Uncategorized
The Antisemitism Mainstreaming Pipeline — and Why Ben Shapiro Drives It Crazy
Tucker Carlson speaks on first day of AmericaFest 2025 at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona, Dec. 18, 2025. Photo: Charles-McClintock Wilson/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Antisemitism rarely introduces itself honestly. For much of its history, it has tried to initially arrive in disguise — entering public life not as overt Jew-hatred, but as something designed to appear as a concern about public welfare, power, influence, corruption, or social decay.
In medieval Europe, it appeared through the blood libel — the accusation that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes. During the Bubonic Plague pandemic, it surfaced in charges that Jews poisoned wells. By the 19th century, the accusation adopted a modern vocabulary: hostility toward “cosmopolitan financiers” or shadowy bankers manipulating nations. The 20th century refined the charge further, replacing superstition with ideology — Jews recast as “rootless elites,” global conspirators supposedly undermining civilization.
In the 21st century, the costume has changed again. Antisemitism now frequently arrives wrapped in language generally treated as respectable: “only criticizing” Israel, denunciations of globalization, or warnings about corrupt “elites” controlling Western institutions.
The rhetoric evolves. The structure does not. Ideas that begin on the fringe migrate into respectable conversation until what once sounded extreme begins to feel familiar.
What has changed is the speed — and the machinery.
In earlier centuries antisemitic conspiracies spread through pamphlets and fringe publications. Today they move through podcasts, YouTube channels, and broadcast platforms hosted by personalities who insist they are merely facilitating debate or “just asking questions.”
The result is the antisemitism mainstreaming pipeline: a system through which fringe ideas gain legitimacy simply by appearing on platforms with massive audiences and ostensibly respectable hosts.
Few figures illustrate this more clearly than Piers Morgan, Megyn Kelly, and Tucker Carlson.
Each presents himself or herself as a champion of open discourse. Each insists controversial guests deserve a hearing and that viewers can judge for themselves. In theory, that sounds like a commitment to free speech. In practice, it functions as a laundering mechanism — moving conspiratorial narratives rooted in Jew-hatred into mainstream discussion.
The pattern is now familiar. A guest known for trafficking in conspiracy theories appears on a widely viewed show. The host frames the claims as legitimate debate. Clips spread to millions. Later the host insists that interviewing someone does not imply endorsement.
By then the damage is done. The narrative has already escaped the fringe ecosystem that produced it.
Consider Piers Morgan’s program. Morgan insists he is moderating debate. Yet his guest list regularly includes figures whose currency is outrage and antisemitic tropes.
Dan Bilzerian has claimed that Israel controls American politics and global media while warning of “Jewish supremacy” as the world’s “greatest danger.” Nick Fuentes traffics openly in conspiracies about Jewish power and Western decline. On the far-left, commentators such as Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian have repeatedly echoed barely updated versions of Henry Ford’s “Jews control America” trope.
On Morgan’s stage these claims sit beside legitimate commentary as though they deserve equal footing.
The result is not scrutiny. It is normalization.
Megyn Kelly’s approach is subtler, but no less revealing. Her program often frames controversial ideas within broader critiques of elite hypocrisy and institutional decay. Within that frame, conspiracy theories about hidden networks slip into discussion disguised as cultural criticism.
Kelly has even suggested that figures such as avowed Hitler-fan Nick Fuentes raise “good points,” illustrating how fringe rhetoric — and the people advancing it — enter mainstream discourse.
She has also portrayed criticism from Ben Shapiro as evidence that he only criticizes her because he objects to her willingness to criticize Israel.
Yet when Shapiro criticized Kelly, Israel was never mentioned.
His objection concerned her embrace of figures such as Candace Owens, who has promoted grotesque conspiracy theories — including the claim that Erika Kirk was complicit in her husband’s murder.
Rather than address that criticism, Kelly reframed the dispute as one about her being “critical of Israel.”
The maneuver is telling. When antisemitic narratives are challenged in this pipeline, those in the pipeline seek to shift focus away from the claim and toward the motives of the person objecting to it. The implication becomes that the Jewish critic is acting out of tribal loyalty — shielding Israel rather than confronting falsehood.
