TL;DR: I argue that patterns demand conclusions, that liberal democracy’s weaknesses were deliberately exploited, that Christian civilization has been specifically targeted, and that the refusal to even ask these questions is not sophistication but surrender. Christ is King, His enemies are our enemies, and no rhetorical sleight of hand will convince us to remain silent.
There is a genre of writing that has become common as more people notice forbidden patterns. It admits just enough truth to seem reasonable, then steers readers away from obvious conclusions about these truths.
A piece published this week in Compact Magazine by David Azerrad is one such example. Azerrad’s article, entitled The Return of The Jewish Question, acknowledges the facts, concedes the data, and then tells us that drawing any conclusions from these facts marks us as intellectually weak conspiracy theorists who need simple answers.
David is forthright about his own biases in the article, which I greatly appreciated, but in typical academic fashion (David is an assistant professor at Hillsdale College’s Van Andel Graduate School of Government,) he pompously assumes that we will not engage with any of the poorly formed apologetics for his tribe simply because he is a card holding member.
Because I am a Jew, my entire argument will, of course, simply be dismissed by the JQers.
But let us examine his arguments, because they reveal far more than David intends.
The most striking feature of this article is how much it concedes. Jews are vastly overrepresented in all left-wing movements. A quarter of the authors in an American progressivism syllabus are Jewish, in a country where Jews are two percent of the population. Marx, Trotsky, Luxemburg, and countless other leading communists were ethnically Jewish. The Frankfurt School, feminism, neoconservatism, the sexual revolution—all disproportionately Jewish in origin. The Israel lobby is real and powerful. Politicians who conflate American and Israeli interests are embarrassing.
All of this is admitted openly by David. He does not dispute the facts because they are documented beyond any reasonable doubt. What he disputes is that these facts warrant any particular concern.
This is curious. Imagine if any other two-percent minority dominated the leadership of every major social movement, controlled a vastly disproportionate share of media and financial institutions, and exercised outsized influence over foreign policy in ways that conflicted with the majority’s interests. Would we be told that noticing this pattern is intellectual weakness? Would we be assured that correlation does not imply causation?
Of course not. If any other group exhibited this pattern, we would call it a systemic problem requiring immediate redress. Diversity initiatives would be launched. The overrepresented group would be expected to step back. In fact that is exactly what Jacob Savage revealed had happened to White male millennials who had been systematically shut out of traditional career paths and professional advancement in media, academia, and creative industries over roughly the past decade. As David correctly pointed out in his piece, we all know which tribe dominates those industries. But when the group is Jewish, noticing the pattern becomes the offense. As always with Jews there are one set of rules for us, and another for them.
David then accuses those who raise the Jewish Question of selective noticing. They see Jews on the left, he says, but ignore Jews on the right. Stephen Miller is a Jew. Paul Gottfried is a Jew. Therefore, we cannot draw conclusions about Jewish influence.
This argument is less clever than it appears. No one denies that individual Jews exist across the political spectrum. The question is whether, as a collective, Jewish influence has pushed American society in particular directions. And here the evidence is overwhelming.
Yes, Stephen Miller exists, but so do the hundreds of Jewish organizations that lobbied for the 1965 Immigration Act that transformed America’s demographics. Yes, Paul Gottfried is a paleoconservative, but Jewish neoconservatives purged the paleoconservatives from respectable discourse decades ago. Yes, some Jews are Zionists who oppose mass immigration to Israel while supporting it for America. That is precisely the point.
Exceptions do not disprove patterns. They confirm that patterns are patterns, not iron laws. David himself provides the data: Jews are twelve times overrepresented in his syllabus on progressivism. The founders of every major leftist movement in the past century and a half were disproportionately Jewish. These are not marginal figures. These are the architects of ideological revolution. Noticing this is not selective. Ignoring it is.
We are told that Jews have contributed enormously to Western civilization. Einstein, Freud, the Nobel laureates, the artistic geniuses. How ungrateful, the argument implies, to question Jewish influence when Jews have given us so much.
This argument proves too much. The question is not whether Jews are intelligent or accomplished. Clearly they are. The question is whether their accomplishments in certain domains have been beneficial or harmful to Christian civilization.
Jewish contributions to physics, mathematics, and medicine are perhaps genuine goods. But what of the specifically ideological contributions? What of Marx, whose philosophy produced a hundred million corpses? What of Freud, who pathologized Christian sexual morality? What of the Frankfurt School, which developed the intellectual framework for cultural revolution? What of the architects of critical theory and the systematic deconstruction of Western tradition?
These are also Jewish contributions. They are also disproportionate. And they have been catastrophic for Christian civilization. David wants us to weigh Nobel Prizes against ideology. But this is a category error. Scientific achievements do not cancel out ideological subversion any more than a man’s professional success excuses crimes against his family.
The most sophisticated argument David makes is that liberal democracy itself, not Jewish influence, explains the leftward drift of Western societies. Tocqueville predicted feminism without mentioning Jews. Ireland and Norway have the same problems as America despite being nearly Judenfrei. Therefore, Jews cannot be the cause.
This argument contains an important truth wrapped in a misleading conclusion. Liberal democracy does contain the seeds of its own destruction. The logic of equality does tend toward ever more radical applications.
But this does not mean Jewish influence is irrelevant. A disease may be inherent to a system, but it progresses faster when actively accelerated. Liberal democracy may tend toward dissolution, but that tendency has been systematically exploited and intensified by those who saw advantage in it.
Jewish intellectual movements did not create the weaknesses of liberal democracy. They exploited them. They identified the contradictions and pressure points and applied relentless force. They developed the theories that justified radical applications of liberal principles. They built institutions to propagate these theories. They punished dissenters and promoted allies. The tendency may have been inherent, but the acceleration was not.
And there is another problem with the Ireland and Norway defense. These countries did not develop their ideologies in isolation. They imported them from America—from American universities, American media, American cultural institutions. The fact that Jewish influence was indirect rather than direct does not make it nonexistent. When the entire Western world adopts an ideology developed in one country, the question of who developed that ideology remains relevant.
David makes much of the implication that the Jewish Question requires gentile stupidity. If Jews have been manipulating gentiles for generations, why have gentiles not figured it out? Are we really so dumb?
This is meant as mockery, but it points toward an important truth. Yes, gentiles have been remarkably naive. Yes, we have been manipulated. Yes, this reflects poorly on us.
But there are reasons for this beyond raw stupidity. Christians are taught to be trusting, to assume good faith, to judge individuals rather than groups. These are virtues in proper context. They become vices when exploited by those who do not share them. Jewish in-group solidarity is well documented. Jewish ethnic networking is openly discussed in Jewish publications. The combination of high gentile trust and high Jewish solidarity creates an asymmetry that advantages the more cohesive group.
Moreover, gentiles who did notice were systematically destroyed. Careers ended. Reputations ruined. Social death administered to anyone who spoke too plainly. David himself acknowledges that raising the Jewish Question brings accusations of antisemitism. This is not accident. It is defense mechanism. A pattern that cannot be discussed cannot be addressed.
The fact that gentiles are only now waking up is not evidence that the pattern does not exist. It is evidence that the suppression worked—until the internet broke the information monopoly.
David notes that Jewish activism has created conditions that harm Jews themselves. Mass migration brought antisemitic Muslims to the West. Progressive politics unleashed anti-Zionist leftism. If Jews are so clever, why did they do this to themselves?
This is a fair question. Jewish political activism has not been uniformly beneficial even for Jews. The current moment, with anti-Israel protests sweeping elite campuses, represents a genuine problem for the Jewish community.
But unintended consequences do not exonerate original intentions. Jewish organizations promoted mass immigration and multiculturalism because these policies served perceived Jewish interests at the time. A diverse society, the reasoning went, would be less likely to coalesce around antisemitism. This calculation may have been wrong, but it was not irrational given the premises.
The self-harm does not retroactively justify what was done. A man who burns down his neighbor’s house and accidentally sets his own on fire has still committed arson. Jewish organizations promoted policies that damaged American society. That these policies eventually created problems for Jews as well does not change the nature of what was done.
For Christians, there is a deeper dimension that secular analyses inevitably misses. The conflict between Christ and the Jewish religious authorities is not incidental to the Gospel. It is central. Jesus reserved His harshest condemnation for the Pharisees. He called them children of their father the devil. He prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem as judgment for rejection of the Messiah.
The New Testament does not present Judaism and Christianity as compatible religions with minor theological differences. It presents them as fundamentally opposed. The Synagogue rejected Christ. It persecuted the early Church. Rabbinic Judaism, as it developed after the temple’s destruction, defined itself against Christianity. The Talmud contains passages about Jesus that no Christian could read without horror.
This does not mean individual Jews cannot be saved. The Gospel is for all people. But it does mean that Judaism as a religious and cultural system stands in opposition to the Church. The interests of the Synagogue and the interests of Christian civilization are not aligned. When Jewish influence advances, Christian influence tends to recede.
David offers no real solution to these very real problems because he believes there is no real problem. He wants us to notice the facts and do nothing—informed and impotent, aware and inactive.
If Jewish influence has been harmful, we must work to reduce it. This does not mean persecution or violence. It means what it has always meant when one group exercises disproportionate power at the expense of another: restoration of balance. Building Christian institutions. Promoting Christian voices. Practicing the ethnic solidarity other groups exercise openly. Refusing to be silenced by accusations designed to perpetuate our silence.
The great weapon of subversion has always been guilt. We are told, largely by Jews, that White Christian civilization is uniquely wicked, that our ancestors were monsters, that we have no right to exist as a people with interests. Once we internalize this guilt, we cannot resist. We cannot defend what we believe deserves destruction.
We must see what has been done, who has done it, and why. We must reject imposed guilt. We must recover our right to advocate for ourselves without apology or fear.
The Jewish Question is not the only question. Liberal democracy does contain internal contradictions. Gentile naivety has been a factor. The problems are complex. But the refusal to even ask the question, the insistence that noticing patterns is the offense—is surrender.
We will not surrender. We will ask the questions that need asking. We will draw conclusions the evidence supports. And we will act in accordance with our own interests, as every healthy people throughout history has done.
Christ is King. His enemies are our enemies.
No amount of rhetorical pilpul will convince us otherwise.
Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Christ is King
