“`html 
Precisely how substantial of an antisemitism issue exists on the American right — and what, if anything, should be done to address it?
For over a year, certain conservative figures have privately worried about the patterns they’ve noticed among influencers and young conservatives who seem increasingly captivated by conspiracy theories that involve Jewish people – the most recent pertaining to the passing of Charlie Kirk.
Then, just last week, Politico detailed group chats among Young Republican leaders, in which those involved labeled an internal competitor a “fat stinky Jew” and constructed elaborate jokes concerning how they’d send other internal rivals “to the gas chamber.” Replying to a statement that one faction was vowing to vote for “the most right wing person,” a participant responded: “Great. I love Hitler.”
The group chat remarks sparked a fervent, days-long open debate among right-wing individuals. This discussion was less about the comments themselves, and more about their apparent substantiation of a trend that had long been a matter of whispers — the increasing acceptance of overt prejudice, specifically antisemitism — amongst young conservatives. “The group chat exposé,” conservative activist James Lindsay shared on X, “is just the visible part of a truly unpleasant problem.”
Critics claimed that prominent right-wing personalities had grown overly willing to disregard antisemitic expressions, convictions, and thinly veiled Nazi leanings.
“If you’re not pointing out the problematic figures, you’re essentially enabling them,” Seth Dillon, who founded the conservative satire website the Babylon Bee, posted on X. He also stated: “Everyone assumes I’m referencing the disclosed chat. However, this discussion extends far beyond just that chat.”
Others, conversely, answered by closing ranks and denying any existing issue. Vice President JD Vance conveyed his reluctance to “join the pearl clutching” concerning a “college group chat,” inaccurately referring to the participants as “kids” and “young boys.” This mirrors Vance’s successful endeavor to reinstate a DOGE staff member who was briefly terminated for posting content such as “normalize Indian hate.” In Vance’s perspective, what these individuals express is inconsequential – what holds importance is their association with his team.
Commentator Matt Walsh concurred, stating, “The Right doesn’t remain unified. That’s undoubtedly our biggest obstacle. Conservatives are quick to denounce each other, engage in pile-ons, disavow, and attack their allies.” He declared that the paramount objective was to stand as one against the left.
But united with whom, specifically? Is anyone who opposes the left embraced on the contemporary right — even if they also harbor animosity towards Jewish people? Or should limits be set against extremists — and, if such limits are necessary, how and where should they be implemented?
“What numerous individuals are finally beginning to comprehend,” conservative commentator Dave Reaboi penned, “is that most of the Right’s most outspoken voices have no reservations about Nazis.”
The “based ritual”
Antisemitism has historically been a significant aspect on the fringe platforms popular among young conservatives — for example, on forums like 4chan. However, it entered the public sphere during the infamous Charlottesville rally in 2017, where youthful white supremacists chanted “Jews will not replace us.”
Such inflammatory language has typically been deemed unacceptable within the mainstream GOP and the broader right – for instance, in 2023, the antisemitic personality Nick Fuentes was prohibited from attending the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Yet, this year, a number of influential figures on the right have issued grave warnings regarding the trends they observe among young conservatives, specifically including the GOP staff demographic.
In a piece from early September entitled “The Conservative Movement at a Crossroads,” right-wing advocate Christopher Rufo wrote that three formerly peripheral ideas — “racialism, anti-Semitism, and conspiracism” — now “appear to be infiltrating some segments of mainstream conservatism.” Rufo added that young GOP staffers had informed him that all three “have gained traction among their Gen Z colleagues in Washington.” Similar observations have been voiced by others on the right.
This is partly attributable to the emergence of a culture among young right-wingers wherein articulating extreme and offensive sentiments enhances one’s perceived coolness.
Earlier in the year, right-leaning commentator Richard Hanania termed this phenomenon the “Based Ritual,” crafting a fictional scenario where young MAGA staffers in Washington convened at a bar and competed to articulate the most outrageous statements concerning race, gender, and other topics. While the scenario was fabricated, Hanania — who has his own background of uttering extreme racist remarks, but has recently tempered his language and public image — wrote that, in his experience, “It’s genuinely as egregious as it seems.”
Hanania’s piece appeared to perfectly presage the tone of the leaked group chat (albeit in a more refined manner). Intolerance, rape, enslavement, white supremacist indicators, Hitler — these were no longer subjects considered taboo that all respectable individuals should denounce; they were amusing subjects to “joke” about. Or were they genuinely jokes?
How do you tackle a problem like right-wing influencers promoting conspiracy theories?
There are various explanations for this contemporary trend. Young conservatives are reacting against what they perceive as “woke” censorship, and Trump has contributed to making the GOP a welcoming environment for right-wingers who revel in defying conventions concerning race and identity – notably so this year, with Vance explicitly stating he’ll stand by you if your private prejudiced comments are made public.
However, another explanation emphasized by Rufo and others is that such expressions are no longer confined to anonymous message boards or personal discussions — they’ve been increasingly popularized by certain right-wing influencers.
Certain individuals, like Fuentes and those connected to the manosphere, are undeniably antisemitic, meaning they outright declare that Jewish people and Jewish influence are detrimental and that Hitler might not be so terrible. Fuentes had been prohibited from most major social media platforms for an extended period, but Elon Musk’s X reinstated his account the previous year.
