Editor’s note: As someone who has written chapters on Jewish apologia and self-deception, I have to say that Caroline Glick may be the most extreme case I have ever encountered. One struggles for words to describe her rabid ethnocentrism and how it blinds her to the most obvious realities. Jews are morally superior paragons of rationality, responsible for everything good in the world, including Western institutions of democracy and individual freedom. With only a few exceptions (non-Jews who accept the tutelage of Jews), non-Jews are, as Brenton Sanderson phrases it, “brutish and irrational embodiments of evil” while Jews are “reasoning, intelligent moral paragons.”
Truly breathtaking. It’s terrifying to think that such a person is a highly praised and powerful member not only of the Israeli political establishment but is also a well-established figure in neoconservative circles and the media in the US.
Caroline Glick is an American-born Israeli journalist and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She is also the Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs of the Washington DC-based neoconservative Center for Security Policy. A radical Zionist, Glick migrated to Israel in 1991 and served in the Israeli Defense Force before going on to serve as assistant foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Glick has been showered with awards and praise from Zionist and Jewish organizations. In 2003 the Israeli newspaper Maariv named her the most prominent woman in Israel. She was the 2005 recipient of the Zionist Organization of America’s Ben Hecht award for Outstanding Journalism (previous recipients included A. M. Rosenthal, Sidney Zion and Daniel Pipes). She has also been awarded the Abramowitz Prize for Media Criticism by Israel Media Watch. In 2009 she received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv. In 2012 The David Horowitz Freedom Center announced the hiring of Glick as the Director of its “Israel Security Project.”
Inevitably, given the Jewish stranglehold over the American media, Glick is given a regular platform to espouse her Jewish supremacist views in The Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun-Times, The Washington Times and many other newspapers and journals around the world. She is also a regular pundit on MSNBC and the Fox News channel. Given her wide exposure in the Jewish-controlled media, and the senior positions she holds within the neoconservative establishment (where she is touted as “a brilliant and outspoken Jewish academic”), one might expect Glick to possess a formidable intellect and have a knack for formulating intellectually sophisticated Jewish apologetics.
Instead we find another Jewish mediocrity whose undeserved public prominence can only be ascribed to Jewish ethnic networking. Take, for example, a speech Glick recently gave to a neoconservative audience entitled “Why the Jews?” In this speech the “brilliant and outspoken” Glick explains to us the “roots of genocidal Jew hatred.” She begins by telling her audience that:
I don’t want to talk specifically about the ideology of Islamic anti-Semites or genocidal Jew-haters or European or Leftist people who want to destroy Jewish power and make us all needy and begging for our very lives. I want to talk about what all of the enemies of the Jewish people throughout the ages share. Because one thing about the genocidal axis is that it’s not new, it’s been here throughout time and the members of the genocidal axis, they may change their accents, they may change the books that they read, they may change a million different things, the continents they live in, but one thing that they share across time is that over and over and over again the target of their genocidal blood-lust is the Jews.
So the “brilliant and out-spoken” Glick begins her speech with a tautology: that the enemies of the Jewish people throughout the ages all shared one thing in common — they regarded the Jews as their enemies. Glick melodramatically claims that anyone who has ever opposed Jewish influence or even discussed it critically necessarily harbored a “genocidal blood-lust” against the Jews. Of course, unmentioned by Glick is the fierce and implacable Jewish hostility to non-Jews that has echoed down through the ages—from the enthusiastic and vastly disproportionate Jewish participation in the Bolshevik mass murder of millions of Eastern Europeans in the early twentieth century to the fear and loathing of White Christian America that results in overwhelming Jewish support for massive non-White immigration into Western nations.
Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes of hatred and cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the majority of Israeli Jews. Normally these attitudes are disguised from the outside world, but since the establishment of the State of Israel, the 1967 war and the rise of Begin, a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters.
