@christopherrufo
Pinned post
I've had good, thoughtful conservatives trying to convince me that @christopherrufo, while sometimes a bit over-the-top, was a good faith operator.View quoted post on X
He's not.
That much should have been clear after his bizarre "eating the pets" conspiracies.
Now, he's attacking @jonahdispatch in consecutive tweets each built on obvious lies. First, he pretends that generic criticism of TPUSA's ineffective GOTV efforts is a "cheap shot at a good man who was recently assassinated by a deranged leftist." There was literally no allusion to Charlie Kirk in Jonah's seven-word tweet. He just made it up.
Second, Rufo claims that Jonah "supported" Donald Trump's "regime-change war" in Iran. Nobody who has actually read Jonah on that war or listened to his regular analysis of it, would ever make such a claim. Or at least would ever make such a claim in good faith. Jonah has acknowledged the strategic rationale for the US seeking regime change while consistently criticizing the war itself. From the case for war to the obvious lack of preparation for Iran's response to the overall execution of it. In my many, many hours discussing this with him over the past eight months -- in public, on podcasts -- he's been an exceedingly tough critic. Either Rufo doesn't really know Jonah's views on the war or he does know and once again decided to just make them up.
I'll resist the temptation to speculate about why Rufo would go after Goldberg, especially this week. But dude's a bad faith operator.
I don't blame you for not knowing my actual position on the Iran war Chris. Then again, I don't put it past you to lie for advantage. After all you guys are trying to make (((supported the Iran war))) into a New Right shibboleth.View quoted post on X
But your interpretation of my intent is deceitful demagogic bad faith nonsense. And I really don't have a lot of patience for someone who signal boosted Trump and Vance's "their eating the cats" bullshit and indulged in "The Indian Question" discourse, calling me classless.
I am curious, though. What is the statute of limitations on criticizing a multimillion dollar political organization that has failed to do what its tragically murdered founder set out to do and routinely promotes conspiracy theorists, racists, and cranks like Jack Posobiec as thought leaders. Will it stop being "classless" in 2027? Will you deign to engage in the arguments on the merits then? Or will you be hiding behind Kirk's memory indefinitely to avoid arguing like a grown up?
I really just want to understand the rules. Oh that's right, you don't believe in rules. You believe that the Gramscian (eyeroll) pursuit of power is self-justifying. You only invoke rules and norms when they are the nearest weapon to hand, like slandering immigrant groups for fun and profit.
Great to have Ambassador Guilfoyle with us at our gala. She bought this beautiful painting of Mercy which she also generously gave to her. We love her and Magaangelo the artist!View quoted post on X