In other words, the argument moves from “is this conspiracy true?” to “why is this Jew objecting?”
That shift is not incidental. It is the point.
Tucker Carlson represents the most advanced stage of the pipeline.
During his time at Fox, Carlson cultivated a narrative in which Western civilization faces existential danger from shadowy elites and corrupt institutions. Earlier versions avoided explicit references to Jews, relying instead on the language of globalism and hidden influence.
Once he left Fox, the euphemisms started to disappear.
His guest list expanded to include figures who openly promote antisemitic conspiracies or offer revisionist interpretations of 20th-century history designed to soften — or outright invert — the moral verdict on Nazi Germany.
Each appearance serves the same purpose: the guest gains legitimacy simply by sharing a stage with a host whose audience numbers in the millions.
None of these hosts need to identify as antisemites for the pipeline to function. The mechanism is normalization. Morgan does not need to repeat Bilzerian’s rhetoric, and Carlson does not need to echo his guests’ most grotesque claims. Ideas once confined to the fringe become more mainstream because they are repeated in supposedly respectable settings.
The host maintains plausible deniability. The guest gains reach, credibility, and a larger audience.
This helps explain why Ben Shapiro has become such a lightning rod.
Shapiro occupies a rare position in American public life: openly Jewish, unapologetically pro-Israel, firmly rooted in conservative politics, and consistently condemning antisemitism from both the far right and the far left.
That combination disrupts several narratives at once.
For elements of the populist right, his prominence challenges the notion that conservatism must purge Jewish influence. For the radical left, he is not a complication but a confirmation — evidence used to reinforce their claims about Zionism, power, and Western alignment. What unsettles both sides, however, is not his identity but his refusal to indulge their premises.
He does not debate conspiracy. He rejects it.
When Shapiro criticizes media figures for platforming such narratives, the response follows a predictable script. Rather than address his argument — or confront the conspiracy itself — critics claim he is reacting to their “criticism of Israel.”
The maneuver is clever. It is also pure deflection.
The facts do not cooperate. In these exchanges Shapiro almost never mentions Israel. His criticism targets the decision to give enormous platforms to voices promoting dangerous and false conspiracies, including those about Jewish power or hidden networks controlling world events.
Within hours, that accurate criticism is reframed as an attempt to silence dissent.
Shapiro’s conduct, however, is far less dramatic. He criticizes hosts he believes are behaving irresponsibly and declines invitations to appear on their shows. That is not censorship. It is editorial judgment.
And that is where the conflict sharpens. Because the pipeline depends on participation. It requires credible voices to sit across from conspiracists, to treat the exchange as meaningful debate, and to lend legitimacy through proximity.
Shapiro refuses.
That refusal is not incidental to the feud with Morgan, Kelly, and Carlson — it is the feud.
It exposes the gap between what these platforms claim to be doing and what they are really doing. If this were simply open inquiry, the absence of one guest would not matter. But when the model depends on staging spectacle between credibility and conspiracy, refusal becomes disruption.
And that leads us to the real question at the center of this fight: will platforms that profit from outrage, clicks, and the steady elevation of the worst ideas continue to drag the public square downward — or will enough people will simply stop showing up for the performance?
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, and Jewish history. He serves on the board of Herut North America.
Uncategorized
Far-Left, Anti-Israel Candidates Flop in Illinois Congressional Races
Kat Abughazaleh (D-IL) participates in a door knocking event while campaigning for the 2026 Illinois Democratic primary election in Evanston, Illinois, US, March 14, 2026. Abughazaleh is running for Congress in Illinois’ 9th district. Photo: REUTERS/Jim Vondruska
A series of Democratic primary contests in Illinois on Tuesday delivered a decisive setback to progressive candidates aligned with the party’s left flank, underscoring the continued strength of more moderate voices and signaling potential limits to the electoral appeal of anti-Israel messaging within the party.
Across multiple congressional districts throughout the midwestern state, candidates backed by prominent progressive and anti-Israel groups failed to gain traction with voters, losing to opponents who emphasized pragmatism, coalition-building, and a more traditional Democratic policy agenda. The results mark what some observers are calling a sweeping defeat for the “Squad”-aligned movement in one of the country’s largest Democratic strongholds.
