You should read David Gelernter’s book, “Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber,” in which he addresses the problem of Jews as a sort of “dye marker” for the influence of intellectuals. Despite his own status as a Jew and an intellectual, Gelernter saw how the tendency toward social criticism — which is, so often, actually advocating the destruction of moral norms — was common to the intellectual class, within which Jews are overrepresented (e.g., 23% of Columbia University undergraduates). This is a chicken-and-the-egg problem: Is the intellectual class subversive because of the presence of Jews, or do Jews adopt subversive attitudes because these are prevalent within the intellectual class to which they belong? Correlation is not causation, and Gelernter did not waste much time seeking to unravel that enigma, but merely noted that the overrepresentation of Jews was a “dye marker” of intellectualism (by which he meant a preference for theoretical abstraction) in academia.

The conservative bourgeois Jew ought not to be blamed for the actions of subversive radical Jews. You make reference to “our culture,” as if America (or Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.) were a uniform cultural entity, to which Jews — all Jews — are entirely alien. It seems to me you wish to see the world as a struggle between White Gentiles vs. Jews, with no other players in the game, and each team united in its goals. Everything must then be reduced to a single-factor analysis regarding Jewish influence. In such a view, the factor of China disappears, as does the factor of Islam. The challenges facing our society are so numerous that an obsession with Jewish influence is a distraction, at best, and a symptom of decadence, at worst.

First, let me express thanks for the link to my research and commentary on the role of Judith Butler in developing Third Wave “gender theory.” Butler’s extensive reliance on two pro-pedophile sources (Foucault and Rubin) struck me as a powerful indictment of her work.

As I explained elsewhere, most college students who read Butler’s Gender Trouble as a required text for an introductory Women’s Studies course do so without any warning about (a) the problems with her sources, or (b) her authorial purpose. Because her writing style is so opaque and crammed with academic jargon, it is difficult for even an advanced student to understand her meaning. Often, she conveys her meaning by asking provocative questions that she does not directly answer, so that it is impossible for a critic to pin down exactly what it is she advocates. My belief is that this is by design.

As to her authorial purpose, Butler later explained (in an essay included in her anthology Undoing Gender) that her real goal in writing Gender Trouble was to provide an intellectual justification of “butch”/”femme” roles in lesbian relationships. Of course, the college sophomore in a Women’s Studies 101 course is never told this, and instead Butler’s text is presented as saying something about “gender” that is universal in its application. From this, you see, has arisen the madness of Queer Feminism Uber Alles.

Secondly, while I avoid the Salem Witch-Hunt approach to anti-Semitism — where we are all supposed to engage in ritual denunciation of the accused Jew-hater, lest we ourselves become suspects as sympathetic to such — I am myself a philo-Semite and Zionist. Whatever genuine association can be demonstrated between Jewishness and subversive influence is, I believe, explicable by sociological analysis. Indeed, several Jewish conservative authors have addressed this problem at length. The greatest danger posed by anti-Semitism in the 21st century is not an American Fourth Reich, as so many liberals would have us believe, but rather that anti-Semitism inevitably drags down anyone who becomes involved with it. Intelligent young people who might have had useful and productive careers instead divert their energies into futile endeavors that harm their reputations, and which may even lead them to criminal acts. I have known a few such people personally, and it saddens me to contemplate their self-destructive course.

Well, I can read Judith Butler without becoming a pervert, and I can read anti-Semitic arguments without becoming an anti-Semite. This is why the defense of Free Speech is so important. If it were up to the Overlords of High Tech, Mr. Striker’s article would be suppressed, so that no one would even be able to consider whether or not his argument had any truth in it. Why? Because, the ADL would have us believe, anyone who reads this article is immediately going to purchase a swastika flag and begin plotting to blow up the nearest synagogue. Why is it, however, that we are not allowed to argue that Judith Butler’s work should be suppressed because of its potential for inspiring socially harmful behavior? That’s the real question to think about.