Politics Letter to a Coalition Purity tests and circular firing squads are not a way to achieve political goals. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images) My fellow brothers and compatriots of the vast right-wing conspiracy,  The world we inhabit today is not the one that shaped our parents’ politics. Once upon a time, the incentives for what a man said and what that speech did for him were roughly aligned. Respectable opinion was shaped in a handful of newspapers, cable networks, and journals that rewarded virtue signaling with social status. If you played the game right, spoke in the right tones, and condemned the right heresies, you could climb within that structure.  That world is gone. The information sphere has been democratized and weaponized. Algorithms now decide what matters. Moral outrage and emotional intensity are the currencies of attention. The megaphone belongs to whoever can shout the longest without getting banned. The result is a total reordering of political communication.  The discourse will never go back. No amount of strongly worded condemnations, National Review editorials, or digital handwringing will restore the old gatekeepers. The genie is out and he is enjoying his freedom.  For too long, the right mistook refinement for strength. We thought movements were won through white papers, purity tests, and correct rhetoric. That era is over. Principles matter, but not when they become suicide notes. Political movements are living organisms. They require flexibility, tolerance of imperfection, and an understanding that coalition beats consensus. We do not have to like everyone in the tent. We only have to recognize that survival depends on staying inside it together, even with that one guy who always says the wrong thing on Twitter.  Yes, chastise each other with reason. Dispute premises charitably. Maintain your standards of truth. But understand this: Moral fastidiousness is not a strategy. A movement obsessed with its own etiquette cannot govern, cannot defend itself, and cannot inspire. Look at the broad coalition that ultimately coalesced around Mamdani and his kind. At its core, you had an ideological left that speaks in the language of socialism, class conflict, redistribution, and intersectional grievance. Yet orbiting it are billionaires, legacy institutions, media conglomerates, and suburban moderates who would once have recoiled at the rhetoric.  They fell in line. Not because they agree with every plank, but because they understand the direction of power. They sense that history bends toward those who seize momentum, not those who write the best rebuttals. The left in America today is no longer the polite liberalism of the 1990s. It is capital-L Left, a fusion of cultural command, institutional discipline, and the will to use both that is so unique. The left’s uniform reverence for identity politics gives it what the right lacks: a shared moral grammar, however false, through which every institution can speak with one voice.   The right must evolve from complaint to coordination, from instinct to institution. We cannot rely on being correct in theory while losing in practice. If we are to survive this new information epoch, we must learn the lesson our opponents already mastered: that politics is downstream from coalition, and coalition is downstream from discipline.  This means fewer purity purges, fewer circular firing squads, fewer essays about what someone said wrong on a podcast. It means building real infrastructure, media that educates, capital that protects, communities that cooperate, and a moral core that can hold under pressure. The new world rewards those who can integrate chaos into strategy, those who can speak fluently across tribes, tolerate imperfection, and keep their eyes fixed on the horizon.  So yes, keep your principles. Keep your conscience. Keep your taste. But remember Franklin’s warning: we must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately. The age of genteel dissent is over. The age of reality has begun.  Know what time it is. And act accordingly. The post Letter to a Coalition appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Trump Must Look Beyond Gaza to the West Bank Trump promised that “Israel is not going to do anything with the West Bank,” but in fact he is allowing it to do everything it desires there short of formal annexation. “Move surprisingly and break dogmas” is not the stated foreign policy doctrine of the Trump administration—or is it? On the issue of Israel–Palestine, walking away from outdated, failed American foreign policy dogmas is long overdue. To what extent—and to what effect—is the Trump administration breaking away from those past failures? President Donald Trump has already accomplished (almost singlehandedly, it seems) an unexpected ceasefire in Gaza. In forcing an end to the war, he has not only saved precious lives, both Israeli and Palestinian, but also preempted further destabilization of the entire region. As the former senior adviser Jared Kushner recently described the president’s perspective, “He felt like the Israelis were getting a little bit out of control in what they were doing, and that it was time to be very strong and stop them from doing things that he felt were not in their long-term interests.” Clearly, what Kushner is discussing here are American long-term interests that were being jeopardized by “out-of-control” Israeli actions. Further, after initially floating the unconscionable idea of Gaza’s ethnic