Exactly by what method have you determined that your position is the 'rule'? I'm sure not any kind of rigorous analysis, but the common confirmation bias. I am glad that you are open-minded enough to recognize Weinstein and Heying as good guys, despite the fact that they're not exactly right-wingers.

But there's more. Way more. It is likely that Jews are over-represented among right-wing/anti-identitarian advocates, though since most Jews are leftists, more on the leftist side. Just to give you some examples I can easily cite from the top of my head.

Economics: Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises. Soviet dissidents: Nathan Sharansky and others (a grossly disproportionate share of Soviet dissidents were Jews, in some estimates 40%)

Rather than vilifying all Jews for the opinions of a faction, how about we support the good Jews and oppose the bad ones. Or rather, support good people and oppose bad ones regardless of ethnicity. Exactly what do you hope to accomplish by making it about one group vs another?

So it can be summarily dismissed in the exact same way that you did, while also claiming that the poster is a member of the JIDF? Or perhaps the point will be to list out all of the Jews you will then declare to be controlled opposition?

There is no point in trying to build a massive fact based counter-narrative to an anti-Jewish narrative that is built purely off of assertion and conditioning. It's literally not any different than arguing with a socialist over Marxist economic theory. Marxist economic theory is rationalized psuedo-scientific nonsense that has no basis in reality. It exists to propagate Marxist narratives as a form of rhetorical warfare. The point of arguing about Marxist economic philosophy, is for the Marxist to have a platform on which to spill his drivel and affirm/re-enforce his narrative to sychophants, while luring more people into being sychophants. There is no "conversation" when the purpose is entirely dishonest.

The exact same thing can be said about the racialists and antisemites. As long as people are drawn into the argument over Marx's Jewish Question, that's all that matters. The racialists and antisemites will make any argument necessary in the same way that Marx did, because he was an antisemite. When one side is trying to engage in rational discourse, and the other is engaging in rhetorical warfare, then it's a lopsided battle.

We've seen this a million times now, it should be obvious. We saw it at the Munk debate with Jordan Peterson being called an "Angry white man". We see this in any initial defense against a struggle session (like with Bret Weinstien). We saw this at Harvard where the activists were screaming at a professor because his wife thought the Halloween regulations were ridiculous. Hell, we saw this Evangelicals against Atheists over evolution. When the opposing side thinks they scored a win because "crockoduck" and "banana" against genuine scientists trying to explain how evolution works... you're not having rational discourse.

This is why the Left thinks that censorship is the only answer. They see all debate as only a form of rhetorical warfare. You stop the idea from being engaged with entirely and you deny the enemy the ability to even form up. It's a perfectly sensible position to have.

From the anti-authoriatarian & free speech perspective, the racialist hypothesis needs to be visible in order for holes to be poked in it, but that requires an enemy arrogant enough to actually try an honest conversation, which none of the racialists ever do. The Evangelicals & YEC's were arrogant enough to think they understood the universe and the laws of God's will. Easy win. Racialists always hide their power-level because they already know their narrative isn't popular. Richard Spencer always tries to be a smug, progressive, intellectual, racialist whenever he's being engaged with in the open, he devolves into a racist Captain America villain in private. It's the essence of the "I'm just asking questions!" claim: a rhetorical warfare raid, make a point without ever defending your position.

The purpose of building a counter-narrative in order to counter a racialist narrative is to make the person arguing against the racialist waste vast amounts of time and energy, all so that the racialist use the opportunity to make whatever assertions they feel are profitable at a given moment, while solidifying their own support. Again, this is why the Left chooses the authoritarian response to speech: they see all speech as rhetorical warfare. So when they see rhetorical warfare, they attack it as such.