Wait, you mean Shapiro who resigned from Breitbart back in March and said: "In my opinion, Steve Bannon is a bully, and has sold out Andrew’s mission in order to back another bully, Donald Trump; he has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda, to the extent that he abandoned and undercut his own reporter, Breitbart News’ Michelle Fields, in order to protect Trump’s bully campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who allegedly assaulted Michelle.” source and after that resignation, was treated to massive amounts of anti-semitic attacks and death threats by self described members of the alt right source which, in that source, shows the article published by Breitbart under Bannon's leadership, mocking Shapiro for complaining about the anti-Semitism both at Breitbart and in the alt right movement.

Both you and the articles you have listed are deliberately misconstruing the situation. It seems to be fairly clear- Breitbart sells a pro-Trump narrative, a Trump employee did something highly unkind to a Breitbart reporter (It's hard to tell how bad this was, it could be assault), and Shapiro along with the reporter left on ethical grounds. Afterwards Shapiro and Breitbart shit talked each other. None of this has anything to do with racism.

As for your insinuation that his "pro Israel" stance means he can't be antisemitic, I invite you to this article: http://forward.com/news/israel/354402/how-steve-bannon-and-breitbart-news-can-be-pro-israel-and-anti-semitic-at-t/ and of course from the Times Of Israel news site: http://www.timesofisrael.com/stephen-bannon-5-things-jews-need-to-know/

This is downright atrocious journalism. Regardless of whether or not these accusations are even correct, this is a far cry from proving your point. If anything I am extremely skeptical of the people writing these articles; they constantly treat accusations, assumptions, and heresay as facts. These are blatantly biased, bad sources.

Breitbart ran a headline one time that called someone a Jew, so I guess Bannon is a rabid anti-semite... this is not a logical conclusion.

There are numerous blatant lies and misrepresentations in these articles. You should not trust these people or take them seriously.

I'm willing to call him antisemitic because he ran a website with headlines like referring to an anti-Trump column writer as a "renegade Jew"

This is the only piece of evidence that a non-biased person would take even remotely seriously, and you try to convict him on this one thing alone. Dubious. You don't even know if he ran the fucking headline dude...

or an article claiming another Jewish writer “attempts to impose a globalist worldview upon citizenries that reject it”, which is a common antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Horribly illogical thinking. I'm against the pharmaceutical establishment, specifically the over-perscription of psychopharmaceutical drugs. Am I a scientologist now?

And then there's the Anti-Defamation League's statement

Again, libel. The alt-right is not simply "a bunch of racist assholes." Anyone who presents them that way loses credibility. My entire argument is that people shouldn't do that, and you think I take this as proof?

I'm not disregarding any evidence, I'm taking all of the evidence into account, you should too.

You're taking into account blatantly biased, misrepresented, borderline untrue statements as "evidence."