Antisemitism
CANDACE OWENS AND THE PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM
Flirting with the world’s oldest hatred
Ben Shapiro’s firing of Candace Owens from the Daily Wire is causing a rift in the conservative universe that threatens to rip it apart. By employing against Jews the same vitriolic tactics that have made her popular on the right, Owens is rallying the most extreme elements of the conservative movement. Even Ben Shapiro is shocked. Still, what she is doing is neither surprising nor out of character; it is the logical conclusion of an unfortunate character arc that will end in obscurity.
Owens served, in a sense, as a diversity hire for The Daily Wire, and PragerU before that. As a bland, uninspiring host, she offered a Black face to espouse the unflattering views on Black people that some on the right crave. Due to her race, she could get away with saying things that most of them couldn’t say, though a growing number have abandoned all pretense and embraced overt bigotry—a prime example being Isabella Moody's video of her baby captioned, “My daughter literally said the N-word; I'm so proud of her.”
Owens often acted as Shapiro’s attack dog, giving cover for the controversial and, at times, offensive rhetoric from other Daily Wire hosts. For example, she backed up Charlie Kirk when he questioned the competence of a Black pilot, adding, misogynistically (in an apparent attempt to provide cover for Kirk by outdoing his bigotry), that she would be just as terrified if she saw a woman flying a plane. Another example is when her colleague Matt Walsh advocated for the use of the N-word by White people. Owens has either implicitly supported or tolerated such views (as has Shapiro).
Owens has often displayed a lack of empathy and decorum, notably in her controversial documentary “The Greatest Lie Ever Sold.” This film, largely forgotten, pushed the unfounded conspiracy theory that George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose rather than from the actions of Derek Chauvin. While acknowledging that Floyd had a criminal record, it is essential to recognize that he did not deserve to be killed in the manner he was. In a civilized society, the rule of law ensures that individuals face justice in court, not through extrajudicial means.
This brings us to the core issue underlying the feud between Shapiro and Owens: antisemitism. To understand whether Owens harbors antisemitic views, it is important to consider her history of provocative and divisive rhetoric. As we discussed above, Owens has frequently demonstrated hostility towards her own racial group and expressed bigoted views against women. Given this pattern of behavior, it’s not surprising that she might also harbor prejudice against Jews.
To explore this further, we need to look back about five years to a Turning Point USA event where Owens made controversial remarks that bordered on Hitler apologetics. She stated that if Hitler's ambitions had been confined to Germany—if he had only wanted to make Germany great again—she wouldn’t have had an issue with his nationalism. In Owens’ view, Hitler's global aspirations were what made him a bad man. This perspective aligns with her right-wing stance that nationalism is good and globalism is bad. However, Owens failed to understand that it was Hitler's nationalism that drove his horrific actions. His idea of making Germany great again involved eliminating all “foreign” and “weak” elements such as Jews, Romani people, LGBTQ+ individuals, and biracial people. Hitler was not a globalist; he did not aim to create an inclusive global state. He was a nationalist seeking territorial expansion to create more space for the German people. Hitler's Germany was never intended to include minorities like Jews, Romani, Slavs, or Black people; it was meant exclusively for Germans and, to some extent, other “Aryan” groups.
Perhaps even more damning is the fact that Hitler did not need to be expansionist in order to carry out the Holocaust. His nationalist bent, which saw German Jews as foreign elements, drove him to commit mass murder. Hitler’s brand of nationalism is analogous to a scenario in which the United States becomes a White nationalist state, excluding all non-White people. The very thing Owens claimed not to have an issue with was the foundation for Hitler’s mass murder of Jews. Even if Hitler had not invaded Poland, Russia, or annexed Austria, he would still have carried out the genocide of Jews within Germany. His genocidal intent, expressed in Mein Kampf years before he came to power, was born out of a nationalist desire for racial purity and to restore the glory of Germany.
Nationalism often aims to exclude “undesirable” people already living within the same geographical location as those promoting the ideology. It is rarely benign. This is evident in the recent interview Ann Coulter conducted with Vivek Ramaswamy. While Vivek interpreted American nationalism as patriotism, Coulter equated American nationalism with being WASP—White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant. In the eyes of nationalists like Coulter, Ramaswamy’s patriotism is meaningless if he is not a WASP. This raises the question: does Owens’s apologetic stance on Hitler stem from ignorance or something more sinister, like antisemitism?
When Owens’ “dear friend and fellow superhero” Kanye West posted a bizarrely antisemitic message about going “death con 3” on Jewish people, he deservedly faced significant backlash. Owens quickly jumped to his defense, asking, “Who knows what Kanye really meant?” While it’s understandable to want to support a friend, Owens's public defense of West’s potentially antisemitic X post was problematic. A more appropriate response would have been to address West privately and criticize his irresponsible behavior. Instead, Owens chose to publicly support him.
Later, West appeared on Alex Jones’s show and expressed admiration for Hitler. Although Owens did not defend West for these comments, she also did not criticize him. Her silence about West’s comments on Jones’s show, along with her own strange apology for Hitler's nationalism, raises serious questions about her understanding of the history of antisemitism.
