It’s pretty simple guys. No, every criticism of Israel is not due to antisemitism. But most are. You can lie to yourself and say they are so incredibly evil if that makes you feel better about your life, but when you compare the reality of their government, their policies, and their society as a whole against other nations, few are any better. That’s reality whether you like it or not.

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.