And recently, at least, Fuentes’s audience has been growing. On the far-right video platform Rumble, Fuentes’s videos and livestreams — featuring titles like “EXPOSING the Jewish Control Matrix,” “The Definitive Approach to the ‘Jewish Question’,” “When will the scourge of Black MURDERERS end?,” and “It’s time for White People to UNITE” —now routinely garner hundreds of thousands of views, significantly more than they received the previous year.
But there are also figures, such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, whose commentary is not as extreme as Fuentes’s, but who have increasingly centered on criticizing Israel and promoting concepts regarding the Jewish state’s authority over US policymakers — and the world — that their critics believe are plainly antisemitic.
Carlson and Owens each had a falling out with a more conventional right institution — Carlson was terminated from Fox News in 2023, and Owens split from Ben Shapiro’s publication, the Daily Wire, in 2024 — and both became independent influencers who, inherently, grew more acutely attentive to what their audiences desired. What they both realized, it appears, is that there is a market for such content.
“The Internet rewards scandal, shock, and virality, and conspiracy theories benefit from increasing market demand,” Rufo wrote in March. “Candace Owens has never enjoyed greater popularity, converting each outrage and accusation into fresh views, followers, subscribers, and income.”
The Charlie Kirk conspiracy theory mess
The killing last month of the conserative podcaster, organizer, and influencer Charlie Kirk has turned into a distinct focal point within this division on the right.
Despite all known evidence suggesting that Kirk was killed by a lone young man without any proven affiliations with left-wing groups, many prominent conservatives — including Rufo — promptly resolved to attribute his killing to the “radical left” in general, utilizing this as justification to demand that the Trump administration take severe measures against left-leaning organizations.
However, inconveniently for their account, several leading right-wing influencers arrived at an alternative theory: perhaps Jewish people were responsible, fearing that Kirk was on the cusp of breaking ties with Israel.
To clarify: The notion that anyone besides Tyler Robinson had any involvement in Kirk’s killing is devoid of all evidence and is a textbook example of a conspiracy theory.
However, there was, in actuality, a multifaceted backstory regarding Kirk’s evolving views on Israel.
Kirk had long been a steadfastly pro-Israel conservative, which had earned him the animosity of Fuentes and his “groyper” followers. More recently, however, as the Gaza war persisted, Kirk acknowledged that the right-wing base was becoming increasingly divided regarding Israel. He saw his responsibility as maintaining the unity of the right’s coalition.
Carlson became a particular source of contention. As Kirk continued to feature Carlson at events for his group, Turning Point USA, he encountered criticism and strain from Republicans who felt Carlson had long surpassed the boundary into antisemitism. This increasingly irritated him.
“Just lost another huge Jewish donor,” Kirk privately texted allies in early September. “$2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker.” He added: “Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause.”
Just days later, Kirk was fatally shot. Consequently, among the Israel-critical right, suspicion rapidly spread that Kirk had been killed by supporters of Israel.
At Kirk’s memorial service, Carlson likened Kirk to Jesus, whom he stated was killed due to “a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus thinking about, ‘What do we do about this guy telling the truth about us? We must make him stop talking!’”
Owens has devoted her podcast to ostensibly attempting to ascertain the truth concerning Kirk’s killing, exploring various theories and alleged inconsistencies in authorities’ account. (Kirk’s texts regarding “Jewish donors” were leaked on her podcast, and Turning Points USA verified their authenticity.)
“Should we ever police our own?”
All of this was already brewing prior to the disclosed group chat bringing the subject to a head. Those on the right who consider these patterns a substantial issue have been at a loss regarding how to address it.
On a Daily Wire streaming show last week, Shapiro’s perspective that a growing problem exists on the right was directly opposed to Walsh’s view that the primary focus should remain on the left.
”I think that there are things that get said on the right that are really, really, really ugly and pretending those away doesn’t make them go away,” Shapiro said. “I think that they’re rising,” he continued. “To pretend that it has not infiltrated a lot of very important spaces, I think, is sort of whistling past the graveyard.”
“Tucker is a fraught topic for a lot of people, myself included,” Shapiro went on. But he proposed one potential litmus test: what if anyone “who won’t just buy into the basic factual idea” that Kirk was murdered by Tyler Robinson — who he called “a gay man who is a trans furry lover” — does not deserve “a leadership position” in the conservative movement?
Walsh wouldn’t bite. He made clear he didn’t believe in conspiracy theories about Kirk’s death, but: “Does that mean that anyone who feels differently should be drummed out of the movement? No, I don’t think so.” He went on: “That’s not up to us to decide anyway.”
“Should we ever police our own?” another participant in the discussion, Michael Knowles, asked. “I think the answer is obviously yes, there have to be guardrails.” But, he said, it should be done “very carefully.”
The problem, for those who believe this, is that many ways such a coalition is typically policed — firing people who say bigoted things, denouncing people with extreme views, “deplatforming” — are now widely viewed on the right as woke and lib-coded.
“This problem has no easy answer—certainly not digital censorship or criminalization of speech,” Rufo wrote in March. “The better approach involves patience: push back on anti-Semitic narratives and build an establishment capable of both garnering attention and enforcing boundaries of decency.” But that, it seems, is much easier said than done.
“`
Source: vox.com
