🎯 I’m working overnight to update our @FoxNews Digital story on the transnational network behind the chaos in France. You must understand the red-green alliance fueling the protests and fires in France, because then you will understand the network’s reach inside your country and your community. foxnews.com/world/behind-fra…

Correct. No two former Presidents have done more to foment anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-pjihadist sentiment in the US than Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.

What irks me about antisemites the most isn't their deplorable beliefs, it's that their fine being absolute losers They're so demoralized they adopt the beliefs of peasants and third-worlders just to spite their own society. They want everyone as miserable as they are

The Hazony approach seems to be: 1. Invite antisemites and bigots to speak at NatCon while pretending that they aren't bigots. 2. When the guests complain, hector them about how it's counterproductive to denounce antisemitism and bigotry. 3. When the media notices and you get a bunch of bad press, claim that there's a conspiracy afoot to smear your conference for being infested with bigots. 4. Wait for one of those bigots to say something really outrageous on his podcast, then feign shock at this "discovery" as if you had no idea about it when he spoke at NatCon. 5. Forget all of that 5 minutes later, announce next year's NatCon, and reinvite the same speakers headline it as if nothing happened.

Hi French people 👋 How about you fight to defend your country before surrendering, for a change?

Here’s the problem I have with people who look at what’s happening in France and fail to realize that it’s partly due to this new attitude where we pretend like Israel committed genocide, slaughtered babies, and controls the world for sport. You can’t look at what’s happening in France, and not connect it to the greater civilization battle that Israel has been fighting since its inception. The inversion of morality as it relates to the only Jewish state will continue to carry over into society and culture because there’s a reason that you keep seeing Palestinian flags being flown in France next to the fire and brimstone. You have a culture that does not value human life, and that thinks barbarism is the way to 40 virgins and a mule or whatever I don’t know. Whereas you have another culture that has the upmost respect for human life. That’s why they didn’t nuke the people who tried to commit another Holocaust against them on October 7th.

Q: If Arabs are from Arabia, why is Arabic spoken all over the Middle East and North Africa, where there have been millions of African slaves since the 7th century? A: What is Arab imperialism, enslavement, colonialism?

אני מכתיר את סרטון הבחירות הזה כסרטון הכי טוב ואפקטיבי שנוצר אי-פעם. סחטיין ליוצרים. צפו ושתפו.

You gotta take a listen to this Lebanese Christian man in Israel. Loving life. Listen to his message and spread the word

This is quite the admission. The other thing I took from this is that the progressive is window dressing for the Islam.

Holy crap. Someone actually defended me for once. And well. Thanks, Barbie!!

Here’s what I find telling about this James Lindsay pile-on: the argument about the direction of the right is getting buried under an argument about whether the man questioning it deserves to have a career. Michael Anton’s response actually says Lindsay’s conduct “ought to be career ending.” That is a hell of a response to have about the mild criticism from James while they refuse to call out or distance themselves from some truly disgusting people on the “right.” My concern with Matthew J. Peterson’s NatCon argument—and the media and think tank crowd defending this political realignment—is not that they disagree with James. It is the way legitimate questions about antisemitism and ideological manipulation get reframed as attempts to sabotage their coalition. Peterson’s speech explicitly argues that remnants of the old Republican establishment are using accusations of antisemitism to undermine the emerging right. He concludes that the central question is “not antisemitism or podcasters,” but the changing political landscape and the future of American/Israeli relations. Having a legitimate grievance does not make you immune to propaganda. Neither does calling yourself conservative. That is the standard I want applied here. What is being said? Who is actively promoting it? What are they defending? And are they applying the same standards to their political allies that they demand from everyone else? Instead, look at the reaction in this screenshot. Will Chamberlain promotes the accusation that Lindsay smeared Amanda Milius over a photograph. Mollie Hemingway celebrates Anton’s response. The personal fight takes center stage. The substance of the argument disappears. Anton disputes Lindsay’s interpretation of the speech, but Anton also acknowledges that he had not watched or read Milius’s speech. His rebuttal of the photograph allegation therefore does not settle the separate question of what that speech argued or downplayed, which he can’t accurately opine about because he did not even listen to the speech. He’s just blindly supporting Milius and condemning James because James threatened someone within “his” ecosystem. They will claim I am doing the same, simply because I disagree with them. They won’t read my words and respond to their merits. They will label me as a provocateur trying to disrupt their movement, as they have James, and completely ignore the substance. I do not have to defend every Lindsay post to insist that the underlying questions still get answered. Now compare that with Wade Miller’s response in the screenshot: encourage people to avoid the summits until the situation is “dealt with,” then put other speakers on the spot about whether they condone Lindsay’s behavior. That extends the pressure to people who did not make the comments. Their willingness to participate becomes a loyalty test. Peterson’s own NatCon speech condemns guilt by association and demands for denunciations as tactics of the left. Good. Apply that objection when the person being targeted is James Lindsay, too. Spare me the selective principles. These media and think tank personalities do not get to present themselves as the future of conservatism and then expect their arguments, public defenses, and editorial choices to be exempt from scrutiny. And I am not interested in a movement where protecting the coalition becomes more important than examining what the coalition is willing to tolerate. Call Lindsay wrong where he is wrong, but stop treating a fight over his behavior as a substitute for answering the criticism. If your coalition can tolerate excuses for antisemitism but cannot tolerate scrutiny of those excuses, the problem is not James Lindsay’s tone… It is your standards.