In recent years the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is the “natural” lot of Gentiles have been publicly quoted in Israel, even on TV, by Jewish farmers exploiting Arab labor, particularly child labor. Gush Emunim leaders have quoted religious precepts which enjoin Jews to oppress Gentiles, as a justification of the attempted assassination of Palestinian mayors and as divine authority for their own plan to expel all the Arabs from Palestine.
In the Jewish view, servitude and cruel treatment are the natural lot of non-Jews. Who are the haters?
In her speech Glick recounts the close friendship she shared with Benjamin Netanyahu’s father Benzion (another Jewish intellectual activist and apologist) and notes how the old man would “repeatedly and with the same impassioned anger” declare that “he could not stand the fixation on the Holocaust as some sort of singular moment in global history because there has been a holocaust of Jewry in every generation throughout the ages.” According to Glick, Netanyahu the elder believed:
That the same passions that inflamed the Germans and then spread out throughout Europe with this bloodlust of wanting to kill children like mine was due to a passion that moves through the ages, that there was nothing unique about that desire to shoot lead into Jewish babies. There is nothing unique about it. It’s been going on since the time of the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Egyptians. Just read the Bible, what is he [the Pharaoh] talking about? He wants to annihilate a people. It’s not he wants to enslave them; he wants them gone — out! What’s the difference between Pharaoh and Hitler? Technology? That’s it.
Conveniently, Glick has nothing to say about the genocidal Jewish hatred of non-Jews that pervades the very same Jewish Bible she cites. For instance, in Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites — men, women, children, infants, and their cattle — for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier. Ignoring all of this, Glick proposes that a “genocidal Jew hatred” is the “unifying force between Pharaoh and Ahmadinejad and Khomeini and yes the international Left which is the handmaiden of these monsters of the Islamic world, without which they could never, ever, march even one step forward.”
The inconvenient reality for Glick is that Jews have, for well over a century, been the intellectual, organizational and financial backbone of the Left. Furthermore, the only reason Jews are increasingly subject to Islamic anti-Semitism in countries like France is because of mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism — both of which are the malignant outgrowths of Jewish ethnic activism.
So what is this mysterious “force” that Glick believes unifies those who have opposed the Jews at any time and place throughout history?
It is the rejection of reason. … What is it about reason and about choice and about the notion of moral choice and moral empowerment of individuals that stands at the root of the genocidal bloodlust against the Jews? The answer is that, from time immemorial, Judaism has been based, from the time that God first spoke to Abraham in Iraq and told him to leave his father’s home after Abraham took down the idols from his father’s store and broke them. Get thee to the land that I have promised you and your children. What was it about Abraham that God embraced at that time and about the Jews at every single generation since then that drives people bananas? It is the idea of good and evil, it is the idea that we as human beings have the responsibility to make a discernment between good and evil and to choose good in our lifetimes.
In attributing anti-Semitism to the rejection of reason, one is reminded of the “argument” of Horkheimer and Adorno in their Dialectic of the Enlightenment, a basic text of the Frankfurt School:
Horkheimer and Adorno propose that modern fascism is basically the same as traditional Christianity because both involve opposition to and subjugation of nature. … In an argument reminiscent of Freud’s argument in Moses and Monotheism, religious anti-Semitism then arises because of hatred of those “who did not make the dull sacrifice of reason. . . .The adherents of the religion of the Father are hated by those who support the religion of the Son—hated as those who know better” (p. 179). (see here, p. 156)
The notion that all non-Jews were mired in irrational amorality before the advent of the Jews is laughable. It is typical of hyper-ethnocentric Jewish activists like Glick to divide humanity into two groups — the inherently moral and righteous Jews on the on the one hand, and the inherently immoral and wicked non-Jews on the other — completely ignoring the ethical double standard that is absolutely central to Judaism as noted above. The origin of anti-Jewish sentiment, according to this conception, resides in the fundamental incapacity of non-Jews to exercise reason and moral discernment. As with Jewish apologetics stretching back to the ancient world, Glick once again presents us with the conception of the Jews as reasoning, intelligent moral paragons and non-Jews as brutish and irrational embodiments of evil. For Glick, what all of the anti-Semites throughout history simply cannot stand is:
A belief that defines us as a holy people, as a chosen people, [that] we accept, not divine salvation, but the notion of a life of hard choices, of constantly making a decision, and loyalty to a notion that it is our responsibility to do so, and that drives people to genocidal bloodlust because at the root of this bloodlust is a rejection of reason. It’s a rejection of individualism, it’s a rejection of responsibility, it’s a rejection of the notion that we have to be good. Because that makes our lives a struggle, that makes our lives difficult.