In Illinois’ 9th District, left-wing challenger Kat Abughazaleh was defeated by Daniel Biss, another progressive candidate with experience in local governance and a more moderate position on Israel, by a margin of 4 points. Notably, Abughazaleh, who is of Palestinian descent, repeatedly accused Israel of committing a “genocide” in Gaza and vowed to vote against additional US aid to the Jewish state. Biss, who is Jewish and an Israeli-American, issued criticism of Israel’s military operations in Gaza but refused to accuse the country of “genocide.” Biss has also expressed admiration for the country and its people despite criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, celebrated Abughazaleh’s defeat on Tuesday night. Notably, Biss did not accept financial assistance from AIPAC and repudiated the group in his victory speech, instead boosting J-Street, a progressive Zionist group.
“This district understands nuance and wants someone who accepts the reality of competing, even contradictory, priorities and values and realities. That point of view is not the point of view of AIPAC. AIPAC spends an unbelievable amount of money. Over $7 million to try to buy this seat,” Biss said in celebratory remarks.
“So enough about AIPAC. May tonight be the last night I utter their name. This victory belongs to J Street,” Biss continued.
In a statement, AIPAC lamented the defeat of their preferred candidate Laura Fine, while celebrating the successful thwarting of Abughazaleh.
“While disappointed Laura Fine didn’t prevail, the pro-Israel community is proud to have helped defeat would-be Squad members Kat Abughazaleh and Bushra Amiwala, who centered their campaigns on attacking Israel and demonizing pro-Israel Americans,” the group said in a statement.
Similar outcomes unfolded in the 8th and 2nd districts, where left-leaning insurgents fell short against candidates with broader institutional support and more moderate platforms. In the 8th District, AIPAC-supported Melissa Bean defeated left-wing insurgent Junaid Ahmed. Ahmed received endorsements from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), one of the most vocal critics of Israel in the US Congress, and Justice Democrats, a populist, far-left organizing group. Ahmed positioned himself as a staunch opponent of Israel, accusing Jerusalem of committing “genocide” in Gaza.
Donna Miller, who competed in the 2nd District, pulled off an improbable upset victory over the well-financed and establishment-backed Jesse Jackson Jr. AIPAC had poured approximately $2.4 million into the race, according to reports.
The outcomes come after months of intense campaigning and significant outside spending. Pro-Israel advocacy organizations and allied political action committees invested heavily in the races, backing candidates who supported a strong US-Israel relationship and opposing those whose campaigns centered heavily on criticism of Israel.
Supporters of such efforts argue the results reflect voter skepticism toward candidates who prioritize divisive foreign policy positions over domestic concerns. They say Democratic primary voters, even in reliably blue districts, remain broadly supportive of Israel and wary of rhetoric they view as overly ideological or polarizing.
Amid the war in Gaza, AIPAC had become a new flashpoint within the Democratic Party. Democratic hopefuls across the country were pressed about their connections to AIPAC and were pressured to disavow any funding from the group. Further, various surveys suggested that Democratic voters responded less favorably to candidates after learning they harbored connections to AIPAC. However, the mixed results on Tuesday indicate that anti-AIPAC sentiment was not as animating as left-wing pundits predicted.
Progressive groups, however, downplayed the failures of their ideologically aligned candidates, pointing to the scale of outside spending in the races and arguing that well-funded campaigns overwhelmed grassroots challengers and shaped voter perceptions through aggressive advertising. Some also contended that messaging in the races blurred ideological distinctions, making it more difficult for voters to differentiate between candidates.
The Illinois results could carry national implications as Democrats look ahead to future elections. While progressive candidates have found success in certain districts, particularly in urban areas, the latest outcomes suggest that their coalition may face challenges in more competitive or diverse electorates.
Uncategorized
Message From a Democratic Legislator: Iran’s Long Oppressed People Deserve to Be Free
Cars burn in a street during an anti-regime protest in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 8, 2026. Photo: Stringer/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Yesterday’s election results in Illinois sent an unmistakable message: the American people are rejecting the far left’s reflexive opposition to the war with Iran.
