Meg Hansen

Geopolitics • Media • Aesthetics
U.S. Chapter Director, Non-Resident Fellow @IndoPacificSC
New Englander with Southern characteristics

[Mickey Kaus @kausmickey]

"All told, a remarkable two-thirds of the Valley’s nearly 400,000 tech jobs are now held by those born abroad, according to a 2025 report from the think tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley." https://t.co/HHzvP36k8f

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

Crumpelstiltskin

[Mambo Italiano @mamboitaliano__]

🚨 The impeccable and historic Italian 🇮🇹 maison Gucci somehow managed to send Demi Moore onto the Cannes Film Festival red carpet dressed like a crumpled napkin abandoned on the table after Christmas dinner

The result is quite literally a disaster

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

The version of you that survived your past is not the version that can create your future. #ThursdayThought

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

I can’t claim credit for Patterson making his account private. Whatever drove him to protect his tweets, this much is clear:

He tried to dress up moral condemnation of postliberalism and the Budapest ecosystem – his bêtes noires – as an investigation into foreign subversion.

The mask fell when he was pressed for evidence.

[Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ @christopherrufo]

Oh look, the critic who dished it out but couldn’t take it has locked his account.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

This made me laugh. Thank you 🙃

[Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ @christopherrufo]

@McGillPatterson You’re not even in the top 10 of academics named “James Patterson.”

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

Exactly. “Postliberalism” doesn’t have one canonical definition like “photosynthesis.” It’s an umbrella term; its meaning varies across thinkers and contexts.

I specifically quoted my essay on postliberalism in Central Europe. I’ll share that excerpt again.

I never claimed that I’m allowed to make up what the term means. I repeatedly said that I’m allowed to define how I’m using the term.

But this distinction was too much for Patterson and his defenders.

They turned what I actually said into “language is arbitrary,” which is easier to ridicule.

Patterson tried hard to turn my thread into a referendum on postliberalism, so it would distract from the core problem — the lack of evidence for his grand claim of subversion.

He said the Budapest network targeted American conservatives to export a “postliberal” anti-capitalist vision of illiberal democracy for the U.S. – with policies that allow Russia and China to gain their own spheres of influence “while the U.S. recedes.”

This is wrong at every level.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

“Postliberalism” isn’t a trademark with one canonical meaning. It’s an umbrella term people use differently (Deneen, Natcons, Central European variants etc.).

I’m allowed to define how I’m using it; disagree all you want.

The definition doesn’t prove Hungary “subverted” U.S. conservative institutions. Contact ≠ capture. That’s my argument.

Can’t prove Patterson’s grand claim? No problem.

1⃣ Change the subject
Make it a referendum on postliberalism.

2⃣ Start term policing
Make the debate about which definition I’m allowed to use.

3⃣ Start tone policing
Make the debate about my “bad form” to discredit and delegitimize.

Rinse and repeat.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

I wrote about my time in Central Europe to share my firsthand experiences and challenge @McGillPatterson’s tale about a grand Hungarian plot to subvert American conservatism.

The ensuing exchange made two things clear:
1⃣ His claim remains unsubstantiated.
2⃣ His true project is collective moral condemnation – to malign and delegitimize those associated with Budapest.

X is a public forum where most people follow discussions silently. I’m writing for them.

I put considerable effort into structuring my responses so that they are clear, scannable, and hopefully interesting.📱

✍️ My writing voice is not a mystery.

There’s a long, Googleable record of my published writings and on-camera speaking that predates the existence of LLMs.

I don’t do sloppy, punctuation-free, highly reactive posts.

Precise, deliberate prose reads like AI to Patterson. That says enough about him (and if the em dash set him off, God save him).

This X account is small. My public record is not.

Here’s a recap of Patterson’s deflections when I pressed him to prove his grand claim of subversion:

➡️ Hyper-fixating on how I defined postliberalism
➡️ Trying to turn my thread into a referendum on postliberalism
➡️ Blaming Hungary for his inability to prove his claim
➡️ Rapid escalation into ad hominem — from implying I’m a dupe to accusing me of having a guilty conscience and telling me to shut up

Finally, I called out his indefensible use of “mercenaries” (the kind Machiavelli warned about) to vilify the people in and around the Budapest ecosystem.

He then accused me of being an AI account and blocked me.

📍This sequence shows that the Budapest subversion story was neither evidence-based nor in good faith.

The verdict came first. Everything else serves it.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

This is what I mean by the “verdict is already in.”

Patterson sees writers, academics, artists, and students in and around the Budapest intellectual circle as corrupt “mercenaries.”

This totalizing moral indictment shields him from the need to prove actual institutional subversion.

The Machiavelli passage defines “mercenaries” as faithless, self-interested, stipend-driven, and disloyal.

It doesn’t matter whether someone is:
✅ Curious
✅ Independent
✅ Searching
✅ Disillusioned
✅ Dissenting

He uses the “mercenary” category to flatten a whole class of people into the dangerous hirelings that Machiavelli associates with political decay and ruin.

💡This tweet exposes Patterson’s project for what it is.

Not an evidence-driven investigation, but an exercise in collective moral condemnation.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

Patterson keeps asserting quid pro quo while also conceding that he can’t show evidence for it.

He then treats this lack of evidence as confirmation that the Budapest network tried to subvert American conservatism.

🔎 Here’s what is happening:

His rhetoric treats the Budapest intellectual circle as inherently corrupt, and anyone associated with it as morally stained.

📍The verdict is already in.
The lack of proof is being made to serve it.

This is why proving actual subversion is unnecessary. No need to show conditional funding, editorial approval, mission drift, etc.

Guilt-by-association carries the whole charge.

