Share and Follow
After a plethora of accusations of antisemitism, the former Daily Wire commentator Candace Owens laid waste to the narrative and the pure dishonesty used against her.
Owens began by addressing another Daily Wire commentator, Andrew Klavan, who had “been spreading some inaccuracies” she viewed as “disparaging” to her character. She posted a thread unraveling it all, including the radical claims that “Christ is King” is somehow antisemitic.
Andrew Klavan, in an attempt to explain why “Christ is King” can be antisemitic offered this on a podcast about me: pic.twitter.com/gbmx39aKGs
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) March 27, 2024
Owens then dove into the accusations of her liking a post that alluded to Jews drinking Christian blood. She called it a smear campaign, particularly by everyone Rabbi Shmuley — the adult sex toy businessman.
The rabbi was clearly lying. The person who messaged him privately in that correspondence did so BEFORE I had ever informed the public about his harassment.
It was quite literally a smear.
Gratefully, someone called him out on this lie by citing the date of the message: pic.twitter.com/t4nlZ6Cu7Z
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) March 27, 2024
Owens added that she simply liked a post by a “random person on the internet who very quickly debunked the horrendous lie that” she “would ever send any person to threaten to murder Jews.”
She then came to some deep conclusions about the so-called “antisemitism racket.”
I recently learned that antisemitism is unlike any hate in the world—because the definition mutates. Today’s current definition seems to be: A Christian defending herself from a predatory, dishonest Rabbi by liking a tweet for the OBVIOUS reason that it debunked his lie.
Owens reiterated her final message that “It really is nothing short of amazing that given all of the threats that Rabbi Shmuley made … what seemingly disturbed Andrew [Klaven] (or at least what moved him to action” was simply her “unacceptable ‘like’ of a tweet which underscored the Rabbi’s dishonesty.”
Owens may not be familiar with what “antisemitism” means as the definition seems to be constantly revised. “Christ is King” is now somehow antisemitic, but really, that labeling is deeply anti-Christian. Most Christians know this or are too afraid to rebuke the claim.
Coming back to the definition of “antisemitism,” it is believed by some to be used to leverage and protect Jewish power against dissent. The term alone can cancel an individual much faster than accusations of racism. The question is: why is that?
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is the ultimate decider of what is and isn’t antisemitic. The IHRA has a “working definition” of antisemitism, which is extremely broad and perhaps purposeful in light of the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.
It also reads:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
The IHRA adds several contemporary examples of antisemitism, too:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
According to the IHRA, everything, including criticism of Israel, is “off-limits.” It just appears as if only one group is truly considered victimized, and that group is not accountable for their actions. These “antisemitism” devices act as protections — yes — but also shielding from addressing problems within the community.
No other group has that, and it appears more and more people as awakening to that fact, especially after the cancelling of the leading black conservative commentator — Candace Owens.
