In a speech before tens of millions, Qatar-funded podcaster Tucker Carlson cast “hummus-eaters” in Jerusalem as Christ-killers tied to Kirk’s death. His shrill mocking laughter drew scant rebuke, while silence prevailed and the few voices of dissent, like ex-ambassador to Israel David Friedman and journalist Laura Loomer, were castigated for criticizing the outrage.
In front of 70,000 onlookers packed into State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, and tens of millions more watching worldwide, Tucker Carlson delivered a eulogy for Charlie Kirk that became one of the most divisive moments in American political memory. What should have been a solemn farewell turned instead into a stage for Tucker Carlson to revive an ancient accusation against Jews, dress it in modern cultural code, and tie it directly to Kirk’s murder.
Tucker Carlson’s mocking tone and shrill laughter drew condemnation from Jewish groups but little to no criticism from the Republican Party or conservative media. The silence was as loud as the speech itself.
Tucker Carlson’s “Favorite Story Ever”
Carlson opened his remarks with what he described as his “favorite story ever”:
“It actually reminds me of my favorite story ever. So it’s about 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem, and Jesus shows up, and he starts talking about the people in power, and he starts doing the worst thing that you can do, which is telling the truth about people, and they hate it. And they just go bonkers. They hate it. And they become obsessed with making him stop. ‘This guy’s got to stop talking. We’ve got to shut this guy up.’
And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamplit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus, thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us? ‘We must make him stop talking.’ And there’s always one guy with a bright idea, and I can just hear him say, ‘I’ve got an idea; why don’t we just kill him — that will shut him up, that will fix the problem.’”
He punctuated the passage with a shrill, highly inappropriate chortle, a laugh that trivialized both the crucifixion of Christ and the assassination of Kirk.
From Gospel to Dog Whistle
The imagery is drawn from the Gospels, where the chief priests and elders in Jerusalem conspire against Jesus (Matthew 26:3–4; Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2; John 11:47–53). For centuries, those passages were misused to promote the deicide charge — the accusation that Jews collectively bore guilt for killing Christ. This libel fueled pogroms, expulsions, and antisemitic violence across Europe for nearly two millennia before the Catholic Church formally repudiated it in Nostra Aetate (1965).
Tucker Carlson did not utter the word Jew. Instead, he chose the phrase “hummus-eaters in Jerusalem” — a cultural cue recognizable to any contemporary audience. The omission was deliberate. By refusing to name Jews outright, Carlson maintained deniability while leaving the implication unmistakable. That coyness — coupled with the mocking laugh — functioned as a rhetorical trap: hearers could interpret the line as a metaphor about truth-telling, but the cultural marker carried the weight of the ancient accusation.
The effect was to link the crucifixion of Christ with the assassination of Kirk, casting both as martyrs silenced by conspiratorial enemies.
Silence Equals Consent
The immediate reactions exposed a stark divide.
Jewish advocacy groups were quick to condemn. StopAntisemitism denounced Carlson for making “a ridiculous insinuation that Jews were behind [Kirk’s] assassination.” The Jewish Chronicle and Jewish Insider likewise noted the revival of the deicide trope.
Conservative media and GOP leadership, by contrast, offered no criticism. No senior Republican senator, House leader, or presidential hopeful spoke up. Prominent right-wing commentators who often weigh in on cultural controversies either defended Carlson as metaphorical or ignored the remarks altogether.
The silence was conspicuous. By refusing to call out Carlson’s dog whistle, the Republican Party and its media allies effectively allowed the insinuation to stand unchallenged. In politics, silence often signals consent — and in this case, it looked like tacit approval.
Why Tucker Carlson Was Invited
The very decision to invite Tucker Carlson raises questions. With a long record of inflammatory statements, he was hardly a neutral choice for a solemn occasion. Memorial speeches are typically vetted to prevent exactly this kind of scandal. Yet Carlson’s words — complete with a mocking laugh — went unchecked.
That suggests either that organizers trusted him implicitly, that no one dared screen his remarks, or that provocation was the point. In any scenario, the platforming of Carlson and the lack of disavowal afterward created the impression of complicity.
The Few Who Spoke Out
A handful of voices inside the conservative movement did express alarm.
David Friedman, the former U.S. Ambassador to Israel under Donald Trump, publicly criticized Tucker Carlson’s analogy as dangerous and offensive.
Laura Loomer, the far-right activist and frequent provocateur, also broke with the silence to condemn the “hummus-eaters in Jerusalem” line as antisemitic.
Yet rather than sparking broader debate, Friedman and Loomer were castigated — accused of disloyalty, dismissed as overreacting, or attacked online by Carlson’s supporters. Their rebuke served as a warning to others: criticizing Tucker Carlson carries a price.
A Setup, Not a Slip
Tucker Carlson’s coy phrasing, mocking laugh, and the coordinated silence afterward suggest this was not an accidental misstep but a setup: a carefully staged moment that revived an old accusation, dressed it in cultural code, and dared anyone to object.
The formula was simple:
- Invoke the crucifixion story.
- Swap “Jews” for a modern cultural marker (“hummus-eaters in Jerusalem”).
- Tie the crucifixion to Kirk’s murder.
- Mock the idea with a laugh, signaling bravado.
- Let silence do the rest — converting insinuation into tacit approval.
The result was to normalize one of history’s most dangerous libels within the largest conservative memorial gathering of the year.
Implications
The danger is not that Tucker Carlson explicitly incited violence; he did not. The danger is that by reviving the deicide charge in coded form, he contributed to an environment in which Jews are again seen as conspiratorial enemies of truth-tellers. He planted the seeds. He set the stage. History shows that such narratives, once unleashed, do not remain rhetorical.
That the GOP and conservative media offered no correction is more than a missed opportunity. It is complicity by silence. And that the few who did object — Friedman and Loomer — were castigated underscores how deeply embedded this narrative has become in parts of the movement.
In the end, the scandal of Tucker Carlson’s speech is not only what he said but what others failed to say. When ancient libels are dressed in modern clothing and laughed off on a national stage, silence ceases to be neutrality. It becomes consent.
Well written; what a bitter disappointement; worse than that. Carlson is “ blind” mislead by false teachears, very bad influences.
What a pity; he’s talent is vasted…
That a supposed “Christian” would hold such a view, and publicly air it, at a memorial service for a martyred Christian, and almost no one correct, or otherwise speak against it, is outrageous. I have long felt uncomfortable about Carlson’s position with respect to Yeshua; after this, I think there can be little doubt. How can 1 claim to love Jewish Yeshua, but hate His fellow Jews, and mock a believer martyred in His Name in such a publicly demeaning manner? This goes beyond mere compartmentalizing…