I understand the impulse is to dunk on the NYT as increasingly irrelevant due to the consolidation of progressive power on its opinion page, but I think this is an increasingly desperate cope
Many see this as a betrayal of principle so obvious that the blatant hypocrisy must signal a failed system exposing itself right before it collapses, and that would be nice, but I don’t think that’s the case
The progressives had to feign a belief in free speech when they were still marching through the institutions because most of the country was at a gut level opposed to their positions and they needed a principle that allowed them cover to spread their bile
They never truly cared but as the saying goes “ When I was weak I demanded freedom because it was according to your principles. When I am strong I take your freedom because it is according to my principles “ They are closing the door behind them now that they are in charge.
The NYT will lose nothing by removing the final illusion of intellectual diversity from their opinion page, it is in fact the ultimate flex, showing that they have so much power they no longer have to entertain any opposition
If they do decline in relevance it will only be because the progressive gospel is so prevalent in every part of social life the they no longer require the original organs of dissemination
The hope is that the hypocrisy is so jarring that it will awaken a wide swath of people but come on, how many of your liberal friends will have their illusions shattered by this? I’m guessing 0. Especially after they see what happens if you step off the reservation.
The point is that those who oppose progressivism are largely banking on people acting on increasingly vaguely held principle while the left exercises naked power, and it isn’t hard to figure out who wins that battle.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We’re entering very interesting territory where non-state foreign actors can challenge state sovereignty in very direct ways 👇🧵/1
This power has been available for a while of course, the GAE used it to manipulate many different color revolutions and the Arab spring, but that power has always been wielded by regime-aligned actors 2/
With Elon’s purchase of Twitter we see the possibility of a rogue elite who could deploy this power without prior regime approval
An information autocracy wielding its power independent from the GAE in the name of free speech 3/
So conservatives have to play this strange game where they pretend that different rules don't apply to the majority of their coalition /2
It's interesting to note that while the left gets to be more explicit about their application of identity politics they are facing a division in their coalition along similar lines /3
We fight wars over these terms even though some of them have become dead and others meaningless 🧵/1 👇
Modern people think of ideology as something constructed before a society begins, something that defines a civilization from the start but this is not the case 2/
Many believe that the Constitution defines America, but it was the people of America at the time of the founding which defined the Constitution
The founders knew this which is why they explicitly stated that the Constitution could only govern a certain type of people 3/
Most of the conservative voter base has accepted the progressive fatih claim that minority voters are a sacred class and their approval is the only way to validate your political formula
The GOP has been eager to discard its white working and middle class base for some time so they embrace this, even though this much vaunted support never seems arrive
It also make it easier to sell the open borders the GOP actually believe in
The GOP can't maintain the traditions, culture, or standard of living of its current base, the only thing they can offer is managed decline
The American identity is fundamentally Christian and specifically Protestant in nature
The only reason a debate around “Christian nationalism” even exists is that we allowed the liberal delusion of neutral secular institutions to take hold 👇 1/🧵
Every every nation has a system of beliefs that frames their worldview and defines their vision of the good
No one is secular, replacing a formal religion with an ideology doesn’t make you neutral, enlightened, or objective
Ideology is simply a crude substitute for religion /2
Once we decided that “separation of church and state”, which isn’t in the Constitution, meant the elimination of formal religion our institutions didn’t become secular or neutral
Instead, it left these institutions unprotected from ideological subversion /3