Upon losing the primary race for Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District, incumbent U.S. House Representative Thomas Massie gave a concession speech. He began by stating, “I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.”
For those acquainted with the history of antisemitic conspiracy theories, Massie’s language may sound eerily familiar. The joke does not explicitly mention Jews, conspiracies, or secret control, but its suggestion that an American political opponent somehow belongs to, answers to, or can be found in Israel raises red flags. It draws upon a much older way of understanding Jewish power and political influence, one whose history extends far beyond contemporary debates on Israel.
ZOG’s underlying assumptions still surface in contemporary rhetoric that attributes political outcomes to hidden Jewish or Israeli influence, even when adherents of contemporary beliefs may not know the history behind these ideas.
More than a century after the publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the conspiratorial framework it popularized continues to reverberate through political discourse. In the late-twentieth century, American white supremacist movements repackaged the Protocols’ vision of covert Jewish power into the myth of the Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), which reimagined the American government and other major institutions as captured by Israeli interests. That framework did not remain confined to Neo-Nazi literature and explicitly antisemitic socio-political movements. ZOG’s underlying assumptions still surface in contemporary rhetoric that attributes political outcomes to hidden Jewish or Israeli influence, even when adherents of contemporary beliefs may not know the history behind these ideas. Understanding that inheritance requires distinguishing ordinary political criticism from rhetoric that reproduces this older conspiratorial tradition.
The State of the Discourse
The race between Massie and Gallrein was the most expensive primary race for the U.S. House in history, with more than $32.6 million in spending between the two candidates and the PACs supporting their respective candidacies. Massie, a member of the Republican Party who has served as a member of the House since 2012, had become a target of President Donald Trump following his vote against the “Big Beautiful Bill,” his push to release the Epstein files, and opposition to the Iran War. All of this led to him falling out of favor with Trump and the president’s endorsement of Ed Gallrein, Massie’s primary opponent. Over $19 million was spent to support Gallrein, with almost $9.4 million coming from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other pro-Israel interest groups. Massie has been an outspoken critic of the United States’ support for Israel, including immediately after the October 7th attacks in 2023. The congressman got into a public feud on Twitter with AIPAC following his opposition to support for Israel, maintaining his “America First” stance.
Massie’s remarks emerged within a broader trend in online discourse surrounding Israel that increasingly conflates legitimate policy criticism with antisemitic narratives, making it difficult to distinguish between the two. Criticism of AIPAC, American military aid to Israel, and the broader U.S.-Israel relationship has become increasingly common among politicians, podcasters, influencers, and activists across the political spectrum. Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders has argued that Democratic lawmakers are often reluctant to criticize Israel out of fear of the pro-Israel lobby. Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has described AIPAC as an “extremist organization” and condemned its efforts to shape congressional elections. Meanwhile, former Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has accused AIPAC of exerting undue influence over members of Congress on the political right.
Criticism of AIPAC, American military aid to Israel, and the broader U.S.-Israel relationship has become increasingly common…
Online commentators have employed language suggesting that American institutions, political leaders, and media organizations are subordinated to Israeli interests. For example, Candace Owens, a conservative podcaster formerly of the Daily Wire and Turning Point USA, has repeatedly argued that criticism of Israel is systematically suppressed and has used social media to portray Israel as exercising extraordinary influence over American political life, even going so far as to say that America is a “colony” of Israel. Progressive influencers Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker have also condemned Israel. In June of 2026, they were denied entry to the UK when they attempted to attend SXSW London. They both alleged that this was planned by Israel, with Piker tweeting, “the uk has revoked my visa as well. all at the behest of israel. the west is betraying ‘liberal values’ for a genocidal fascist foreign government. soon we will all become israel.”
Rhetoric can move beyond criticism of a particular government or lobbying organization and instead toward broader conspiratorial frameworks…
Piker’s point alleges that Israel has control over another country and that they are acting illiberally. Such claims illustrate how rhetoric can move beyond criticism of a particular government or lobbying organization and instead toward broader conspiratorial frameworks where political outcomes are explained through hidden Jewish power (rather than through democratic processes). For anyone trying to disentangle the two, understanding the history of antisemitic conspiracy theory is essential.
