A preacher who condemns prostitution but patronizes prostitutes is a hypocrite, as is a bank president who embezzles from his bank but rages against bank robbers. Both are hypocrites because they fail to practice what they preach. They say one thing and do another, which is the commonly understood meaning of “hypocrisy.”
Hypocrisy can, however, include a variety of significantly different psychologies.
The banker may genuinely abhor theft but find the temptation of easy money too strong to resist. He believes it is wrong to steal but steals anyway. His public professions in this case are sincere, and his beliefs on the subject of theft are essentially the same as the beliefs of an honest man. He acknowledges, both publically and inwardly, the moral and legal rules prohibiting theft, while guiltily violating them.
Or, alternatively, a larcenous banker may pretend in public to abhor theft, though privately he sees nothing wrong with thievery and guiltlessly steals whenever the opportunity arises. His outward professions in this hypothetical case are insincere. His concealed beliefs are much different from the beliefs of an honest man. This banker, since he is amoral in financial matters, does not inwardly acknowledge the moral rule prohibiting theft, whereas the honest man does. Female characters in Restoration comedies are often humorously hypocritical in this sense. They do not believe that there is any real offense in extra-marital sex, but they also know that it is wise to profess much different opinions on the subject in public.
There are other possibilities. For instance, a hypocrite may firmly believe that moral rules should apply to others, but also believe that, because his needs are so crucial and his virtue so great, they should not apply to him. He can urge moral rules on others while breaking them himself, with no feeling of guilt and with complete moral confidence. One of Western literature’s most famous hypocrites, Seth Pecksniff in Dickens’ Martin Chuzzlewit, falls into this category. He has fabricated for himself a virtuous persona clearly at odds with his actual behavior and his selfish motives, yet his public performance as a paragon of virtue is so superficially convincing that he appears to have convinced himself of its truth, along with the more gullible characters he encounters.
Hypocrisy has traditionally been defined as “the simulation of virtue or piety.” It derives from Greek hypocrisis, the acting of a dramatic part, and it often retains from its Greek source that sense of a performance on the stage. All of my hypothetical and literary examples above require some public simulation of virtue. Hypocrites, regardless of the differing psychologies that underlie their various hypocrisies, can be thought of as dissembling actors playing roles that proclaim virtues they do not actually practice.
Jews are, of course, deeply hypocritical in their political behavior. A Jew who advocates open borders for Western nations while supporting the preservation of a Jewish state in Israel is clearly guilty of failing to practice what he preaches. Since the vast majority of Diaspora Jews and all major Jewish organizations both support Israel as an apartheid ethnostate and also favor the dissolution of their host nations through massive non-White immigration, we can justly call Jews a hypocritical race on this important subject. They say one thing and do another on a regular basis. Anti-racialism is the virtue they demand of us, but they refuse to apply its dictates to themselves.
To borrow from Roissy, the multiracialist formula “Diversity + Proximity = Peace” is false, and all of Israel’s supporters know it is false, witness their support for Israel’s separation wall and for Israel’s Jews-only immigration policy; but they nevertheless demand that we accept the formula and reshape our nations as though it were true, while openly asserting their own special right to reject it. They will angrily call us “racists” if we dare to assert the same right.
Israel does not have a sterling reputation for kindness toward minorities. Norman Finkelstein, relying on the 2005 Israeli Democracy Index, reports that “among 27 countries with vulnerable minority populations Israel ranked 27th (worst) in economic discrimination and 26th in political discrimination.” With those facts in mind someone unfamiliar with Jewish character traits might predict that Jewish supporters of Israel would carefully refrain from deploying charges of “racism” against others. On the other hand, those of us familiar with Jewish character traits know that they often do so without hesitation.
Implicit in this double-standard is what Hitler called the “great lie” of the Jews, “namely that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race.” He could have added that they are also a racial group that long ago shaped a religion based on the survival and flourishing of its own physical lineage, religiously defined as a holy people distinct from unholy peoples in the eyes of their tribal god (Deuteronomy 30.19-20; Ezra 9.2). The enduring legacy of this curious religion likely informs the often distinctive character of Jewish hypocrisy. It may have encouraged the belief that the selfish interests of the Jews are somehow imbedded in the moral order of the universe. It may also have encouraged the belief that racial self-assertion on the part of their transnational folk community is different from other forms of racial self-assertion.
The historian Simon Schama claims that he and his fellow Jews are linked together by “irrational bonds of memory.” It is a fine-sounding phrase, but in practical terms it is indistinguishable from Hitler’s belief that all Jews belong to a single race, or the belief of White nationalists that all people of European descent are bound together by shared history, shared culture, and shared blood. Hitler and Schama would both agree on the physical referents of the word “Jew”; the only difference between them on this topic is that Hitler spoke clearly and Schama prefers eloquent obfuscation.
In many cases what we call Jewish hypocrisy is so different from normal hypocrisy that it seems to require a special word to describe it. The editor of the New Observer has come up with “hyper-hypocrisy” as a possible lexical solution to the problem. Just as normal ethnocentrism differs from what Kevin MacDonald calls Jewish hyperethnocentrism as a sapling differs from a towering oak, so an important variety of Jewish hypocrisy differs substantially from normal hypocrisy. Specifically, many Jewish hypocrites, despite conspicuously failing to practice what they preach, evidently see no reason to conceal their hypocrisy. If we think of consciously dishonest acting as a defining feature of hypocrisy, then these Jews are not really hypocrites.