Recently, Owens, in an X post, criticized Americans for their supposed ignorance of the atrocities Germans faced after World War II. She cited the BBC documentary “1945: The Savage Peace,” which highlights the violent reprisals against ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe following the war. The documentary reveals that up to 12 million German-speaking people were forcibly expelled from countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland, with many facing brutal violence. It also details the widespread sexual violence committed against German women.
While Owens may be technically correct in some of the points she raises, her motivations are highly suspect. Are German people targets of bigotry and harassment for being Germans today, as Jews are? It makes no sense, and this exercise appears to be nothing more than a dig at Jewish people, implying that Germans suffered just as much, if not more, than Jews during and after the war. This narrative diminishes the unique horrors of the Holocaust.
The replies to Owens' post are telling. She seems to have attracted a group of conspiracy theorists obsessed with antisemitic tropes.
One reply (by an account with “groyp” in the name) stated, “A lot of the wwii narrative was not told properly,” with a link to a video containing more conspiracy theories about Jews.
Another reply stated, “You are right! But academia, Hollywood, and almost every institution tell us this,” accompanied by a post showing World War II casualties alongside Jewish casualties.
Yet another reply depicted the U.S. represented by a much larger Candace Owens facing off against a smaller Ben Shapiro representing Israel in a boxing match with the caption, “Candace is waking up.”
Waking up to what?
Another reply warned ominously, “JEWISH CANCEL CULTURE HAS TAKEN ITS LAST VICTIM. ALL MUST LEAVE THE DAILY WOKE RIGHT NOW. THE PEOPLE STAND WITH CANDACE.”
And finally, a reply (apparently no longer available, but from an active account) suggested, “The firing of Candace Owens has just proven the existence of Jewish supremacy and its stranglehold over the media to conform to the pro-Israel narrative.”
While Owens isn't responsible for the comments of others, she has not pushed back against them. This isn’t the first time Owens has downplayed or deflected from the suffering of Jewish people. Her dismissal from The Daily Wire was driven by her repeated promotion of antisemitic rhetoric, which created significant tension with Shapiro, an outspoken supporter of Israel. Owens made controversial statements, such as suggesting a Jewish “gang” in Hollywood was committing “horrific things” and implying “Jews are going to be blamed” if TikTok is banned. She also liked a post promoting an antisemitic conspiracy theory about Jews being “drunk on Christian blood.”
On the flip side, the tendency of Shapiro and some others to label any criticism of Israel as antisemitic complicates the matter. This overuse of the term dilutes its significance. It is problematic to cheapen the seriousness of antisemitism by using it to silence legitimate criticism of Israel, but some do employ this tactic. The antisemites in Owen’s audience exploit this misuse, hiding their hateful rhetoric behind the guise of patriotism and legitimate criticism of the state of Israel.
These extreme elements that Owens is courting—many of whom identify as groypers—promote isolationism and an “America First” ideology. They often espouse fascistic, homophobic, and antisemitic views. While it is difficult to definitively say that Owens is an antisemite, an X post by Will Stancil captures this sentiment well: “If you want to understand someone’s intentions, don’t just look at their words. Look at their audience. People know who is listening to them.”
Guilt by association, perhaps. But the reality is that Owens doesn't seem to push back on the numerous conspiratorial and antisemitic replies under her X posts; she never puts out a disclaimer or tries to distance herself from them. Is it unreasonable to infer that she tacitly agrees with them? When antisemites begin to agree with you on many things, it’s a signal to reassess your stance. Perhaps Owens knows her audience too well to risk offending them.
As I hope I’ve shown, Owens’s actions and statements reflect a troubling pattern. From downplaying the horrors of the Holocaust to aligning with figures who espouse antisemitic views, Owens consistently fails to distance herself from bigotry. Her dismissal from The Daily Wire underscores the severity of her rhetoric and the tension it created with Shapiro, a prominent Jewish figure. While she may have a following that supports her provocative style, it is essential to critically evaluate the impact of her words and the company she keeps. The true measure of one’s intentions often lies not just in what one says but in the audience one attracts and the silence one maintains in the face of hate.
Charles Ekokotu (Pharm. D.) works in his native Nigeria in the pharmaceutical industry and is a bibliophile, prose fiction writer, poet, and playwright. His first self-published novel, Hotel Shendam—a crime fiction novel featuring a debate on race and colonialism—is available on Amazon. His first published book of poems, Fairy Tales: A Collection of Poems—based on the author’s experiences and capturing key events in his life and his expression of his feelings—launched on Amazon on the 1st of June. He hosts a podcast on YouTube called “Critical African Thinkers” where he engages in open dialogue, discourse, and debate on issues of race, politics, philosophy, religion, science, and popular culture, which examines every topic without flinching. Charles writes regularly on Substack and is currently working on a series of novels that explores African myths and legends, using them as building blocks to create captivating fictional stories. You can also follow Charles on his “Critical African Thinkers” X account.
Great read, well written
Thank you, Charles. In a world where it’s getting lonely and alarming being Jewish, you have provided a small candle of hope. That’s kind of a big deal :)