In Illinois, every member of the Squad on the ballot lost their primary, a stunning repudiation of the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wing of our party that has spent years excusing Iranian aggression, undermining our alliance with Israel, and treating supporters of human rights and democracy as warmongers. The voters have spoken, and I am proud to stand with them.
As an elected Democrat, I have no interest in endless wars in the Middle East. What is happening in Iran is, I believe, not a repeat of the mistakes of the Bush administration. It is instead an American-led effort to put an end to the war that Iran has been waging against its people, its neighbors, and the United States of America for the past 47 years.
The people of Iran have long suffered at the hands of their government. The Islamic Republic denies basic human rights to Iranians, particularly women, the LGBTQ+ community, and religious and ethnic minorities. As a Democrat, the Islamic Republic stands in opposition to every value that I cherish.
Iran’s now former Supreme Leader, the theocrat Ayatollah Khamenei, deserves no mourning. On the other hand, Iran’s long-suffering women deserve both our prayers and our efforts to eliminate their tormentors. The women of Iran are subject to a puritanical head-to-toe dress code in public. They are also subject to “male guardianship” by their fathers, husbands, or other male relatives.
The situation is equally as bad for Iran’s beleaguered LGBTQ+ community. Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and can be punished by death, sometimes carried out by hanging victims from giant construction cranes in the center of major cities, a medieval punishment with a surreal modern twist.
Non-Muslims are similarly persecuted. Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians have some protections as “Peoples of the Book,” but these are quite limited in practice. Iranian Jews have been arbitrarily arrested and tortured for allegedly “spying for Israel,” and Iranian Christians have been sentenced to up to 280 years in prison for religious practices as simple as putting up a Christmas tree. Believers in other faiths are not tolerated at all by the regime.
Against such intolerable oppression, it is no wonder that the Iranian people have repeatedly expressed their desire for change.
The Iranian people are considered the most pro-American population in the Middle East. Yet every time the people have sought redress of their grievances, they have been violently crushed by their government. Although the people of Iran have elected reformist presidents, these elected presidents are figureheads who are sidelined by the unelected “Supreme Leader.”
Beyond its borders, Iran has waged war and slaughtered civilians in an effort to export its “Islamic Revolution.”
Iran militarily supported the unpopular Assad dictatorship in Syria until it was finally overthrown in 2024 after more than 13 years of civil war in Syria. Iran has also supported terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis in their bids for power against the legitimate governments of Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. Iran also aided Hamas, which seized power by force in Gaza in 2007, enabling its brutal invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023, during which more than 1,200 civilians were massacred, including dozens of Americans, and more than 250 (including 12 Americans) were taken hostage to Gaza.
When Operation Epic Fury began, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tweeted, “President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war.”
Senator Sanders could not be more mistaken. The right-wing extremists waging a premeditated war are the fanatical Islamist clerics in Tehran. This is a war they have been waging since 1979 against their own people, their neighbors, and against Americans.
The goal of Operation Epic Fury is not endless conflict; it is to end this conflict once and for all. A better future is possible — a future where Iran can join the community of free nations, where women can live without fear of being beaten or even murdered for not covering their hair, where minorities can practice their faith openly, where LGBTQ+ people can live openly, and where citizens can choose their leaders through real elections.
I believe that one day, the Iranian people will experience freedom and build the peaceful, democratic nation they deserve. And I believe that Operation Epic Fury will lead to the future that the Iranian people deserve.
Democratic state legislator Rep. Alma Hernandez represents Arizona’s 20th House District in Tucson.
Uncategorized
US House Report Finds Faculty Driving Campus Antisemitism While Institutions Protect Them
Protesters gather at the gates of Columbia University, in support of student protesters who barricaded themselves in Hamilton Hall, in New York City, US, April 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/David Dee Delgado
A new damning report by Republicans on the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce slammed higher education officials for having done little to abate faculty antisemitism, as the issue continues amid allegedly craven leadership and institutional whitewashing of professorial misconduct.
