Antisemitic tropes vault the political spectrum

When Douglas Murray confronted Joe Rogan about giving a platform to dangerous conspiracy theories, particularly those stemming from Darryl Cooper’s Holocaust-denial narratives rooted in David Irving’s discredited work, he highlighted a critical problem plaguing “new” media. The collapse of journalistic standards, exacerbated by figures across the political spectrum, has blurred the distinction between credible news and baseless conspiracy theories, many of which drive antisemitism.

Murray’s intervention challenged the common defence of podcasters and YouTubers who claim they are merely facilitating “discussion”. He demonstrated that giving a platform to those peddling distortions isn’t about open-mindedness, it’s about amplifying dangerous falsehoods that can incite violence.

This warning proved tragically prescient recently when two Israeli embassy staffers, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were murdered in Washington, D.C. by a gunman who shouted, “Free Palestine!” and claimed he “did it for Gaza”. It’s believed the gunman fired two dozen rounds, attempting to kill as many people as possible. The attack serves as undeniable proof of the devastating power that intentionally weaponised narratives have when amplified by online influencers across the political spectrum.

The embassy attack isn’t isolated, it’s the inevitable result of digital conditioning gone toxic. The shooter epitomises the terrifying efficacy of algorithmic radicalisation, acting not from lived experience but from online indoctrination. As News Nation’s Chris Cuomo observed, this represents a gravely underestimated threat: the rise of extremism fuelled by content creators who prioritise sensationalism over responsibility.

Cuomo noted the tragic irony that the victims were leaving an event co-ordinating aid to Gaza, a detail irrelevant to someone “constantly told that Israel is engaging in genocide”. The 30-year-old American wasn’t born into the Gaza conflict; he was manufactured by it through endless social media feeds, YouTube rabbit holes, and podcast echo chambers that transformed distant grievances into personal rage.

Although on the polar opposite end of the embassy shooters’ political echo chamber, Rogan’s show demonstrates that antisemitism doesn’t discriminate between those on the left and those on the right. While hosting open-ended conversations, many commentators in this “new” or “independent” media space have become a vehicle for historical lies dressed as “just asking questions”. This approach doesn’t foster genuine inquiry, it legitimises antisemitic falsehoods.

Rogan’s platforming of Cooper’s grotesque claim that Winston Churchill, not Hitler, was the “evil” figure of World War II isn’t contrarian thinking; it’s historical vandalism that creates fertile ground for antisemitic narratives. Such revisionism follows classic neo-Nazi tactics: rehabilitate Hitler by tearing down his opponents; diminish Jewish suffering by rewriting history.

This historical distortion serves as a gateway to broader conspiracies linking Jews to everything from 9/11 to the assassination of John F Kennedy. The process follows a predictable pattern: shadowy elites are identified as orchestrating society’s decline. These “elites” are rarely named directly – they don’t need to be. The same antisemitic tropes get recycled endlessly through different content creators: Jewish control of finance; manipulation of the media; puppet-mastering of global institutions.

When individuals with massive followings on social media platform these theories, they lend what comedy club proprietor Noam Dworman calls a “mantle of respectability” to ideas that should be universally condemned.

What makes this particularly troubling is how significant portions of the right have adopted the very tactics they condemn in “wokeism”. After years of criticising identity politics, grievance culture, and ideological purity tests, they’ve created their version of everything they claim to despise.

They’ve embraced identity-based grievance with different victims: the “aggrieved” white working class; “traditional” Americans supposedly oppressed by “globalists”; and “cultural Marxists”. It’s the same victimhood mentality with fresh branding. This mirrors progressive tactics, where grievance is made into a weapon, and historical narratives are distorted to fit predetermined agendas. It only serves to exacerbate the problem by validating the underlying principles that allow antisemitism to flourish.

Figures like Alex Jones and Candace Owens, who promote what Dworman calls “blood libel and other antisemitic tropes”, are no longer fringe voices. They are gaining mainstream acceptance, their dangerous ideas dressed as legitimate political discourse.

The result is that individuals become conditioned to identify with oppression that they’ve never experienced, are fed constant accusations of genocide and conspiracy, and the leap to deadly action becomes tragically short.

Murray’s intervention on Rogan’s show was crucial because he refused to play the “just asking questions” with-no-push-back game. He recognised that some ideas don’t deserve platforms, regardless of how “open-minded” those platforms claim to be. The “it’s just a discussion” approach is often a facade, providing cover for the dissemination of dangerous ideas that more often than not are rooted in antisemitism.

The embassy attack serves as a stark, bloody reminder of the point Murray articulated. When social media commentators abandon basic standards of truth and critical thinking, they become accomplices in spreading dangerous narratives leading to deadly action that kills.

• Angie Richardson is a writer and media relations specialist.