Musk has been increasingly open about using his ownership of Twitter as simply a tool to champion his own political ideals, and those ideals seem to skew pretty far right.
I would concede that on social matters the government does lean conservative, and is not as liberal as one would expect, but in many ways, that is an indictment of current society, and a part of life, that I don't see changing in the near term (25 years or so).
The social fabric of a nation is intrinsic to it's continued stable existence. Mass upheaval in a short duration is dangerous for the continued improvement of welfare of the people. So, it can be argued that preventing mass change demographics is a part of the duties of the government. [2]
[1] See central government schemes like Jal Shakti, LPG subsidy, Urea Subsidy etc
[2] This is a subjective opinion, but imo mass immigration is dangerous, and recent examples in Europe do demonstrate the dangers of sudden changes in demographics. At the same time, diversity is important, and so is immigration by _skilled_ professionals, with the eventual transfer of skills (and technology) to native (for whatever value of native) people.
If your government does not stand up for your country, who else will?
First, I said they were 'ethnic nationalists', which is not about a country but about an 'enthnicity', in this case Hindus. Inside their own country, they 'stand up for' Hindus ...
Second, that phrase, 'stand up for', misrepresents nationalism in the most serious way. Here's the Oxford English Dictionary's defintion of nationalism:
Advocacy of or support for the interests of one's own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination.
Whereas patriotism usually refers to a general sentiment, nationalism now usually refers to a specific ideology, esp. one expressed through political activism. In earlier use, however, the two appear to have been more or less interchangeable.
Nationalism includes discrmination against others, in Modi's case against Muslims and other non-Hindus. 'We're superior' inevitably leads to rationalizing harming others; it's been responsible for much of the worst of humanity - millions dead, over and over, including in India's post-colonial history. Allied leaders in WWII, including Churchill, though it was a leading cause of that war. We can already see violence and opression against Muslims in India - we can't wait to see if this time will be different.
That's why universal human rights is so essential. It says we stand not for ourselves, not for our superiority, but for our equality. It says people in India of every religion, and people elsewhere, have the same rights and are fundamentally equal in their value.
Spending also ballooned under Trump and Trump is most definitely not a socialist (aside from socializing losses) (spending increased *before* the pandemic).
And yeah, when incentives are available, why wouldnt he take them? It's the same way people who advocate for higher tax don't choose to donate more money to the government.
I could keep going but you get the idea. To be clear, I have no problem with him or any company accepting the money but this isn't "contracts with the government to provide services."
Their data includes upstanding examples of Conservatism such as The American Nazi Party. I kid you not. There's a bunch of accounts in their set where you can have a reasonable discussion about where the limits should be, but tons of them are literal actual self-described Nazis. There's an overview at e.g. [2].
So yes, colour me sceptical on these types of claims.
[1]: https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw...
[2]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quillette#Banning_Neo-Nazis_is...