It takes a truckload of chutzpah from an ultra-Zionist like Glick to criticize those hostile to Jews for their “rejection of individualism” when the defining feature of Jewish history has been that group interests, rather than individual interests, have been of primary importance. Judaism is the prime historical example of how the rejection of individualism leads to group evolutionary success. In Glick’s condemnation of non-Jews who reject individualism we hear echoes of the Frankfurt School’s promotion of radical individualism as the epitome of psychological health for Europeans. The sane and well-adjusted White person was characterized by these Jewish intellectual activists as an individual who had broken free from the traditional Western shaming code, and who realized their human potential without relying on membership in collectivist groups. This promotion of radical individualism among non-Jews was, of course, intended to undermine the group cohesion of Europeans and thereby weaken their capacity to compete effectively with Jews.
The reality is that hostility between Jews and non-Jews stems from conflicts of interests. However, for Glick, the existence of anti-Jewish sentiment is attributable to the fact that these hostile non-Jews are unreasoning, irrational brutes who only oppose Jewish power because “reasoning” is simply too hard them. Moreover, those who have the capacity to reason still hate Jews because they are irresponsible and simply do not want to be good. According to Glick:
It’s all about what does it mean to be a human being, and if you come down on that question, understanding that to be a human being means to be a moral agent, not an object, then you’re with the Jews, and you’re opposing totalitarianism, and you’re opposing hatred, and you’re opposing genocide. And if you come down on that question: “I want somebody else to tell me what to do, I don’t know, I’m too weak, I’m too lazy, I’m too uneducated, I’m too ignorant to recognize the meaning of freedom,” then you’re a slave, then you can run around saying “Liberate Palestine.”
It takes a real talent for casuistry, married with a profound dishonesty, to offer up the kind of moral inversion Glick gives us here. If you’re a reasoning moral agent you’re with the Jews and against totalitarianism, hatred and genocide — because the Jews by definition are incapable of engaging in totalitarianism, hatred and genocide, despite their egregious historical track record with regard to all three. If you oppose the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in Israel you are a brain dead slave, despite the fact that this descriptor more aptly applies to the millions of people who uncritically accept the lies and cultural subversion offered them by the Jewish controlled media and entertainment industries. So what does Glick make of those more individualistic nations like United States that have been far less effective in resisting Jewish domination?
Now what was it that made the United States the only country (to date) that didn’t have the same genocidal Jew-hatred at the root of its identity that we saw in country after country in Europe, [and] that we see in Arab world? It was that the United States, its forefathers, had this idea that was based on the Torah, of rule of law, of limited government, of the responsibility of the individual to make that decision between good and evil, and to choose good, and to have the liberty from that government to make that choice. The whole concept of the modern state is based on the philosophical works of men like John Selden and John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes who were Hebrew scholars, who based their whole concept of the modern state, that these men put together, on the rule of law, on divine law, that man could not be a totalitarian because we are not God.