This moral frame — anyone connected to Budapest is compromised — feeds his escalation into ad hominem.

➡️ “Meg, hang it up.”
This is a command to shut up and stop challenging him.

No I won’t.

Patterson made a serious allegation that cannot rest on inference, suspicion, and smears.

➡️ “You did your best at strawmanning.”


What did I straw man?

Trying to discredit me won’t change the fact that his claim is unsubstantiated.

➡️ “If you still have a guilty conscience, as I suspect you do, take it up with your spiritual director.”



Guilty about what?

By reading my mind, he decides that my refusal to accept his claim says something damning about me.

So now my persistence is not only inconvenient but also incriminating.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

No. You’re not a mind reader. You’re attributing a false motive to derail my argument.

And I’m refusing your bait.

Defining a term as it applies to a context doesn't mean language is arbitrary.

Patterson used “postliberalism” in the context of Orbán’s Budapest ecosystem – an alleged influence op to export the “Hungary model” to the American right.

Ignoring my argument (contact ≠ capture) and trying to relocate the debate to Deneen/Pappin shifts the focus away from the fact that Patterson's claim is unsubstantiated.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

I post a 14-tweet thread rebutting your guilt-by-association move from Budapest conferences/podcasts to U.S. conservative subversion, so you change the subject by fixating on how I defined postliberalism.

Postliberalism rejects liberalism’s market fundamentalism. Agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with my argument: contact ≠ capture.

Listing kooky things they said further proves what you’re doing → sliding from “I don’t like postliberals” to “therefore Hungary subverted the American right.”

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

In response to Patterson’s promo interview for his article, I said this:
“Contrary to Patterson’s claim, postliberalism isn’t a rejection of the U.S. Constitution or capitalism.”

He used the term “postliberalism” in the context of Orbán’s Budapest ecosystem — claiming it informs a grand influence operation to export the “Hungary model” abroad.

I also said postliberalism is context-bound.

In Central Europe, it does not mean a rejection of capitalism or the U.S. Constitution. Insisting that postliberalism there = anti-capitalism and anti-American founding is plain wrong.

Pappin doesn’t dictate how the Budapest ecosystem understands postliberalism.

I made no universal claims about postliberal thought.

Ultimately, none of this changes the fact that Patterson cannot substantiate his claim about subverting the American right.

[Phil Magness @PhilWMagness]

@megmhansen Your thread directly disputed the characterization of Deneen et al as anticapitalists and opponents of the american founding.

Are you walking that back now?

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

You’re turning my thread into a referendum on postliberalism, and trying to extract some sort of concession.

Stop talking about conferences/podcasts → capture
Start talking about whether Deneen/Pappin are anti-capitalist and anti-founding

This is unrelated to my argument.

There’s no evidence for contact → capture. So resorting to “they covered their tracks” and “postliberalism is evil” becomes the exit ramp.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

Quick backstory for context:

In early 2023, I was president of the Ethan Allen Institute in Vermont, a think tank which was then affiliated with @StatePolicy.

I had run for lieutenant governor in 2020 in a predominantly virtual campaign, battling the corrupt Democrat political machine and its petty, feckless GOP enablers.

I concluded that left-vs-right warfare is essentially a farce and not how power actually works in U.S. politics.

I was searching for new solutions.

With the exception of one week (5 episodes), I had watched every single @TuckerCarlson monologue on his Fox News show. His series on Hungary had intrigued me and I was open to learning about it.

When I happened upon an invitation to a book release event for Balázs Orbán (political director for the Hungarian prime minister), I took it as some sort of sign.

At the event, I spoke with Balázs Orbán and Gladden Pappin at length and briefly with Gavin Wax and Sohrab Ahmari. Those conversations led me to apply for the Budapest fellowship.

I am a Protestant. But I was curious enough about postliberalism, despite its Catholic integralist strain, to take it seriously.

Hold on... let’s define postliberalism.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

@PhilWMagness Calling it “poor form” is another deflection. Now it’s term policing, now it’s tone policing.

My argument isn’t about winning your definition fight.

It’s about whether Patterson can substantiate “subversion/capture” from conferences and paid deliverables. He can’t.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

“Postliberalism” isn’t a trademark with one canonical meaning. It’s an umbrella term people use differently (Deneen, Natcons, Central European usage etc.).

I’m allowed to define how I’m using it.

The definition doesn’t prove Hungary “subverted” U.S. conservative institutions.

Contact ≠ capture. That’s my argument and what Patterson’s article gets wrong.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

Disclosure requests aren’t a substitute for evidence. You can’t prove anything because all the evidence is apparently hidden.

So the absence of proof is the proof – making your theory unfalsifiable.

This only works on people who already believe your conclusion.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

You’ve shown contracts with paid deliverables.

You haven’t shown clauses requiring pro-Orbán framing, coordinated talking points, or editorial approval over what gets published.

Without those strings, this amounts to specific people getting paid to produce content.

For comparison: my Hungary Foundation fellowship required articles about my research and experiences, but there were no viewpoint constraints or editorial approval rights.

When my WSJ piece ran, Fidesz-aligned outlets pounced with bad-faith mischaracterizations of my views and motives. But there were no institutional consequences.

The Orbán media dogpile proves informal discipline: smears and delegitimization.

Your claim of subversion/capture implies formal discipline – institutional directives, approval power, penalties – which you can’t show.

[Meg Hansen @megmhansen]

@PhilWMagness All the worked-up replies are fixated on how I defined postliberalism.

Agree/disagree on postliberal economics – that has nothing to do with contact ≠ capture.

But ignoring my actual argument to litigate the label lets them link-dump prewritten takes, so here we are.