cleansing, the president now seems committed to its rebuilding: “No one will be forced to leave Gaza … We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.” This firmly denies Israeli aspirations not only to push Palestinians out of the Strip but also to settle there. Further still, Trump is ushering in the possibility of de facto international protection for Palestinians in Gaza—an idea so loathed by Israel, it would be unimaginable if not for Trump. From an American command post quickly established in the Israeli town of Kiryat Gat, the Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) is not quite like anything seen before in Israel–Palestine. For sure, it could end up as a glitzy copy/paste of Israel’s crude Coordinator of the Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), thus merely substituting one form of Palestinian subjugation with another. But it may develop into something entirely different: imposing unprecedented restrictions on Israeli military attacks in Gaza; replacing Israel’s decades-long blockade on Gaza with something humane; and bringing forward international forces never before seen in the Gaza Strip. In a reality in which one side—Israel—is so overwhelmingly stronger than the other—the Palestinians—introducing an effective international component was long seen as an essential step. For precisely this reason, Israel has always opposed “internationalizing the conflict.” Trump may very well cut right through that Israeli opposition. Still, barely a month into the ceasefire, perhaps better branded as Pax Trumpiana, one must write with caution. The reality on the ground remains dire and unstable; just during this nascent ceasefire, Israel has killed some 240 Palestinians in Gaza, bringing the war’s death toll to over 69,000. More than half of the Gaza Strip remains occupied by Israel, a reality that allows it to continue destroying whatever remains in the areas under its control while preventing Palestinians from even returning to the ruins of their homes and towns. Much of Gaza—81 percent of buildings according to the UN—remains destroyed or damaged, while hundreds of thousands remain homeless, displaced, or both. There is no way around these terrible facts. Nor should it be forgotten that much of this catastrophe was accomplished through Israeli policies greenlighted by Washington under Trump, Biden, and presidents before them, and implemented with American weapons and funding. None of these facts can or should be forgotten. But it should also not be missed that America might just have reached the conclusion that Israel’s war in Gaza, metastasizing all over the Middle East through “out-of-control” Israeli military actions, has become incompatible with American national security interests in the region, and that the Trump administration is now moving—surprisingly, effectively, and free of at least some of the past’s failed dogmas—in a new direction. Which must bring us from half-occupied Gaza to the fully occupied West Bank. Clearly, the Trump administration is already looking beyond the Strip. Not long into the ceasefire, the president stated in the clearest of terms that Israel’s long-sought annexation of the West Bank “won’t happen”. But in stating so Trump has so far limited himself to only forbidding de jure annexation while utterly ignoring the facts on the ground, both the reality that has taken shape over decades since 1967 as well as the developments unfolding under his watch. In reality, Israel already de facto annexed the West Bank decades ago. It is a one-state reality with a single sovereign—Israel, where Israeli citizens have full rights everywhere and Palestinians have fewer rights, if any at all, anywhere. Trump’s commitment to rejecting formal annexation does nothing to address the reality on the ground; but it gets even worse. Israeli aggression against Palestinian communities all over the West Bank—sometimes, correctly, dubbed as pogroms—is now at an all-time peak, according to UN data. With almost total impunity, Israeli settler militias, often indistinguishable from the Israeli army, raid Palestinian communities while setting homes, cars, and fields on fire, attacking defenseless residents, all with the aim of taking over more land and pushing Palestinians towards the more populated enclaves of the West Bank known as Area A and Area B. Community after community is forced to flee, as Israel gradually ethnically cleanses the 60 percent of the West Bank known as Area C. Often framed as “settler violence” this reality should be understood for what it is: Israeli state violence. The scope of this brutality is unprecedented, but the Trump administration has utterly reneged on even trying to halt this Israeli aggression. Contrary to Trump’s utterance that “Israel is not going to do anything with the West Bank,” he is in fact allowing it to do everything it desires there short of formal annexation. Which raises the question: Why does the Trump administration allow Israel to violently reshape the West Bank while forcefully displacing Palestinians there, ignoring the ominous risk this presents for unchecked escalation leading to renewed regional destabilization? If the Trump administration is serious about regional stability, it cannot continue to ignore the quite literal fires Israel is lighting all across the West Bank. One should also not miss the fact that there are those in Israel who consider such an outcome—a violent outbreak in the West Bank—a desirable prospect. In their minds, such an event may bring