I have long believed vile Jew-hater Lucas Gage to be a clear and present danger to Jews.
In 2020, the then Angelo John Gage spoke about being prepared to die for a revolution, while implying Jews need to die.
He would later claim he never advocated for the murder of Jews.
Then in 2023, after being off Twitter for a while, he returned with a shiny new name (Lucas), and promised he was a changed man. He even invited me to a Zoom meeting to discuss his change of heart, an invite I accepted. And while I really wanted to believe him, I was not fully convinced and sensed he was unstable. Not surprisingly, he was soon back to the “old” Angelo.
Over time, he again engaged in some worrying rhetoric, like when he ranted we are demons who need to be “slayed”. But he again had his “plausible deniability”, explaining he only meant rhetorically (despite posting a graphic suggesting otherwise).
He would later film himself stabbing an Israeli flag, before brandished the knife and proclaiming “death to Jewish supremacy.” This was seen by some as a further violent threat, and he was banned from Twitter/X for it (something for which he blamed me, as well as a bunch of other things). But Gage again claimed he was misrepresented.
Fast forward to now. Gage is demonizing Jews as “monsters” from birth, engaging in the most horrendous things, who need to be “stopped”:
One could read this and draw ominous conclusions as to how he thinks we should be stopped. But he has actually provided some more insight into this in another tweet from an alternative account he runs for longer-form tweets:
In other words, while he proposes two “non-violent” ways to achieve this, he concludes these ways are not feasible. He ends with the claim that we started WWII, (and we all know how that played out for the Jewish people).
Now the US has laws against incitement to violence, but they are limited by the First Amendment, which protects free speech. The key legal standard comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Supreme Court ruled that speech can only be criminalized if it:
- Is likely to incite or produce such action.
- Is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action
One could argue:
- The urgency of “We are next if we don’t stop these monsters.” suggests an imminent threat.
- The second tweet removes nonviolent options, making violent responses seem justified or necessary.
The question is, are his tweets likely to produce such action? This would depend on his audience, and whether it includes those prone to extremism.
We urgently need your support to continue our impactful work. To donate, please click on the below:
