What’s with Joe Rogan hosting anti-Jewish guests recently?

Posted on March 15, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Joe Rogan’s recent guest choices have sparked some buzz, particularly with accusations of platforming people with anti-Jewish views. The main point of contention seems to be his March 2025 episode with Ian Carroll, a guy who’s spent years online pushing Holocaust denial and conspiracies about Jewish influence—like claiming the Rothschilds control everything or that Jews have historically brought conflict on themselves by being “outsiders.” On the podcast, Carroll framed the Holocaust as just one example of Jews clashing with others due to their “differences,” and Rogan didn’t push back much, letting the convo roll. This has folks on X and elsewhere calling it a soft endorsement of antisemitism, especially since Rogan’s got such a massive reach—millions of listeners who might not dig deeper into Carroll’s track record.
Rogan’s no stranger to hosting controversial figures; it’s kind of his brand. He’s had Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, and others who’ve flirted with edgy or outright bigoted takes. Back in February 2023, he caught heat for saying “the idea that Jewish people aren’t into money is ridiculous,” defending Ilhan Omar’s “Benjamins” tweet—a comment slammed by the ADL and others as leaning on old antisemitic tropes. More recently, his March 2024 chat with Kurt Metzger included Rogan calling Israel’s war against Hamas a “genocide” and suggesting they’re “imitating” the Holocaust, which groups like Democratic Majority for Israel called out as reckless and wrong. Critics say he’s either clueless or willfully amplifying divisive voices.
On the flip side, Rogan’s defenders argue he’s just a conversationalist, not a gatekeeper. He’s said plenty of times he doesn’t endorse every guest’s view—he’s there to talk, not debate. Posts on X from fans point out he’s also had pro-Israel voices like Bari Weiss and hasn’t shown personal animus toward Jews. His shtick is raw, unfiltered discussion, and he’s got a history of letting people speak, even if they’re way out there—think Robert Malone on COVID or Roger Waters on Israel. The Carroll episode fits that pattern: a niche internet figure with wild ideas gets a mic, and Rogan mostly listens.
What’s driving this “recently” perception? Timing and context. Antisemitism’s been a hot topic—hate crimes are up, per FBI stats, and cultural debates are tense post-October 7, 2023. Rogan’s platform, topping Spotify charts with 14.5 million followers, amplifies whatever he touches. Hosting Carroll now, when people are hyper-aware of these narratives, feels like pouring gas on a fire to some. Whether it’s intentional or just Rogan being Rogan—chasing interesting chats without much filter—that’s where the divide lies. What do you think he’s aiming for with these picks?

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on What’s with Joe Rogan hosting anti-Jewish guests recently?

What is Tucker Carlson’s attitude towards Jews?

Posted on March 15, 2025 by Luke Ford

According to Grok:

On X, where he’s freer to speak, Carlson’s hosted guests that set off alarms. In September 2024, he interviewed Darryl Cooper, a historian who downplayed Nazi intent in the Holocaust—calling Jews “prisoners who ended up dead” from logistical snafus, not genocide. Carlson called him “the best and most honest popular historian,” nodding along. All 24 Jewish House Democrats blasted it as “Nazi apologism”; Israel’s Amichai Chikli called him a “leading platform for Jew-hatred.” X posts raged: “He’s gone full antisemite—platforming a Holocaust denier isn’t neutral.”
Then there’s his Israel skepticism. During his Fox years, he dodged Middle East talk, but since 2023, he’s shifted—questioning U.S. support, hosting anti-Zionist voices like Munther Isaac (April 2024), who justified Hamas’s October 7 attack, and Jeffrey Sachs (December 2024), who spun conspiracies about Israel controlling U.S. policy. In a 2023 Candace Owens interview, he tied pro-Israel Ivy League donors to “white genocide”—a loaded phrase echoing antisemitic dual-loyalty tropes. Critics like Laurence Tribe on X see this as “an insurgent force on the right,” tying it to Trump’s rise.
Older clips sting too. In 2006-2011 radio hits (dug up by Media Matters), he tossed casual barbs—calling Iraq “more bearded Jews than a Lubavitcher convention” or Jon Stewart “a partisan Jew” whose real sin was leftism, not Judaism. Not damning alone, but they fit a pattern for detractors.
The Context
Carlson’s charisma—raw, defiant, unscripted—amplifies everything. His fans see a truth-teller; foes see a dog-whistler. Post-October 7, 2023, he called media reactions to the Hamas attack “disproportionate” for a “foreign tragedy”—a line some Jews on X took as minimizing their pain, though he didn’t target Jews directly. His Trump ties (speaking at the 2024 RNC, cozying up at Mar-a-Lago) muddy it further—Trump’s pro-Israel, yet Carlson’s orbit flirts with isolationism and figures like J.D. Vance, who won’t disavow him.
What’s He Really Think?
No smoking gun says Carlson hates Jews outright. He’s never said “I despise Jews” or pushed classic antisemitic canards like banking conspiracies. His beef seems broader—globalists, elites, whoever’s in his crosshairs—and Jews only catch flak when they overlap (e.g., Ivy League donors). But his guest list and rhetoric since leaving Fox—Cooper, Sachs, the “genocide” jab—give critics ammo to say he’s comfy with antisemitic fringes. Supporters counter he’s just contrarian, not prejudiced.
Chances are, his attitude’s less about Jews specifically and more about his chaos-driven worldview—America First, damn the rest. If that brushes antisemitic edges, he doesn’t flinch. X sentiment splits hard: half call him a “Jew-hater exposed,” half say “he’s just pissing off the woke.” You? Where’s your line—dog whistle or coincidence?

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on What is Tucker Carlson’s attitude towards Jews?

Is John Podhoretz the greatest magazine editor in America today?

Posted on March 15, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Whether John Podhoretz is the “greatest magazine editor in America today” is a subjective call, but we can break it down with some facts and perspective.
Podhoretz has been the editor of Commentary since 2009, taking over a publication with a storied history in conservative intellectual circles. His tenure’s been marked by a consistent neoconservative bent, focusing on politics, culture, and Jewish issues—pretty much in line with what his father, Norman, did when he ran the mag from 1960 to 1995. Under John, Commentary has stayed a go-to for right-leaning thinkers, with a circulation hovering around 34,000 (as of the late 2000s, though exact current numbers are tricky to pin down). He’s kept it relevant in a shrinking print landscape, leaning into online content and podcasts to broaden its reach.
His strengths? He’s got a distinct voice—witty, irreverent, and not afraid to stir the pot. His columns in the New York Post and pieces in Commentary show a guy who’s comfortable mixing pop culture with highbrow analysis, like when he’s riffing on movies or taking down progressive sacred cows. Supporters, like Andrew Ferguson from The Weekly Standard, have praised his “Mad magazine meets Foreign Affairs” vibe, suggesting he brings a fresh edge to a sometimes-stuffy tradition. He’s also got a pedigree—speechwriting for Reagan and Bush 41, co-founding The Weekly Standard—that gives him serious cred in conservative media.
But greatest? That’s where it gets dicey. Critics might argue he’s too tied to a niche—neocon ideas that some say peaked with the Bush years. His style’s been called juvenile or arrogant by detractors (think Glenn Garvin’s quip about him “constantly complaining his brilliance wasn’t appreciated” at The Washington Times). And Commentary isn’t exactly setting the world on fire circulation-wise compared to, say, The Atlantic (over 600,000) or even National Review. Other editors—like David Remnick at The New Yorker or Radhika Jones at Vanity Fair—might edge him out if you’re measuring by influence, innovation, or sheer readership. Remnick, for instance, has turned The New Yorker into a cultural juggernaut, while Podhoretz’s Commentary stays more of an insider’s read.
If you value a scrappy, ideological fighter who keeps a legacy mag punching, Podhoretz has a solid case. If you’re looking for broad impact or groundbreaking shifts, others might top the list. What do you think makes a “great” editor—raw talent, cultural sway, or something else? That could tip the scales here.

Posted in John Podhoretz | Comments Off on Is John Podhoretz the greatest magazine editor in America today?

What are the chances that Amy Wax wins her lawsuit against her university?