Titled, “How Campuses Became Hotbeds: The Rise of Radical Antisemitism on College Campuses,” the report is comprehensive, chronicling what has been described as the “campus antisemitism crisis” from the hours and days following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. In the wake of the attack, anti-Zionist student and faculty groups throughout the US celebrated the atrocities while, according to lawmakers, being protected by college administrations even as they escalated their conduct to violence, harassment, and flagrant violations of federal civil rights law.
It adds to a growing body of literature which explores institutional protection afforded to faculty who utter antisemitic comments against Jews similar to what other colleges have condemned when directed at other minority groups.
The report listed a slew of examples: Haverford College president Wendy Raymond extolled a professor who called Jewish community advocates “racist genocidaires”; University of California president Richard Lyons described a professor who cheered Oct. 7, while proclaiming that he “could have been one of those broke through,” as a “fine scholar”; and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) refused to rule in favor of a Jewish student who filed a discrimination complaint disclosing a pattern of alleged abuse perpetrated by linguistic professor Michel DeGraff, which included his threatening to single out the student as an example of “Zionist mind infection.”
“Antisemitism continues to spread like wildfire at schools across the nation,” committee chairman Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) said in a statement on Tuesday. “Over the past several years, we’ve seen university leaders surrender to the radical demands of terror supporting mobs targeting Jewish students and faculty. This weakness has emboldened hatred and allowed campuses to devolve into hotbeds of radical antisemitism.”
He added, “Republicans remain committed to holding college and university leaders accountable for their failures. Time and time again, school leaders appeared before my committee and failed to take responsibility for the hatred they let spiral out of control.”
Colleges need robust oversight from Congress, the report concluded, imploring higher education to do its part by adopting the widely recognized International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, reforming admissions to foster viewpoint diversity, and fighting antisemitism as doggedly as it has combatted other forms of racism.
Another similar report, released in February by the AMCHA Initiative, touched on faculty antisemitism in the University of California (UC) system. It documented dozens of examples of faculty antisemitism, including their calling for driving Jewish institutions off campus; founding pro-Hamas, Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) chapters; and endorsing institutional adoption of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. It also said that FJP chapters offered more than supportive words, “defending and helping orchestrate boycott-aligned activism (including encampment demands), seeking to deplatform Israeli speakers, and filing an amicus brief … that denied Zionism’s place within Jewish identity and defended exclusionary encampment conduct toward Zionist Jewish students, including expulsion from campus spaces.”
The AMCHA Initiative argued that the University of California system is a microcosm of faculty antisemitism, a vidid portrait of “how concentrated networks of faculty activists on each campus, often operating through academic units and faculty-led advocacy formations, convert institutional platforms into vehicles for organized anti-Zionist advocacy and mobilization.”
The AMCHA Initiative explored faculty antisemitism before, stressing that while student activities drive headlines, faculty act with impunity and wield governing power which shapes the campus culture and limits the power of college presidents to oppose them.
In September 2024, the organization published a groundbreaking study which showed that FJP is fueling antisemitic hate crimes, efforts to impose divestment on endowments, and the collapse of discipline and order on college campuses. Using data analysis, AMCHA researchers said they were able to establish a correlation between a school’s hosting an FJP chapter and anti-Zionist and antisemitic activity. For example, the researchers found that the presence of FJP on a college campuses increased by seven times “the likelihood of physical assaults and Jewish students” and increased by three times the chance that a Jewish student would be subject to threats of violence and death.
The Algemeiner has previously covered this issue as well. In February, for example, it learned that, according to a lawsuit, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University assigned a Jewish student a project on “what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.”
Similar incidents have come at a fast clip since the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre: A Cornell University professor praised the terrorist group’s atrocities, which included mass sexual assaults; a Columbia University professor exalted Hamas terrorists who paraglided into a music festival to murder Israeli youth as the “air force of the Palestinian resistance”; and a Harvard University FJP chapter shared an antisemitic cartoon which depicted Zionists as murderers of Blacks and Arabs.
In Tuesday’s statement, Wahlberg said the committee’s report should put higher education on notice.
“If university leaders forget their legal responsibility to address discrimination of any form on campus, my colleagues will remind them.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.