the possibility of displacing Palestinians not from one place to another within the West Bank, but to push Palestinians eastwards of the Jordan River into Jordan itself. Now that Trump has made it clear that the parallel idea—to push Palestinians southwards from the Gaza Strip into Egypt —is off the table, the motivation for such action in the West Bank hasn’t declined. Quite the opposite, in fact. Israel is still led by the same extremist government quite capable of acting “out of control”. Yet the support for permanent Israeli control over the entirety of the West Bank, without giving any rights to the millions of Palestinians there, is much broader than Israel’s current ruling coalition; it is a broad Israeli consensus. Broad as it may be, this consensus isn’t only cruel and inhumane, but also seeks to enshrine an inherently unjust and unstable reality—one bound to implode, with terrible consequences. It is a future foreseen, and it must be forestalled. Trump has already demonstrated in Gaza his ability to (belatedly) move fast and break dogmas. He should now do so in the West Bank as well. I am neither an American nor a conservative. I’m an Israeli citizen advocating, from a human rights perspective, for a just future for all people, Israeli and Palestinian, living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. As such, I deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it were. I do not pretend to represent American interests or to understand them better than Americans do. I wrote this piece because of the shameful reality of violent Palestinian subjugation in the West Bank—and because I believe that there is a serious foreign policy argument to be made for the Trump administration to extend its novel approach to the region beyond Gaza. I hope someone is listening; otherwise we’re simply counting backwards not just towards the next Palestinian home being torched, but towards the next regional war. The post Trump Must Look Beyond Gaza to the West Bank appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Exploiting MAGA Sentiments to Back Nigerian Intervention A U.S. war would likely make things even worse for Christians in the West African country. (CARLOS BARRIA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) Nigeria, a country few Americans can locate on a map, may be our next foreign intervention. The Trump administration has recently taken a keen interest in the West African country, lamenting the atrocities committed against local Christians. “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,” President Donald Trump declared in a Truth Social post. The Department of War has drawn up plans for a military response. The options discussed include air strikes on Islamic militants and even deploying troops to work alongside the Nigerian military. But no vital American interest is at stake, and the humanitarian argument for intervention collapses when one considers the results of prior military misadventures.  The administration’s openness to intervention earned high praise among MAGA influencers and commentators. Any skepticism of foreign intervention has been cast aside to cheerlead yet another proposed war. There’s even less skepticism or criticism over this move than there was over the administration’s decision in June to bomb Iran. That’s because advocates found a powerful way to sell this intervention: Christian solidarity. Ordinary conservatives will pay attention if Christians are attacked for their faith in another part of the world. It’s understandable that they would be bothered by this and want it to end. It’s especially potent thanks to MAGA’s embrace of “Christian nationalism.” Intervention advocates know that a religiously-themed appeal will win over a base that is otherwise skeptical of foreign adventures. But it violates the spirit of America First to pursue an African intervention on dubious grounds. The last thing we need is to create another quagmire in the Third World. Africa is a brutal place, and history shows we’re unlikely to solve the problem. We shouldn’t allow a suspicious exploitation of faith to dictate military action. The plight of Nigeria’s Christians has garnered sympathy and attention from evangelical circles for a while. But the issue was popularized this year after neoconservatives decided to adopt it as a talking point to refute concerns over Gaza. If you’ve spent time on the conservative parts of X over the past few months, you’ve seen see pro-Israel conservatives point to Nigeria as a way to criticize Tucker Carlson and other Israel skeptics who, according to their critics, focus monomaniacally on the plight of Palestinians while ignoring the suffering of other groups. The posts listed below illustrate the discourse over Nigeria and why neocons became so invested in it: Wow! @TuckerCarlson finally acknowledged the extermination of Christians in Nigeria. Only problem? He used it as an excuse to attack Israel.So, Tucker, you want to know what makes Israel different? Here's how Christians fare in Nigeria:? 