If I condemn theft even though I rob banks, or visit prostitutes despite condemning prostitution, the preservation of my public respectability demands that I keep the discrepancy between my professions and my practices a secret. I have to hide my hypocrisy from others. I don’t want them to know about it. Yet much Jewish hypocrisy is so blatant that it is hard to believe that its practitioners have any real desire to conceal their hypocrisy. They make no serious attempt to conceal from others the discrepancy between their professions and their political behavior. They do not seem to be acting a part.
The double-standard so visible here is far from exceptional. The outcry in Israel over Donald Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration is another case in point. An entire nation seems intent on displaying its hypocrisy.
The preservation of Israel’s Jewish character has been the explicit justification for the refusal of successive Israeli governments to allow Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their homes, a right which is mandated by international law. Every Jew in Israel knows that. Israel’s peace negotiations with the representatives of Palestine normally have devoted some pro forma effort to arrive at a symbolic acknowledgement of the Palestinian Right of Return, while ensuring that few (if any) Palestinian Arabs actually do return. A week ago Benjamin Netanyahu stated his nation’s position on the issue more bluntly: “I want to make clear that I will not accept an agreement that does not cancel the Right of Return.” No Israeli politician is therefore in any moral position to condemn Donald Trump, yet a large number of them have done exactly that, with great fervor, as though their objections were sincere.
This bold hypocrisy is too common to require repetition, but for its entertainment value I will provide another example, which was discussed recently by MacDonald. The Jewish Telegraph Agency, in an article on Jewish support for bringing bogus Syrian refugees into America, reports that “Rabbi Steve Gutow, a Reconstructionist who is the outgoing president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said sympathy for the refugee was written into the Jewish cultural genetic code” (emphasis added).
This is a falsifiable proposition, and it could only be considered plausible if we removed from the category “Jew,” and from the Jewish gene pool, all those Jews in Israel who show not the tiniest sympathy for the millions of Arab refugees claiming entrance, their claims based solidly on international law, into the Jewish state. Since Israeli Jews have been consistently refusing them entrance for over sixty years, with vocal support from most American Jews, we can conclude with complete confidence that “sympathy for the refugee” does not inhere in Jewish DNA.
“Sympathy for the refugee” should be the last quality that a Jewish supporter of Israel publicly ascribes to his cultural genetic code. Rabbi Gutow, if he were a hypocritical actor, would be doing his best to ensure that the word “refugee” never passes across his lips. Yet instead he announces, in the presence of reporters, “sympathy for the refugee” as a defining cultural trait of his people.
Gutow, needless to say, also believes that his host country should legalize all illegal immigrants, since “a great nation is vibrant and dynamic.” He speaks as an American patriot: if the American “ethos of openness” is abandoned “we will doom our nation to stagnation. Those nations which built walls became containers for the status quo.” Borders should be eliminated and the construction of walls should be avoided, except in Israel.
The Jewish double-standard on the subject of immigration is not difficult to understand, if we analyze it logically in terms of interests and practical objectives. Jews want non-White immigration into the West because they want to damage us and hope to profit from fragmented multiracial demographics; they do not want non-Jewish immigration into Israel because they know that it would damage their Jewish state. We can therefore easily account for the hypocrisy of broad Jewish support for Muslim refugees, given their dislike for us and their affection for themselves.
My idle speculation is that, despite their visible double-standard on racial matters, Jews like Menachem Rosensaft and Steve Gutow are honest men. They are not concealing their hypocrisy, because they cannot see it.
I imagine, very unscientifically, ethnocentrism as a physical substance: the more of it physically present in your brain, the more ethnocentric you become. If your head is filled to the brim with ethnocentrism, you can honestly fail to notice obvious contradictions, which would be apparent to any dispassionate observer, if those contradictions serve your interests.
Many Jews, I suspect, elevate Pecksniffian hypocrisy to a group level: they have convinced themselves of their own group virtue and expect others to see it as well. Unlike the amoral banker, who knows his public opposition to theft is a hypocritical act of deception, their belief in their own racial entitlement is so strong that they do not see any inconsistency between campaigning for the importation of Muslims into our country, while defending the exclusion of Muslims from their own. Hence the passion that Jewish hypocrites so often display. They sound like they believe what they are saying, because many of them do.
In early English the wolf in sheep’s clothing was a common figure of the hypocrite. In the case of Jewish hyper-hypocrisy we must, I suspect, imagine a wolf in sheep’s clothing who doesn’t believe he is a wolf and doesn’t believe he is engaged in an act of deception.
Another implausible scenario: a businessman manufactures poison and markets it as health food, while sincerely believing nevertheless that he is a moral man helping his customers, despite his decision to refrain from consuming the poison himself.
Such moral incoherence seems impossible to us, but my idle speculation is that hyperethnocentric Jews can often sincerely reconcile obvious moral contradictions if they are linked together by racial self-interest. They know that the importation of culturally incompatible immigrants damages our nations, but they not only believe that they are morally justified in campaigning for it and that we are morally compromised if we object, but also that they are morally entitled to refuse the same cultural poison, while telling us that the poison will enrich our lives and ensure our social dynamism.
My speculation is idle because, obviously, we have no choice but to use the language at our disposal. Jews say one thing on racial subjects and do another; therefore they are hypocrites. We don’t need to know anything else, and there is no pressing reason to speculate about the unusual features of their hypocrisy.
But if Jews like Menachem Rosensaft and Rabbi Steve Gutow really are honest men, and if they sincerely believe that they are sheep rather than wolves, we can conclude that the group characteristics of their race encourage, in addition to racial aggression focused against us, a strange variety of moral insanity.