese during WW2 so internment camp isn’t strong enough.
One of 1000 examples. You will ignore this and not call Israel evil for it. Because you are dual loyal.
Dual loyalty? That's a classic antiSemitic trope. Got any more? [sarc]
What surprises me isn't the hypocrisy, which is as evil as it is commonplace. It is the comments here suggesting Rufo is writing merely descriptively. Why would he write an article saying "this thing is bad, it is enabled by lack of gatekeepers and quality control" if not to argue by implication that gatekeepers and quality control is needed? We don't need gatekeepers. Let the internet be free and open and accept the consequences. If this is what he believed, he would have stated such to differentiate his position from what he is suggesting via the clear and obvious implication of his words.
Precisely so. The commenters arguing that there is no prescriptive implication are being deliberately obtuse. Rufo is arguing for the re-establishment of bright red lines in public discourse. He doesn't say it openly, because he knows that calling directly for censorship on behalf of his donors is a bright red line on the right. But that is what he is doing.
Many people have written that the Neo-Nazi marchers in Skokie are bad, and that they were enabled by American free speech law, WITHOUT implying that the proper response is to gut the First Amendment to censor neo-Nazis. In fact people generally write something like that when they discuss the Skokie case. Free speech is overall good, it leads to some vile people expressing themselves like in Skokie, but overall it's worth it. Rufo is writing something very similar here. It's good Musk bought twitter and loosened speech laws. This did lead to antisemitic speech but overall free speech is worth it.
Fun fact - the Skokie march was a false flag lead by a Jewish man named Frank Cohn (changed name to Collin). He was friends with ACLU lawyers. Right wing parties disavowed him. Your head will spin if you try to count the lies:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Collin
Thank you, this does help me appreciate that he isn't necessarily implying 1A infringement is the solution. That said, he is clearly lamenting a lack of gatekeeping, and this taken with the rest of the piece comes across as his attempt to rectify this.
Gate-keeping by whom and to what purpose? Say what you want about 'neo-Nazis' and 'anti-Semitism' at least they've kept the 'faith unwavering' for almost a century during which time 'conservatives' have fluttered from position to position like canaries in a cage.
So why should weak-tea race-mixing liberals like Rufo be given the keys to the kingdom and not the very people he says ought to be excluded?
'Conservatism' is the political expression of a particular kind of learned helplessness resulting from self-lobomization.
Im not defending RW gatekeeping. I find the idea of trying to establish a range of acceptable opinion to be anti-intellectual.
There is no intellectual answer that supports taking out debt and spending our goodwill while allowing Israel to drag us into war. The censorship and smearing will continue.
👆
Gatekeeping within an online community is not the same thing as censorship.
Online communities are literally where the "whole world" comes together to converse. Like it or not, it's a form of the public square, so it absolutely is the same thing as censorship to gatekeep the topics of that conversation. It's one thing to have reasonable rules for people to not harass or threaten others, but it's another thing entirely to claim "holding this particular unpopular view, in and of itself, shall now constitute harassment of others and be penalized as such." Let all voices speak in the public square and each choose whom they want to interact with independently. We don't need a nanny state on the internet.
But Rufo is wrong that gatekeeping improves conversation. It merely narrows the field and keeps out discomforting perspectives. That might seem good but it’s better to know about and counter dumb ideas in real time.
I don’t read Rufo’s post like that. He’s saying that the lack of censorship has allowed antisemitic trash to be posted. This is just a true descriptive, positive claim. This is not a normative claim calling for more censorship.
It's also allowed communist totalitarian anti-American propaganda (i.e., Democrat Party rhetoric) to be posted as well. Should that be censored as well? Who gets to decide what speech should be allowed?
Censorship is bad
The term 'anti-Semitic' is a morally loaded term arising directly from the power of the jews to suppress discourse.
The very *idea* of 'anti-Semitic' in the Current Year is an expression of jewish power.
The jews need 'anti-Semitism' to keep their tribe in line. It's a bonus they can use it to keep non-jews in line as well.
Oh noes, are people are saying mean things about the tribe picking our pockets to mass murder women and chidden who may get us into WWIII? Nooooooooooo!!!!! Anything but that!
Exactly.
He stopped short of advocating for censorship, I agree
The kosher right must go.
Am I missing something?
Where does Rufo call for censorship in the quote you supplied?
I read the article the quote is from. It would have been wise for Rufo to clearly state that he doesn't believe censorship is the answer in his conclusion. I think it's pretty clear that he believes arguing against conspiracy theories is important and that they shouldn't be left unchecked. (let truth win via debate, don't censor)
'Gate-keeping' is just a euphemism for 'anti-Whiteness'.
Clearly what he's getting at, he just won't say "censorship" as it will make him look like a two-faced dupe
That is not clear to me at all. To say that a lack of content moderation leads to an increase of opinions that other people do not like is just making a factual statement.
Yes I'm sure the point of the article was to make a factual statement (lol)
Did you actually read the entire Rufo article before you criticized it?
He doesn’t call for censorship. That’s the Rub here.
He does. But liberalism seeking to keep Rufo-The-Race-Mixer's career alive within dissident circles will pretend he didn't.
Rufo is concern-trolling for the hews who pay his salary.
Apparently some people think that just stating that lack of censorship leads to bad opinions being expressed is the same as calling for more censorship. I wonder if Brunet also thinks that pointing out that the 1A people protected neo-Nazis is the same as calling for the repeal of the 1A.