185,009 people killed in religiously… https://t.co/WHngmS6Y4o pic.twitter.com/7bXCzANJXN— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) November 3, 2025 Civilian Christians are being massacred in Nigeria by Jihadists ?Anyone cares? EU? UN? Macron? Starmer? Tucker?Nobody cares. No Jews, no news.pic.twitter.com/4CYFM80FsC— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) September 26, 2025 Thousands of Nigerian Christians are being mass-slaughtered by Islamists in Nigeria.Candace Owens? Silent.Owen Shroyer? Silent.Tucker Carlson? Silent.Ana Kasparian? Silent.The media? Silent. pic.twitter.com/L8IwTkIobn— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 31, 2025 The lawmaker most keen on intervention has been none other than Ted Cruz, the Texas senator eager to present himself as a throwback Republican and alternative to the Tucker Carlson wing of MAGA. Cruz is almost certainly positioning himself in preparation for another presidential run. Trump became convinced of the need to get involved in Nigeria thanks to a Fox News segment. It testifies to the power the online sphere has over the current administration. A talking point becomes popular among conservative influencers on X and then translated into Fox News coverage. That coverage influences the president and then becomes policy. This process has led to many positive things in the administration, such as granting refugee status to Afrikaners and drawing attention to the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska. But a possible Nigerian intervention is one of the negative results. Experts, such as retired Maj. General Paul D. Eaton, warn that an intervention would be a “fiasco.” Hudson Institute fellow James Barnett, who lived and studied in Nigeria for several years, argues that it’s wrong to frame the nation’s conflict as explicitly anti-Christian as it “badly distorts the complicated and tragic reality on the ground.” “Shaping U.S. policy around such distortions, especially when U.S. troops may be put in harm’s way, will not yield good outcomes,” he argues in a Washington Post op-ed. Barnett also notes that many countries, including U.S. allies, discriminate against Christians, yet it’s broadly understood the national interest would be ill-served by invading them. “A military intervention premised on the wrong diagnosis would not save Nigerian Christians. It would only deepen Nigeria’s troubles while drawing the U.S. into a set of conflicts it is not equipped to solve,” Barnett concludes. A Nigerian adventure would undermine the administration’s realist approach to foreign policy in favor of discredited humanitarian interventionism. Realism, as espoused by Trump, puts the national interest first. It looks at the world with clear eyes and doesn’t succumb to moral blackmail. It understands that the world is a nasty place and America can’t solve every problem. Humanitarian interventionism, on the other hand, demands America get involved in every single problem based on emotion rather than facts.  We intervened in Somalia, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere based in large part on humanitarian arguments. America was supposed to make these countries safer and protect minorities from oppression. Instead, our interventions turned local crises into humanitarian nightmares and demonstrated we can’t solve these issues. We, in fact, made them worse. Take for instance what happened to Iraqi Christians following Operation Shock and Awe in 2003: Thousands of them were murdered and over a million fled the country. One of the oldest Christian populations in the world now stands close to extinction. It’s unlikely intervention in Nigeria will be any different from these past failures. It’s legitimate for Trump to use diplomacy to persuade Nigeria to protect its Christian population. The admin could argue the military threats are simply a way to pressure the African state to do more. But the issue is that conservative influencers seem fully on board with a military strike. They love that rapper Nicki Minaj endorsed Trump’s proposal for intervention and eagerly share the admin’s threatening videos aimed at Nigeria. Trump may not be as serious as he seems about going in “guns-a-blazing,” but too many conservatives are thrilled with the idea regardless of the president’s intent. This illustrates the possibility that MAGA could be exploited to back another Iraq-style intervention, if it’s sold in the right way. With Nigeria, portraying it as a crusade to save Christians was enough for people to forget about our failed interventions and America First principles. While the violence in Nigeria is awful, history has shown America can’t solve these problems. Its interventions often make things worse for the people it tries to protect. Diplomacy is fine, but military strikes aren’t—unless a vital American interest is at stake. MAGA was a response to conservative failures and the need for something new. The movement is supposed to learn from those failures, not repeat them. The post Exploiting MAGA Sentiments to Back Nigerian Intervention appeared first on The American Conservative.

Bat-Fam follows Bruce Wayne as Batman, his young son Damian Wayne as Little Batman, and butler Alfred Pennyworth after the events of the film Merry Little Batman. The series centers on their adjustment to life at Wayne Manor with three new housemates who join the household unexpectedly. As they navigate family dynamics, the group bands together to safeguard Gotham City from threats including the Joker, Riddler, Killer Croc, and other villains. Bat-Fam Review COMING SOON PARENTAL NOTES COMING SOON WOKE REPORT COMING SOON  The post Bat-Fam (season 1) first appeared on Worth it or Woke.

Theodore Roosevelt Jumps Out of the Pages in Bret Baier's Newest Book

Europe Shows What Happens When Imported Blood Feuds Warp Western Politics

Democrats Are Evil, Not Stupid

Veterans Day: The Holiday Whose Time has Come

Canaries in Democrats’ Coalmine

End the Filibuster and Save America