A Primer on The Protocols
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were first published in the fall of 1903 in a newspaper, Znamia, in St. Petersburg, Russia. The owner of the newspaper, Pavel Krushevan, was a known antisemite and had a history of running antisemitic articles in his newspapers. Krushevan authored a foreword and an afterword alongside the Protocols, claiming they were meeting minutes he discovered from the “World Union of Freemasons and Elders of Zion.” He connected this meeting to the rising Zionist movement of the era. A 1905 version of the Protocols was published in a book about the coming Antichrist written by Russian mystic and antisemite, Sergei Nilus. They alleged that Jews sought to destroy the world as agents of satanic forces. The German-language edition was published in 1919, while the Protocols later surfaced in America in the 1920s, inspiring Henry Ford’s book The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem.
It is possible that Krushevan was the author of the Protocols, although Russian historian Vladimir Burtsev argues they were forgeries written by the Russian secret police. Regardless of their origin, it is certain that they are fake. As early as 1920, the British diplomat and journalist Lucian Wolf refuted the Protocols in a book he published, citing the 1868 German-language novel Biarritz as inspiration. In 1921, The Times newspaper of London also declared the Protocols to be forgeries, stating that they were copied from an 1864 French satire, Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, which was written by Maurice Joly and didn’t originally mention Jews.
Even though they were disproved, the Protocols were still cited by Adolf Hitler in 1925’s Mein Kampf and were cited often in Nazi propaganda. The Nazi’s Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, even wrote in his diary stating that he believed the Protocols were likely a forgery, but he chose to believe in the inner truth revealed, not the factual one refuted by the press.
The text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is framed as a series of twenty-four lectures or protocols delivered by the secret council of Jewish leaders. Within these lectures, it is said the Elders’ plans include:
- Political Subversion and Deception – The Elders will break down the power of non-Jewish states by internal cultural revolutions via appeals to class hatred and the use of liberalism, promising “liberty, equality, and fraternity” as catchwords to recruit actors to the Jewish cause.
- Control of the Economy and the Press – The Elders will accumulate wealth, drive aristocrats off their land with taxes, and create monopolies which could collapse gentile fortunes. This will bankrupt governments and put them in permanent debt to the Elders acting as international financiers to create a singular global economy. Meanwhile, all media, publishing houses, and press will also be bought or lobbied to be regulated. Then the Elders will act as a central authority for what is published, sowing division between the political parties and socioeconomic classes.
- Social Engineering and Orchestrated Chaos – The Elders will distract and demoralize the public so they won’t engage in serious political resistance, partly by the use of consumerist sports, games, and other means of amusement. Then they will rewrite education and history, changing curricula, teaching only state-approved concepts while simultaneously discouraging the development of critical thinking skills. They’ll eliminate any history which could undermine the new regime and focus on facts which emphasize mistakes made by “Goy governments.”
- A Global Coup Leading to Autocratic Rule – They will abolish the gold standard and replace it with a currency “based on the value of the working power.” After the world has been ruined by the wars, poverty, and panic they cause, the Elders will create a super-government operating as a dictatorship with a sole leader or king rooted in the dynasty of King David.
The ZOG Conspiracy – or The Protocols Updated
The Protocols conspiracy has been repeatedly translated into new political vocabularies while retaining its underlying structure. In America, it was most notably reframed into the ZOG conspiracy myth. The Zionist Occupied (or Occupation) Government (ZOG) myth alleges that “Zionist occupiers” manipulate Western governments to control the world economy, free speech, and militaries. The concept was popularized in the 1978 novel The Turner Diaries, written by William Luther Pierce. The dystopian novel depicts a violent white supremacist revolution which culminates in the overthrow of the corrupted U.S. government and the establishment of a white ethnostate. The Turner Diaries inspired more than two hundred murders since its publication, including the Oklahoma City Bombing.
The Protocols conspiracy has been repeatedly translated into new political vocabularies while retaining its underlying structure.
