In the latest example of media double standards and ideological overreach, New Yorker staff writer Doreen St. Félix has deleted her X account after decades-old posts with blatant anti-white rhetoric were unearthed. The social media scrub followed backlash over her recent article in The New Yorker where she took aim at actress Sydney Sweeney, describing her as an “Aryan Princess” and criticizing her American Eagle denim campaign.

This controversy erupted after the August 2 publication of St. Félix’s article, which accused Sweeney of embodying a dangerous cultural archetype due to her race and appearance. The campaign in question, built around the pun “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,” became a lightning rod for progressive critics who chose to read into it coded messaging about race, genetics, and American identity.

In the article, St. Félix offered a scathing assessment: “The allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings, and we don’t have to search for long: genes, referring to Sweeney’s famously large breasts; genes, referring to her whiteness.” She went on to describe the campaign as a “zombie slop of mustangs, denim, and good genes,” concluding that the ad sought to present Sweeney as a kind of “Aryan princess” to a supposed army of reactionary admirers.

Critics of the piece argued that this wasn’t cultural criticism — it was a racially charged hit job masquerading as journalism. Many found the term “Aryan princess” particularly inflammatory, given its historical associations with Nazi propaganda.

Shortly after the article gained traction, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo brought attention to St. Félix’s own troubling history of racially inflammatory posts. In a series of posts to his 800,000 followers on X, Rufo showcased old tweets from St. Félix, many of which contained overtly racist rhetoric against white people. One 2014 post read: “I hate white men. You all are the worst. Go nurse your f—— Oedipal complexes and leave the earth to the browns and the women.”

Another resurfaced statement claimed that “white capitalism” is the “reason the earth is in peril,” and yet another alleged that white people are “genetically predisposed to causing plagues.” The content of these posts drew immediate outrage from social media users across the political spectrum — though, predictably, the loudest silence came from the legacy media itself.

In response to the exposure, St. Félix deleted her X account without comment. Rufo noted the disappearance, writing: “Doreen St. Félix, the New Yorker writer who says that white people ‘fill [her] with a lot of hate’ and believes that whites are genetically predisposed to causing plagues, has deleted her account.”

Even more disturbingly, when Rufo demanded that The New Yorker respond and hold their staff writer accountable, the magazine blocked him on the platform. This move, while subtle, spoke volumes. The publication, long considered a bastion of liberal thought, appeared unwilling to reckon with the overt racism in its own ranks — especially when it flows in a direction the progressive establishment finds politically convenient.

To date, neither St. Félix nor The New Yorker has issued a public statement or apology regarding the posts. Their silence has only fueled criticism from conservatives and free speech advocates who see this as a clear double standard. Had a writer from a right-leaning publication tweeted similar remarks about any other racial group, the mainstream media would likely be in full-scale moral panic mode — and calls for resignation or cancellation would be swift and relentless.

Instead, the story has been mostly ignored by major outlets. This incident not only reveals a deep hypocrisy in how our media class treats race and rhetoric, but it also underscores the widening credibility gap between elite media institutions and the American public. When so-called cultural critics launch racially motivated attacks and are protected rather than held accountable, it becomes clear that the ideological rot runs deep.

St. Félix’s case is not just about one writer’s poor judgment — it’s about the institutional bias that allows and even rewards this kind of behavior when it aligns with the acceptable narrative. The question now is whether any accountability will come, or if the story will simply be memory-holed in hopes that Americans forget what was said — and by whom.