Posted on March 15, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Evaluating Amy Wax’s chances of winning her lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) is a bit like handicapping a horse race with half the track still under fog. It’s March 15, 2025, and Wax, a tenured law professor, filed her federal lawsuit in January 2025, claiming racial discrimination and breach of contract after Penn suspended her for a year at half pay, stripped her named chair, and issued a public reprimand. This followed a years-long saga over her controversial statements on race, immigration, and academic performance, deemed “flagrant unprofessional conduct” by a faculty board in 2024. Let’s weigh the odds based on what’s in play.
The Case Basics
Wax argues Penn’s speech policies discriminate by race—punishing her, a white Jewish woman, for remarks about Black students while allegedly letting minority faculty slide on antisemitic or violent rhetoric (e.g., Dwayne Booth’s “blood libel” cartoon or Julia Alekseyeva’s posts praising a CEO’s killer). She’s suing in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing violations of Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act (racial discrimination), the First Amendment (via Penn’s public funding ties), and her tenure contract’s academic freedom guarantees. Penn says her conduct undermined equal learning opportunities, justifying sanctions under their rules.
Tailwinds for Wax
Legal Ground: The First Amendment leans her way if she can tie Penn’s actions to public funding (Title VI) or employment bias (Title VII). Private universities aren’t pure First Amendment zones, but Penn’s handbook promises “open expression,” and courts have slapped down schools for uneven speech policies—think Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College (1996), where a professor’s punishment for edgy speech got reversed. If she proves a double standard, she’s got a puncher’s chance.

Academic Freedom: The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act doesn’t apply (it’s UK law), but U.S. tenure traditions and Penn’s own policies enshrine broad expression rights. Her suit calls the “major infraction” process—meant for crimes like assault—a sham for speech disputes. If the court buys that, her odds tick up.

Evidence of Bias: She’s got comparables—Booth and Alekseyeva faced no formal discipline despite uproar. If discovery unearths more cases of Penn winking at non-white faculty’s provocations, her discrimination claim strengthens. X posts hype this angle: “Penn’s DEI shield is crumbling.”

Headwinds Against Her
Private Power: Penn’s a private entity—courts give them wide latitude to enforce conduct codes. If her tenure contract ties professionalism to DEI (likely), they can argue she crossed a line. Cases like Feldman v. Ho (7th Cir., 1999) let schools discipline tenured profs for disruptive behavior, even speech-related.

Conduct, Not Just Speech: Penn’s not just mad about her blog posts—they cite classroom bias and grade confidentiality breaches (e.g., her 2017 claim Black students rarely hit Penn Law’s top half). If they prove she targeted students, it’s less a free speech case and more a workplace violation. That’s tougher to overturn.

Cultural Tide: DEI’s a juggernaut in academia. Judges aren’t immune to optics—ruling for Wax could spark headlines about “protecting racism.” X critics say, “She’s cooked; courts won’t touch this.” Public pressure might nudge a cautious bench against her.

The Numbers Game
No identical case exists, but employment discrimination suits against universities offer a benchmark. Federal civil rights claims (Title VI/VII) win at trial about 20-30% of the time (DOJ stats, 2023), though most settle. Academic freedom cases are rarer—think Urofsky v. Gilmore (4th Cir., 2000), where profs lost a speech fight—but Wax’s tenure and Penn’s promises tilt her slightly above average. Let’s ballpark it:
Base Chance: 30-40%. She’s got law and precedent, but private rules and her record muddy it.

With Strong Evidence: 50-60% if discovery shows blatant racial double standards.

If It’s All Optics: 10-20% if Penn frames it as student harm and the court balks at controversy.

Wild Cards
Trump Era: Trump’s back in office—his DOJ might lean pro-free speech, though federal courts are slow and this is early days. X buzz says, “Trump’ll save her,” but that’s a stretch for 2025.

Judge Roulette: Eastern District’s got a mix—some conservative, some not. A First Amendment hawk boosts her; a DEI sympathizer sinks her.

Settlement: Penn might cut a deal—reinstate her quietly—to dodge a precedent. Happens in 60%+ of these suits.

Gut Call
I’d peg her at 35-45% to win outright—decent but not favored. She’s got a real case, but Penn’s got institutional heft and a narrative (student protection) that’s hard to crack. If she ties Trump’s charisma chaos to her fight—rallying a movement—pressure might shift, but courts aren’t rallies. What’s your read—think she’s got the edge or just swinging?

