I saw Woods' interview on Tucker Carlson last night. He was apparently targeted on some sort of secret "enemies list" like Joe McCarthy had back in the day during the Red Scare. Since he was declared an enemy in writing, he had no qualms about reciprocating and declaring the regime as "enemy" as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I reckon. He stated that he didn't start the row, THEY declared first, so he was ready to put up his dukes and return their concern in kind.
I personally think it's an admirable thing that Musk has done, trying to change Twitter to conform to Rogue-Nation rules of free speech and transparency - everyone gets their say without fear of being banned. I don't know if the average tweeter is mature enough to handle freedom like that, but we'll see, I reckon.
What really gets me is the number of "liberals" - liberals in the classic sense of seeking liberty - who are on board with it. Musk himself has traditionally been of the Liberal persuasion, as is the journalist he released the information to and whom is bruiting it about. That gives me a degree of hope - those are the sorts of "liberals" I can break bread with. We both want the same thing - liberty - but just have different paths to get there. Under such circumstances, accommodations can be made, compromise can be discussed, and consensus forged.
Such is decidedly NOT the case with the "Progressive" communo-socialists who have seized the reins of the Democrat party. They are after full-on authoritarian totalitarianism and intend to seize the top positions in such a regime, relegating the rest of us, Conservative and (classic) Liberal alike, to the subservient position of having our own lives dictated and micromanaged from their lofty ivory towers.
The fact that Liberals are spearheading this Twitter reform gives me hope. It reminds me of the old saw which I have used myself that "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". It's only by free and open discussion that solutions may be arrived at, and that sort of discussion can not happen if one side or the other has it's boot on the neck of it's opposition to prevent freely speaking their mind. That becomes "dictatorship", not "governance".
In the US, Conservatives are framing it as "governmental suppression of constitutional rights", and Progressives are neglecting to mention it at all, or are else trying to frame it as "dictatorial" on the part of Musk. Neither is strictly true. It is Progressives who are trying to squelch free speech - they just happen too have control of government at the moment, and will retain that control forever if not opposed. It's not, strictly speaking, "government" that is doing it, it is a "regime" doing it instead - collusion between those Progressives in governmental power at the moment and "civilian" Progressives backing their play (classically, this condition was known as "fascism"). On the other side of the coin, allowing everyone to speak their mind can only be considered "dictatorial" by those who would prevent free speech - it's only "dictatorial" in the sense that it is not what THEY want to dictate.
It will be interesting to see what comes of it, if anything, in the end, but I'm glad to see that actual Liberals have had just about enough of the authoritarian censorship of the Progressives, and are starting to speak - and do something - about it.. Now if the Conservatives can just sort out the players on the field, and learn the difference between "Liberals" and "Progressives", they may find an unsuspected ally in the coming battles... wasn't it Lincoln who said something like "united we stand, divided we fall"... ?
If both Liberals and Conservatives can manage to find their points of agreement with the Libertarians, then we will have a trifecta, and unbeatable coalition that can and will ride the Progressives out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.
We have a small window of opportunity here that, if opened correctly, could cause the Progressive totalitarians to find themselves vastly outnumbered, out-maneuvered, and out-equipped.
.
I personally think it's an admirable thing that Musk has done, trying to change Twitter to conform to Rogue-Nation rules of free speech and transparency - everyone gets their say without fear of being banned. I don't know if the average tweeter is mature enough to handle freedom like that, but we'll see, I reckon.
What really gets me is the number of "liberals" - liberals in the classic sense of seeking liberty - who are on board with it. Musk himself has traditionally been of the Liberal persuasion, as is the journalist he released the information to and whom is bruiting it about. That gives me a degree of hope - those are the sorts of "liberals" I can break bread with. We both want the same thing - liberty - but just have different paths to get there. Under such circumstances, accommodations can be made, compromise can be discussed, and consensus forged.
Such is decidedly NOT the case with the "Progressive" communo-socialists who have seized the reins of the Democrat party. They are after full-on authoritarian totalitarianism and intend to seize the top positions in such a regime, relegating the rest of us, Conservative and (classic) Liberal alike, to the subservient position of having our own lives dictated and micromanaged from their lofty ivory towers.
The fact that Liberals are spearheading this Twitter reform gives me hope. It reminds me of the old saw which I have used myself that "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". It's only by free and open discussion that solutions may be arrived at, and that sort of discussion can not happen if one side or the other has it's boot on the neck of it's opposition to prevent freely speaking their mind. That becomes "dictatorship", not "governance".
In the US, Conservatives are framing it as "governmental suppression of constitutional rights", and Progressives are neglecting to mention it at all, or are else trying to frame it as "dictatorial" on the part of Musk. Neither is strictly true. It is Progressives who are trying to squelch free speech - they just happen too have control of government at the moment, and will retain that control forever if not opposed. It's not, strictly speaking, "government" that is doing it, it is a "regime" doing it instead - collusion between those Progressives in governmental power at the moment and "civilian" Progressives backing their play (classically, this condition was known as "fascism"). On the other side of the coin, allowing everyone to speak their mind can only be considered "dictatorial" by those who would prevent free speech - it's only "dictatorial" in the sense that it is not what THEY want to dictate.
It will be interesting to see what comes of it, if anything, in the end, but I'm glad to see that actual Liberals have had just about enough of the authoritarian censorship of the Progressives, and are starting to speak - and do something - about it.. Now if the Conservatives can just sort out the players on the field, and learn the difference between "Liberals" and "Progressives", they may find an unsuspected ally in the coming battles... wasn't it Lincoln who said something like "united we stand, divided we fall"... ?
If both Liberals and Conservatives can manage to find their points of agreement with the Libertarians, then we will have a trifecta, and unbeatable coalition that can and will ride the Progressives out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.
We have a small window of opportunity here that, if opened correctly, could cause the Progressive totalitarians to find themselves vastly outnumbered, out-maneuvered, and out-equipped.
.