In a 1999 article, Neo-Nazi and white supremacist Eric Thomson credits himself with the term’s creation in 1976. In it, he explains that as a “simple Nazi” he never had a “picture of the enemy,” always pointing his ire towards groups like the Bilderbergers, CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), or anonymous “Insiders” of the government. Therefore, he created the phrase ZOG to acknowledge the enemy of the white race. In his article, he provides a list of over thirty terms and their definitions, citing inspiration from George Orwell and Newspeak for their creation, that people can use when discussing the ZOG. Some phrases and definitions he provides include:
- ZIONIST: a jew-supremacist or Israel-firster. Most Zionists are not jews, but jew-stooges who are bribed and/or bamboozled into serving their jewish masters. The previously-used term for such a critter was “useful idiot” or race-traitor.
- OCCUPATION: the status of foreign troops or agents who rule a subject people against its own interests, on behalf of the alien occupiers.
- GOVERNMENT: a minority of individuals who have the authority to shoot the majority and/or to levy taxes upon them…
- ZOG-PROP: lies and disinformation purveyed by the jewsmedia; prole-feed; Goy-poison. The message is usually: “Sleep”, “Obey”, as revealed in the film, “They Live”…
- NATURALIZATION: an unnatural process whereby aliens are given equal status or better than natives.
- JUDICIARY: pronounced “jew-diciary”. ‘Nuff said.
The ZOG concept, as defined by its creator, is an extension of the Protocols.
By manufacturing this vocabulary, Thomson successfully codified the structural plans laid out in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for a modern audience. His terms reflect a specific worldview, one which claims that elected officials secretly answer to Israel. It also asserts that the media, Hollywood, and global systems of finance are coordinated instruments of Jewish power. Likewise, it implies censorship, hidden truths, and covert influence used to preserve a system of social engineering. The ZOG concept, as defined by its creator, is an extension of the Protocols. At the end of his 1999 article, he states, “I am sure creative Aryans can come up with more words to describe the enemies of humanity…”
Whistling ZOG
Though I may not be Aryan myself, in the spirit of Eric Thomson, I would like to propose my own new word to discuss and identify the rhetoric being used by public figures and other actors online: ZOG-Whistle.
It is okay to criticize Israel. It is okay to criticize foreign entities if they are attempting to influence democratic or legislative processes. There is a line, however, when these things become antisemitic. Typically, it is understood that criticism crosses that line when antisemitic tropes are evoked or weaponized. When statements made by politicians and political influencers begin to echo those made by believers in and opponents of the ZOG, there is a clear connection and weaponization of these tropes. These statements, then, are what I am labeling “ZOG-Whistles.” A dog-whistle in politics usually refers to political messaging that uses language that is coded and subtle to convey specific messages about targeted subgroups that may not be explicitly obvious to the public. Therefore, a ZOG-Whistle is a specific type of dog-whistle, one which evokes the ZOG trope and is inherently antisemitic.
It is okay to criticize Israel. It is okay to criticize foreign entities if they are attempting to influence democratic or legislative processes. There is a line, however, when these things become antisemitic.
It’s not just politics: ZOG-Whistles can occur any time the ZOG is evoked, particularly when it is asserted that Jews exert special influence or control over institutions like the media, Hollywood, universities, or the economy. A ZOG-Whistle is recognizable not because it mentions Jews explicitly, but because it explains political outcomes through a framework of hidden institutional capture. Contemporary examples may differ in vocabulary, but they share this underlying explanatory structure.
A ZOG-Whistle is recognizable not because it mentions Jews explicitly, but because it explains political outcomes through a framework of hidden institutional capture.
To provide a quick personal example: On June 4th of this year, I was speaking with a student about a package I received from the National Alliance (NA). I ordered some of their reading materials for research, and alongside my books, they threw in “free materials.” One piece of this ephemera was a pamphlet written by William Luther Pierce (the founder of the NA and author of The Turner Diaries) about the accidental 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. In the pamphlet, he alleged it was obvious Israel attacked the ship on purpose to create a false flag attack, which would goad the United States into joining the Six-Day War on Israel’s side against Egypt. “You may never have heard of this, but it’s important,” I said to my student. “This clearly still comes up today with these people.” Less than an hour later, Thomas Massie tweeted about the U.S.S. Liberty and described his plans to bring the survivors before Congress to tell the “true” story of what Israel had done.