Posted in Amy Wax | Comments Off on What are the chances that Amy Wax wins her lawsuit against her university?

What are the chances that Nathan Cofnas wins his lawsuit?

Posted on March 15, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Assessing the chances of Nathan Cofnas winning his lawsuit against Emmanuel College is tricky—there’s no public crystal ball, and legal outcomes hinge on specifics we don’t fully have yet. It’s March 15, 2025, and Cofnas, a former philosophy fellow at Cambridge, is suing the college after they cut ties with him in April 2024 over a blog post. He’d argued that in a meritocracy, the number of Black professors at Harvard would “approach zero” and pushed “race realism”—ideas that clashed hard with the college’s diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) policies. He’s backed by the Free Speech Union (FSU), claiming the dismissal violated his academic freedom. Let’s break it down.
The Case
Cofnas says Emmanuel’s own rules didn’t give them authority to axe him. The college countered that his post rejected DEI, which they see as core to their mission—educational excellence tied to inclusion. He’s filed a legal challenge, likely in a UK employment tribunal or civil court, arguing free speech and academic rights. The FSU’s raised £12,872 (as of August 2024) to fund it, though that’s just a start—legal battles get pricey fast.
Factors in His Favor
UK Law on Free Speech: The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, now in force, strengthens protections for academics. It mandates universities to secure free expression “within the law,” and Cofnas’s blog, while inflammatory, wasn’t illegal—hate speech thresholds in the UK are high. If he shows Emmanuel breached this, he’s got a shot.

Precedent: Cases like Miller v. College of Policing (2021) lean toward protecting controversial speech unless it crosses into harassment or incitement. Cofnas’s post was academic-ish, not a direct attack. Plus, 14 scholars, including five from Cambridge, backed him in a letter to The Times, signaling some establishment support.

Contract Rules: If Emmanuel’s internal policies overstepped their own authority—like if his fellowship terms didn’t explicitly tie DEI compliance to termination—he could argue procedural unfairness. X posts hint he’s got “insider docs” to prove this, but no public evidence yet.

Factors Against Him
Private Institution: Emmanuel’s a college within Cambridge, and UK private entities can set their own rules. If his contract or fellowship tied him to DEI adherence (explicitly or implied), they might argue he broke terms. The April 5 letter cited his post as a “challenge to core values”—vague but defensible in a private setting.

Public Backlash: The optics suck for him. Student protests, 1,200+ petition signatures, and heavyweights like Lord Simon Woolley calling it “abhorrent racism” stack the deck. Courts don’t love siding with lightning rods if it risks PR chaos.

DEI Momentum: UK academia’s all-in on EDI. Tribunals might hesitate to rule against a college enforcing it, especially if they frame it as protecting students over abstract principles. X critics say “he’s toast—DEI’s untouchable.”

The Odds
No hard stats exist for this exact case—tribunal win rates for unfair dismissal hover around 20-30% (Ministry of Justice, 2023), but this isn’t a standard gig. Academic freedom cases are rare and swingy. If it’s a straight employment dispute, he’s got maybe a 30-40% shot if the law’s on his side and Emmanuel slipped up procedurally. If it escalates to a broader free speech fight, it’s murkier—could climb to 50% with a sympathetic judge, or tank to 10% if DEI trumps all. X chatter’s split: half see him as a martyr, half as a fool tilting at windmills.
Wild Cards
Evidence: What’s in his contract? Any smoking-gun emails? That’s the pivot.

Judge’s Leanings: UK courts aren’t politicized like the U.S., but judicial philosophy matters—free speech absolutist vs. institutional defender.

Trump Parallel: You’ve been tracking Trump’s chaos; Cofnas’s charisma (less flashy, more nerdy) might rally a niche base, but it won’t sway a judge like a rally crowd.

Bottom line: 30-40% feels reasonable, leaning cautious. He’s got a legal leg but swims against a cultural tide. What’s your take—think he’s got the juice to pull it off?

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on What are the chances that Nathan Cofnas wins his lawsuit?