I listened to @yhazony discuss my critique of the NatCon conference in Jerusalem with @willchamberlain. Yoram repeatedly mischaracterizes my position. A few corrections are in order. 1. Yoram claims that I am against JD Vance. This is simply false. He offers no evidence because he has none. I am a Trump supporter. Yoram, by contrast, is a Vance partisan. He all but admits it. Trump has two more years in office, and Yoram is already campaigning for his successor. Personally, I intend to make up my mind about the 2028 election in 2028. Today, the United States and Israel are fighting a war together against Iran. Yoram, however, is engaged in a bigger conflict: the war against John Locke. He dreams of the intellectual revolution that a Vance presidency might bring. 2. Yoram's dismissive treatment of the Declaration of Independence is bad history. Its contemporary political implications are worse. His effort to read Locke out of the American founding threatens to divide the grand coalition that Trump has assembled. In his conversation with Chamberlain, Yoram casts himself as the great unifier, dismayed, more in sorrow than in anger, by schismatics like me who insist on picking petty and unnecessary fights. It's a clever debating tactic, but it conceals the nature of his own project. He is the one calling on conservatives to choose sides in an intellectual civil war partially of his making. 3. I have had reservations about NatCon in the past, but kept them to myself. I shifted that posture do to NatCon's failure to confront Groyper antisemitism directly. Yoram has failed to grasp the gravity of the historical moment. We are witnessing an extraordinary resurgence of antisemitism, including on the American right. This antisemitism is a dagger not just at Jews but at the United States in general and at the Trump coalition in particular. It has domestic partisans and malign foreign supporters. I have never seen anything like it. Yoram's gut reaction to this wave is to rake the ADL over the coals for its liberalism. His current pose, suggesting that Tucker Carlson's departure from the Republican coalition turns the Groyper threat into yesterday's news, is just that, another rhetorical maneuver masquerading as an argument. The threat does not disappear because Yoram and his friends declare it politically inconvenient or safely behind us. 4. Yoram brands me a "liberal" because I insist that John Locke is part of the American founding. This is funny. It's like insisting that hydrogen is not a component of water. When I point out the error, Yoram denounces me as a partisan of hydrogen. Recognizing Locke's influence on the founding is not an ideological confession. It's a well-grounded historical observation. 5. Yoram has constructed a highly idiosyncratic account of intellectual history in which Edmund Burke stands in fundamental opposition to John Locke. But on many of the great political questions of their age, the two men stood on the same side, making different kinds of arguments in defense of a broadly shared tradition. The differences in emphasis between them do not require us to choose one and repudiate the other. We stand on the shoulders of both. We are heirs to a grand tradition that both helped shape. I am a "supporter" of Burke and Locke simultaneously, just as I am a "supporter" of both hydrogen and oxygen. I see no reason to choose between the essential components of something valuable that exists regardless of what attitude I adopt toward it. Yoram presents himself as the champion of conservative unity. But he is the one drawing artificial lines of division, imposing ideological tests, and treating those who reject his idiosyncratic categories as enemies. Yoram is the divider.

Sinwar and all his followers are dead forever—they chose death and were defeated—but the victors, the people of Israel live: “Am Yisrael Chai.” 🇮🇱 Shabbat Shalom from Tel Aviv.

“Gate keeping” Bahaha, it’s called sticking to truth when collectivist liars arrive in one’s party, intent on turning ppl away fr individualism (eq under law, right to life/lib/prop) under the guise of “the greater good!” We see you, shithead. Crawl back in your greasy DC hole.

Thanks for your concern, Obama, but here’s a gallery of Israel recapturing the “moral high ground,” marked on maps as “Mount Hermon,” overlooking Syria & Lebanon. For a state, level 1 of “moral high ground” is whatever actual topographical high ground lets it defend its people.

Эту девушку зовут Илан. Она офицер Голани. На её базу ворвались террористы. Она руководила боем с первых минут. Она знала, что силы, которые спешат на помощь, в первую очередь будут искать и освобождать гражданских. Она сопротивлялась боевикам 4 часа, пока ее солдаты и она сама не оказались в ловушке. Их помещение было закидано гранатами и загорелось. Ей удалось найти способ выбраться, позвать на помощь и спасти ещё около 70 воинов. Октябрь 07.10.23-го.

I don’t know, starting to look like leaving the ayatollah/IRGC regime intact was a mistake 🤔 Maybe stopping Operation Rising Lion and cussing Israel out wasn’t such a good idea. 😐

They tried to take down NAZA: The Real Story. They failed. This morning, the Israeli documentary production was temporarily taken offline following a coordinated campaign by radical Islamist groups. Apparently, exposing what happened in Gaza and backing it up with evidence was a little too inconvenient. Unfortunately for them, the film is now back online. 🎬 Join the millions who've already watched. See for yourself: nazadocumentary.com/film