Rufo completely lost me with "ends will ultimately triumph over means." I know he was saying that the Right has better ends than the Left, but even if that is true, the surest sign of a power monger is the assertion (explicit or implicit) that the ends justify the means. Whether "old ends and old means" or new ends and new means, the means will always lead to the ends that align with them. Evil means lead to evil ends, no matter what the stated ends that supposedly require the evil means. Seeking political power is an evil means that can never lead to "individual liberty and limited government."
Isn't the fundamental distinction here between two competing meta-strategies: Take over what exists/impose one's blueprint over everyone vs. exit and build? (Perhaps Rufo has not even considered exit and build as an option??)
I have ceased caring about power struggles over who gets to control the Beast because I am focused on getting away from the Beast. Am I naive? ("You can stop being interested in the Beast but the Beast won't stop being interested in you.")
I am also called naive, idealistic, etc. for my heavy reliance on philosophy and first principles. The argument seems to be either
a) "the average person doesn't care about any of that," or
b) "that is not how things work in the real world."
This seems to be a part of Rufo's argument. And yet, if we take either of those, or both, as our touchstone, then the principles just go out the window, don't they?
But maybe there is a bright side. Maybe people like Rufo can occupy the blue team in the trenches long enough to give the rest of us time, and a bit of room, to build something new. (I write about that here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/should-you-vote) And maybe we can get just enough traction before the central powers take real notice of us…
I will never have it all figured out. Ever. I will keep asking questions of myself and others in ever-unfolding inquiry. I hope you will do the same. BTW, Swift, De Beuvoir, and Sartre are all interesting reads with great insights to offer. And, we might indeed need o v e r t h r o w at some point, but I dare say underthrow might be more powerful and durable.
Rufo completely lost me with "ends will ultimately triumph over means." I know he was saying that the Right has better ends than the Left, but even if that is true, the surest sign of a power monger is the assertion (explicit or implicit) that the ends justify the means. Whether "old ends and old means" or new ends and new means, the means will always lead to the ends that align with them. Evil means lead to evil ends, no matter what the stated ends that supposedly require the evil means. Seeking political power is an evil means that can never lead to "individual liberty and limited government."
Isn't the fundamental distinction here between two competing meta-strategies: Take over what exists/impose one's blueprint over everyone vs. exit and build? (Perhaps Rufo has not even considered exit and build as an option??)
I have ceased caring about power struggles over who gets to control the Beast because I am focused on getting away from the Beast. Am I naive? ("You can stop being interested in the Beast but the Beast won't stop being interested in you.")
I am also called naive, idealistic, etc. for my heavy reliance on philosophy and first principles. The argument seems to be either
a) "the average person doesn't care about any of that," or
b) "that is not how things work in the real world."
This seems to be a part of Rufo's argument. And yet, if we take either of those, or both, as our touchstone, then the principles just go out the window, don't they?
But maybe there is a bright side. Maybe people like Rufo can occupy the blue team in the trenches long enough to give the rest of us time, and a bit of room, to build something new. (I write about that here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/should-you-vote) And maybe we can get just enough traction before the central powers take real notice of us…
Did somebody say reactionary? I'll give you reactionary!
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/a-call-for-counter-revolution
I loved reading this.
"will happily push you in front of a subway car if you have outlived your usefulness."
Just remember...the CIA, Netanyahu, FBI, Nat Press Corp (Ashli Babbit), MIC, NATO, Mossad HAVE all done likewise.
Question: would/has Rufo, Buchanan, DeSantis...Trump? Suspect not ALL are equally amoral zealots.
I will never have it all figured out. Ever. I will keep asking questions of myself and others in ever-unfolding inquiry. I hope you will do the same. BTW, Swift, De Beuvoir, and Sartre are all interesting reads with great insights to offer. And, we might indeed need o v e r t h r o w at some point, but I dare say underthrow might be more powerful and durable.