"This ideological vacuum is compounded with relaxed censorship policies on platforms like X, thanks to its new owner, Elon Musk."
I am glad that Chris Rufo has openly stated that what he desires is censorship - i.e. less relaxed censorship. It is always gratifying to me when fascists self-identify as it helps me judge the credibility of their opinions going forward.
Please, Rufo did not openly state he wants censorship. It appears CB has stirred you up with this mis-interpretation --- and you're running with it. Tead what he had to say. It was interesting. Just saying.
I will take your advice and go back and reread - but I warn you I am a free speech absolutist and a firm believer that bad speech can only be defeated by good speech.
The "relaxed censorship" he seems to bemoan is due largely to the fact that Elon Musk no longer takes his marching orders from government agents. Indirect censorship like this is even more insidious than out and out government bans. Secretly making private entities do the dirty work distorts the "marketplace of ideas" - inevitably in favor of the ruling elites. Coopting corporations to toe the line - willingly or otherwise - on government decreed policy and orthodoxy is classic fascism.
Well I read Rufo's article carefully and there is much to praise in it as he argues for traditional American ideals of fair play and tolerance and bemoans the excesses of extremists of all political stripes. I won't say "but" at this point because that first sentence was sincere. My concern is as follows:
Rufo's argument does get ambiguous in some places like his unfortunate wording "relaxed censorship." Is he saying a little bit of censorship is good? Maybe, maybe not.
Another troubling sentence is "Should we fail to restrain their growth [of the extremists], we will have two large factions in the United States that want to abandon the principles of colorblind equality, fair play, and judging individuals on their own merit." Again, this begs the question of "by what means?" Restraint is a strong word with connotations of physical force.
Rufo lays out some very laudable ends, but he owes us clarity on the means.
If he truly favors open, unfettered, muscular debate - if he means that all men and women of good will should ban together to call out and denounce the extremists when and wherever they rear their ugly heads, then I am with him.
If he is somewhat slyly calling for just a wee bit of censorship and a tiny bit of government force to pull us all back onto the straight and narrow, then I will continue to deem him a fascist - just one without the moral courage to say so.
He is though, he's just scared to say it as he'll look like a hypocrite. What else is the intention of an article stating "this speech on X is extremely bad"?
Pssst fascists are the good guys, he is a (((neo-con))).
This is a mask off moment where soon the left and right establishment will suddenly come together to make more anti Semitism laws.
They will justify it by citing Handsome Truth, and Blood Tribe.
It is critical we base our critique in scripture and in Logos which is eternal truth.
Be well brothers, the fight is about to crank up to levels we haven't seen.
https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1786535377383342329?lang=en
The only thing worse than woke are (((neo-cons))).
Makes me want to throw up.
Chris, I'm a 40 year old man.
I have a 10 year old daughter who I raise alone.
Although I won't RKD4NJF, the young man is right 97 percent of the time.
I am glad to have found you.
I wasn't aware of your work, but your willingness to admit you got it wrong on the real reasons behind Claudia Gay's firing is admirable and true patriotism.
I will support you wholeheartedly as long as you stay authentic and just call it like you see it.
I pray for you, for Nick, and for the few who have courage to speak truth to power in this world we live in.
Thanks for your commitment to truth and I hope one day soon that you and Nicholas will sit down together and discuss things.
We are strong individually, but our power is immeasurable when even a few of the immovable Christian White Men stand up.
Signed,
A fellow 6 foot 4 Chad
I’m not buying what you’re selling. He is pointing out a problem. Nowhere does he suggest that these people should be censored. He is shining a light on the problem, drawing attention to it. Your headline is misleading.
He just wants some more gatekeepers controlling the conversation is all because he has no arguments.
It's fascinating how many Jew-haters have decided to post here.
Anyone who isn’t a slave to Israel and agree to let them do whatever they want at all times with our money is literally Adolph Hitler.
Rufo is a race-mixer. Race-mixers always disappoint.
a libcon cuck par excellence
Rufo and others need to accept the fact that the species is going through an adaptation period where all must learn to correctly perceive intellectual / emotional threats - not just physical ones. It is a tedious but necessary process that will take a long time. Censorship provides a false security that makes the plebes dumber.
The Village Idiots have new costumes and rants, but we will learn to live with them as our ancestors did.
Chris, your interpretation of Rufu's words are IMHO inaccurate. Rufo never called for X to add tighter controls. He just pointed out what happens with a lack of controls. Rufu says, and I quote:
"Should we fail to restrain their growth, we will have two large factions in the United States that want to abandon the principles of colorblind equality, fair play, and judging individuals on their own merit. "
One can restrain the racialism with controls, but more so, by speaking out against hate.
Chris, you know I posted a thoughtful reply to your last substack - which you posted on X - which became an anti-semetic hate fest. It appears your audience on X is a right-wing anti-semitic crowd. Is that okay with you?
If anything, Rufu called for people to argue against the slippery slope of racialism. I think you should too.
Do yourself and the world a favor and tell everyone that you are not a racialist or a racist. That you apposed Ms Gay because she was a plagiarist, not because she was black. That you apposed the wife of a large donor because she was a plagiarist not because she and her donor husband were jewish. Tell everyone where you stand against the promotion of racial hate. Do something about how you are viewed.
As one your subscribers said, "I think you lost your way."