Although antisemitism has been an ever-present scourge for centuries, it has seen a sinister and widespread modern resurgence during the last few years.

One of the most sickening and obvious examples in recent memory took place on the morning of October 27, 2018 — the Holy Day of Sabbath for the Jewish people. Robert Bowers screamed “All Jews must die,” as he began shooting at the gathered congregation praying at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

He killed eleven people, wounding six others, with an assault rifle and multiple handguns. The names of who were killed are: Irving Younger, Sylvan Simon, Jerry Rabinowitz, Joyce Fienberg, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, Rose Mallinger, Bernice Simon, Richard Gottfried, Cecil Rosenthal and David Rosenthal. It was the deadliest attack ever on the Jewish community in the U.S.

So what has brought about this fresh wave of hatred? Deeper still, what has given these malevolent beliefs the encouragement to become murderous action?


The US Department of State defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” adding that in modern times it has been used by “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.”

The old anti-Semitic trope of Jews running the media is one small example of what has been absorbed by the culture and turned into an easy punchline, however, these reprehensible but seemingly benign elements have become part of a larger undercurrent of dangerously misguided common belief in the United States and beyond.

Even during the most recent Senate election in Georgia, Republican David Perdue released an attack ad on Jon Ossoff, who is Jewish, that purposefully made his nose larger and more pronounced. This is an obvious reference to an ancient anti-semitic trope.

These are specific instances, but there is a deep ocean of accepted hatred that runs underneath the everyday.

Looking to the cult of mass-delusion that is Q-Anon, we can clearly see parallels between the beliefs its followers cling to, and an anti-Semitic hoax that began in Russia during 1903.

“The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion” is a fabricated antisemitic text claiming to reveal a Jewish plan for global supremacy.

It alleges that a shadowy cabal is plotting to take over the world. Alongside global domination, they seek out and kidnap children in order to torture, kill and eat them. By doing this, they gain power from the contents of the children’s blood. They also control influential seats in government, the media, international finance and religious institutions. They promote homosexuality, pedophilia and a degradation of traditional values — all while crippling the white race through interracial breeding in order to weaken their power in the nation.

That description could easily have been a “drop” from the elusive figure known only as “Q”. As such, Q-Anon is simply a grotesque rebrand of “The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion” for the 21st century.

Long after its publication, the text was used by anti-semites globally to reinforce their prejudices and to darken the hearts of their followers. Henry Ford himself paid for 500,000 copies to be printed in the United States during the 1920’s, and the text was distributed widely throughout Europe — being especially popular in 1930’s Germany leading to a population that believed all Jews were involved in a plot to take control of their nation.

Now in 2020, Q’s followers in the United States are legion, and their radicalization primarily takes place not in a foreign desert, but on Facebook.

An entirely separate article would be required to properly outline the sheer amount of damage that Mark Zuckerberg and his morally bankrupt company have wrought on the psyche of the American people, but for now it is enough to say that, despite a deluge of evidence that Q-Anon and other hate groups were organizing on their platform, the social media giant was not only slow to action, but actively encouraged these members activities in order to increase user engagement.

We have only just begun to see the consequences of a future where hatred and technology are bedfellows for profit.

Q-Anon’s growth on Facebook is not an aberration, as the platform has sheltered and provided covering fire for multiple other groups.

Leading up to the 2016 election these groups were gaining confidence and after the election of Donald Trump their movements became unbridled. Following the 2016 result, the ADL released its annual 2017 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents. The report found that “the number of reported antisemitic incidents in the U.S. rose 57% in 2017, the largest single-year increase on record and the second highest number reported since ADL started tracking such data in 1979. There was a total of 1,986 incidents, which fall into three major categories: harassment, vandalism and assault.”

One of the primary groups to rear its ugly head was another uniquely Trumpian collective – The Proud Boys. The Proud boys, the far-right group that President Donald Trump told to “stand back and stand by” during a presidential debate, share many of the views outlined in The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion” and Q-Anon.

Founded in 2016 by Gavin McInnes, a far-right personality and co-founder of Vice media, the group originated as a “chauvinist” organization that believed “Western” values were being degraded by multiculturalism. Despite their overtly xenophobic and mysoginistic views, the group maintained that although it was advocating for western ideals, it was not against Jews. This claim was dubious at the time, and has only become more absurd as the group has moved more prominently into the national conversation.

The founder of a “tactical defense arm” of the Proud Boys, Kyle Chapman, said in a message on the encrypted app Telegram that he has staged a “coup” against Enrique Tarrio, the current leader of the Proud Boys.

“We will confront the Zionist criminals who wish to destroy our civilization,” Chapman wrote, “We recognize that the West was built by the White Race alone and we owe nothing to any other race.”

This all took place as The Proud Boys were preparing to flood the streets in order to protest Donald Trumps claims that the 2020 election is not legitimate.

As anti-semitism invades online discourse and bleeds into the streets, the larger danger is that it is now part of a political parties belief system.

The outgoing president has pathologically let loose racist dog-whistles targeting the black community, but he has also repeatedly found opportunities to incorporate antisemitic tropes into his rallies and oration.

Trump suggested that George Soros paid for protests against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

He also said that Soros was responsible for the arrival of a caravan of Central American migrants at the US border.

After the rally in Charlottesville, Virginia where groups marched through the streets screaming “Jews will not replace us”, Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides”.

He claimed that American Jews who vote Democratic were guilty of “disloyalty” to the country. For reference, Trump has constantly referred to Israel as “your country” when speaking with American Jews – an obvious accusation of dual loyalty, a recurring anti-semitic trope.

While it remains to be seen what will happen to these hate groups that have been spurred on by the highest office in the land, there s no doubt that anti-semitism is not an evil relegated to the pages of distant history.

It is here, now, and has been emboldened by a criminal, racist, xenophobic, sexist, incompetent authoritarian who only has one goal – to incite national division while he finishes the ultimate grift.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Canva(L) Kids wrestling in the yard; (R) young children playing chess

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.

Art

Why Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’ endures