Here Glick engages in a long-standing but utterly bogus Jewish intellectual tradition: that of Jews seeking to take credit for Western civilization (or at least the features of it amenable to Jews). (See, e.g., Andrew Joyce’s classic work on Spinoza in which he debunks the idea promoted by Jewish activist scholars that Spinoza had a crucial influence on the Enlightenment stemming from his Jewish background.) Thus, the only reason the United States is any good, according to Glick, is that its intellectual and political founders were steeped in the lore and traditions of the Jews — all roads lead to Jerusalem. Non-Jews are mostly irrational and wicked Jew-haters, and their few redeeming qualities can ultimately be traced the positive influence exerted by the Jews. Forget Plato and Aristotle and 2,500 years of Western philosophy; the best features of Western civilization find their wellspring in the mythology of the Hebrews. Indeed Glick even goes so far as to claim that: “The whole concept of the modern state was based on the Hebrew Bible and it was transported from the British enlightenment to the new world through the American forefathers.”
Glick is deeply troubled by the rising anti-Jewish sentiment among sections of the academic left in the United States. Of course, this as an entirely predictable response to the increasingly radical actions of an increasingly ruthless and rabidly ethno-nationalist Israeli government and its Zionist supporters in the United States — actions which include the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, a state-sponsored policy of ethnic apartheid, and the deportation of non-Jewish “enemy infiltrators” from Africa. Glick totally ignores this obvious fact and instead argues that hostility to Israel and its Zionist supporters stems from a rejection of American values and (because America was in her view created by Hebrew scholars) a rejection of righteous Jewish values.
What do we see today? Why is it that we see more and more and more Jew hatred and attacks on Jews in US universities, in political circles, on the left? Because the left is introducing an ideology that is fundamentally un-American, that is based on the totalitarian idea of a governing power that is absolute, that knows better than an individual what’s good from him or her. And if you know better than I do what’s good for me, what’s good for my children, then you’re an absolute power, and if you’re an absolute power you have to reject Jews. Because absolute powers must reject Jews who understand that there’s no authority except God and you’re not Him.
Anti-Zionist sentiment is growing, according to Glick, not because of the increasingly indefensible actions of the Israeli government (cheered on by their hypocritical Zionist cheerleaders in the West), but because the Zionist establishment in America is declining in influence.
We are faced with this wave, because the strength of people in this room, and unfortunately outside this room, seems to be waning. And the wave that is rising throughout the world is a wave of hatred, of bloodlust, of totalitarianism, and again this is familiar, this is known, we understand what we’re dealing with.
The ongoing Zionist outrages (despite the endless compensatory stream of “Holocaust” propaganda from Hollywood), has led to the erosion of Jewish moral legitimacy over recent years and has resulted in an unprecedented situation that Glick finds extremely disturbing, namely that:
The new thing in this generation is that we see Americans confused for the first time about what side they’re supposed to be on. We see that there is a question about “Is Israel evil for standing up for existing, for being different from all of its unaesthetic, misogynistic, totalitarian neighbors? Are we bad for being loyal to everything that we’ve stood for four thousand years?” How can you question that? Because Americans are beginning to question what it means to be an American.
For Glick, what it means to be American is to obsequiously accept the total Jewish domination of their nation and to support Israel to the last dollar and the last drop of American blood. For Glick, as for all of the “Israel-firsters” of the neocon establishment, Israel’s interests and America’s interests are indistinguishable. She thus concludes her speech with such shameless lies as: “You want a foreign policy that is coherent, that advances American interests? Then stand with Israel. You want to figure out how to ensure that America is safe? Stand with Israel.”
Jewish supremacists like Glick are increasingly disturbed that the old lies and hypocrisy simply don’t wash with growing numbers of people. If White nations are “evil for existing,” and for being different from their “unaesthetic, misogynistic, totalitarian neighbors” — as we are constantly told by the Jewish-dominated intellectual establishment — then Israel is necessarily evil too. How can Jews be anything but “bad” for “being loyal to everything that they’ve stood for four thousand years,” when Europeans are told they are evil for being loyal to everything they’ve represented for thousands of years. Glick’s utterly dishonest speech, aside from revealing her status as one of the most overrated figures among the Jewish activist ranks, also reveals how Israel is very much the Achilles heel of Jewish power and moral legitimacy.