Saturday, December 13, 2014

Caroline Glick Hands Racist Danish Ambassador His Own Head

Michael L.

Sometimes, in my opinion, Caroline can get a tad too strident, although I do not believe anyone would doubt her sincerity.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that there is nothing the least bit complimentary to holding Jewish people to a double-standard.  In fact, it's the very definition of discrimination and, therefore, anti-Semitism.

It also neatly represents the type of humanitarian racism that the Europeans and western progressives have become so adept at over the years.  The most racist political movement in the west today, with the sole exception of political Islam, is western progressivism.

The irony, of course, is rich.  The progressive-left tells the world that it is "anti-racist" even as it holds "people of color" to non-human standards.  I find it exceedingly distasteful and would never associate myself with a political movement as disgustingly racist as the progressive-left.

They honestly seem to think that non-white people are so loathsome that they cannot be held to normal human standards of behavior.  What, essentially, did the moronic Danish ambassador say?  That they hold Israel to a double-standard because they hold Israel to a European standard?  Was that the idea?

I see.

So, in other words, they hold "Europeans" and non-Europeans to different standards of morality with the obvious implication that non-Europeans (i.e., non-white people) are on a lower moral plain than the rest of humanity and therefore cannot be expected to live up to normal human codes of moral decency.

Got it.

{A big Tip 'O the Kippa to the Elder.}


  1. Which head?

    Ba dump bump. I'll be here all week.

    More seriously, which European standards? Before 1945, or after?

  2. "The most racist political movement in the west today, with the sole exception of political Islam, is western progressivism. "
    I'm not sure why you would say that western progressivism is the second MOST racist political movement. For example, is it more racist than white supremacism? I would however say that western progressivism is the most dangerous and/or insidious form of western racism today due to its rising popularity.

    As far as the progressive left's loathing of "people of color," do you think this loathing subconscious? I ask, because they certainly do quite consciously ( or self-consciously) put them on a pedestal.

    I think the Belgian in the video believes himself to represent anti-racism. Caroline Glick may be strident, but I think her remarks were right on the money, i.e., sometimes some cold water to the face is appropriate.

    1. Hi Jeff,

      The progressive-left is not more racist than white supremacism, but white supremacism as a political movement is virtually irrelevant. The Klan is not exactly running people for office these days. There is no Congressional White Supremacist Caucus, thankfully.

      As for progressive-left bigotry against non-white people, yes, it is largely unconscious. It has become so ingrained, so essential to their political identities, that they do not even see how terribly condescending they are to their non-white political allies.

      They literally think that Arabs can do no wrong. Literally. Anything that any Arab does, however horrific, is always viewed within the context of either the Israeli "occupation" of Israel or the history of western and American imperialism.

      Thus if the Islamic State wants to run around head chopping in Syria and Iraq, well, who can blame them, really?

      It's not as if they are actual human beings who we hold to normative standards of regular human decency, or anything.

      As far as I am concerned, the Left has checked-out ethically. Thus any argument that they make on ethical or moral grounds, on any topic, should automatically be dismissed as a matter of hypocrisy.

    2. It's a slippery slope when you get to ethical arguments, though. By that standard you can also argue that the Ayn Rand acolytes and the Christian Right 'Moralists' who make up much of the modern conservative movement in the US have checked out, as well.

      Everybody's checked out in one way or another, as far as somebody sees it.

      I find myself in an exceedingly odd position anymore where, as a liberal, just considering immediately current events, I certainly don't sympathize with the idiots who are smashing and rioting and burning down, or justifying the smashing and rioting and burning down of, poor and working-class inner city neighborhoods (especially since I live in one myself, here in North Philadelphia) as a result of unfavorable jury verdicts; but the conservative movement, particularly here in the US, is abhorrent to me, as well.

      I'm not going to get riled up over who my neighbors or my cousins or my coworkers are fucking. That's none of my business. I also can't quite bring myself to see providing healthcare to everybody as one of history's greatest threats, even if I believe the implementation of same was handled quite poorly, to say the very least.

      In terms of immigration, I probably generally align more with what is likely considered the right wing in the overall big picture in the current US discussion, but there are irredeemable morons on both sides of the current 'debate,' mostly on the side I generally agree with.

      Needless to say, I certainly break with a growing chunk of the Left when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict. As well as their humanitarian racism as it extends to other issues, related or not.

      "Thus any argument that they make on ethical or moral grounds, on any topic, should automatically be dismissed as a matter of hypocrisy."

      The problem with that is the same could pretty much be said for anybody, certainly including myself on some things, if I'm going to be completely fair and objective. Even though I would probably disagree on instinct as such things were pointed out. Heh.

      Anyway, I don't think it's possible to rank which mainstream contemporary political movement of note is 'most' racist, with the obvious exception of Political Islam, which is clearly in a league all of its own. Not all on the Left refuse to acknowledge that blatant fact, or make excuses for it, however.

    3. Maybe it's time to reform the Republican Party.

      The Democrats take us for granted, just as a person would tend to take any slave for granted.

      I think that we could have a positive and liberalizing influence on the Republican Party. I think that we could smooth its edges and we could use the party as a basis for discussing social issues with traditional domestic rivals, such as the Evangelicals.

      I do not know, but I am certainly open to possibilities.

    4. A worthy project, and I send my best wishes to those who choose to take it on. The Republicans are not my party and never will be, though so I'll personally have to root on others from where I am.

      It's more than social issues. As long as the Republican Party essentially remains the anti-labor party, they will never even sniff a whiff of my support. And honestly, that's okay. But as long as we're gonna continue to have a two-party system, it would be nice to at least live in one where the other party isn't completely opposed to my values on 95% of issues, as we have now in this ultra-polarized US political climate.

      Ideally, we can take on both tasks. We do rule the world and control everything, after all... ;)

  3. Also the idea, expressed by the gentleman, that Israel is being judged by some European standard in war is, I think, a bunch of baloney. I don't believe Europe has ever held itself to any such standard.
    What the western media did during the Gaza war, was to first call it an "assault on Gaza" instead of what it really was, a defensive war against Hamas. Then they were quite happy to get the civilian death toll wrong, and to give short shrift to the use of human shields, which anyone truly interested in humanitarian law would be screaming about, as it is such a blatantly anti-humanitarian and criminal act.



  5. I think she hit the note exactly. This has to be said by someone.

    Interesting that we all picked the same link for a post. That in itself says something.

    Caroline Glick is white hot angry. She has every right to be. So am I.

    1. Daphne Anson also led with Caroline.

    2. I didn't. Anyone care to cross post.

      We have big issues here with a terrorist siege in Sydney.

      Links at

    3. Hi Shirl

      Just posted on this here using the uncommon sense newsletter I had no idea until about 1.00. about this

      The usual suspects a talking about a "lone wolf" attack.

  6. She said part of what needed to be said. She may have addressed it later in a segment not in the clip, but there is also the need to say that even if you hold that Israel should be held to European standards and the Arabs to 3rd world standards; compared to Europe, Israel is being held to a double standard. She didn't ask the "Honored" ambassador if there is any European military which employs as many measures as Israel does to avoid civilian casualties when engaged in URBAN warfare.

  7. That is, in fact, one accurate way of putting it.