Representative Massie’s insistence that the attack on the Liberty was a false flag, which was then covered up by the U.S. and Israeli governments, is a clear example of a ZOG-Whistle. Many of the survivors of the attack, which killed thirty-four and wounded one-hundred seventy American sailors, do believe it was on purpose, but following an investigation, both sides concluded that it was an accidental attack due to the fog of war. Massie’s weaponization of this event, used to publicly defame Israel and allege Israeli control of American war narratives, makes this a ZOG-Whistle.
Considered alongside his previous comments about AIPAC, Massie has made himself clear. AIPAC criticism, when weaponized and ill-intentioned, evokes the antisemitic trope of dual loyalty. This trope explains that Jewish people cannot serve the United States (or any country) in good faith because they will always serve their tribe first, and the nation in which they live second. This is foundational to the ZOG myth, which portrays Jews not simply as political actors with certain interests but as a coordinated fifth column exercising control over American institutions. Criticism of AIPAC’s lobbying efforts, campaign spending, or political influence is not inherently antisemitic. The line is crossed when criticism ceases to focus on lobbying activities and instead implies that elected officials are secretly holding dual loyalty. This loyalty may not even directly refer to just Jewish politicians but encompass all who are said to be “captured” by Israeli influence. At that point, the rhetoric is no longer criticizing campaign finance laws or foreign policy, but instead reproduces the conspiratorial logic of the ZOG myth. It is a ZOG-Whistle.
The Protocols aren’t surviving because people are reading them. They’re surviving because people unknowingly inherit their interpretive framework.
The Protocols aren’t surviving because people are reading them. They’re surviving because people unknowingly inherit their interpretive framework. As American foreign policy continues to prioritize the Middle East and political actors on both sides of the ideological aisle continue to debate the United States’ relationship with Israel, we must become adept at identifying ZOG-Whistles. They should be understood as a rhetorical mechanism through which the conspiratorial logic first articulated in the Protocols and later distilled into the mythology of the ZOG can persist in contemporary political discourse without requiring its speakers to invoke those ideas explicitly. Whether deployed knowingly or unknowingly, these narratives normalize a centuries-old framework that interprets political disagreement through the lens of hidden Jewish control rather than legitimate democratic speech or debate.
Recognizing a ZOG-Whistle does not require dismissing legitimate disagreements over campaign finance, foreign aid, or American foreign policy. Rather, it requires recognizing when criticism shifts from public policy to conspiratorial explanations rooted in antisemitic myth. For those unfamiliar with this history (and even those who are), the line between these two things can be blurry, but being aware of this tradition may go a long way. This awareness can compel us to gain a reasonable level of skepticism towards the Thomas Massies of the world.
If we fail to distinguish between legitimate criticism and conspiratorial explanation, we risk allowing ideas once confined to extremist literature to become increasingly normalized within mainstream political debate.
If we fail to distinguish between legitimate criticism and conspiratorial explanation, we risk allowing ideas once confined to extremist literature to become increasingly normalized within mainstream political debate. The next time a candidate steps in front of a podium to deliver a concession speech after losing an election, we should pay as much attention to the rhetoric they use to explain the defeat as we do to the defeat itself.
Alexander Lowie is a political anthropologist at the University of Florida’s Bud Shorstein Center for Jewish Studies, whose research focuses on nationalism, political identity, and the use of myth in U.S. paramilitary and illiberal movements. He has conducted long-term ethnographic fieldwork in North Central Florida with groups such as the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys, attending private meetings, trainings, and community events. His book, Playing Patriot, is set to be released in 2027 and is a narrative ethnography that explores how individuals who describe themselves as politically neutral come to adopt the ethos and language of the Patriot Movement. He is also the host of Dearest Suzie, a podcast and photo series that draws on his grandfather’s letters and photographs from the Vietnam War to explore memory, intimacy, and intergenerational storytelling on the 60th anniversary of the conflict. You can follow him on Substack and X.
Image made using “Crush ZOG graffiti (cropped)” by JonskiC, licensed under CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International; “Hasan Piker Philly 4-30-26 2” by Morgan.rice.bassline.design, licensed under CC Attribution 4.0 International. All other images used are in the public domain.
.jpg){kind=link}
