Counter-Currents
2,412 words
A hypocrite is someone who professes specific moral convictions, while violating his professions by his actual behavior. A hypocrite resembles, as Charles Dickens tells us, “a direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there.”
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.
Some Jews pass through life with personal names that do not announce their group membership; Menachem Rosensaft, a second-generation Holocaust survivor, is not among them. When Menachem Rosensaft denounces the moderate immigration reformer Peter Brimelow, who believes that the United States should remain a Western nation with a White majority, he is writing as a Jew and realizes that everyone knows he is writing as a Jew, and when the same Menachem Rosensaft demands that there be “a permanent, eternal Jewish sovereignty” in Israel, he is writing as a Jew and realizes that everyone knows he is writing as a Jew. If Menachem Rosensaft, a self-professed antiracist, were a dishonest Jewish actor trying to conceal his self-interested racialist beliefs, he would, it seems to me, do a better job of concealment.
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.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
21 comments
Excellent Article. Very original and insightful.
The wolf in sheep’s clothing is a symbol of the Fabian Society; the turtle is also a symbol of the Fabian Society, its motto is “When we strike, we strike hard.”
Yes, you see this hypocrisy in a strange combination of calculated cunning and total lack of self awareness. Perhaps this is the key to understanding evolutionary psychology and its relation to the Jewish Question. Issues of agency are beside the point. Not only can they not help behaving the way they do, they don’t even realize that they’re doing it. The Jews are, in that sense, biologically cursed. To any decent White, that might stir some sense of tragic sympathy. But that very tragic quality and the sympathy it stirs are part of what makes Jewish influence so insidious. They can’t be reformed, and they can’t be reasoned with.
“They can’t be reformed, and they can’t be reasoned with.” Indeed, it’s just as Hitler said: “It is clear that there is nothing Jews can do about their character and shortcomings. But in our own case what matters is not whether they are to blame, but whether or not we are obliged to put up with the Jewish yoke any longer.” The answer should be self-evident to any self-respecting White person.
It’s possible that the work of Robert Trivers, who is a Jew and a sociobiologist, might be relevant to the issues raised in Irmin Vinson’s article. Trivers seems to have written extensively about the r0le of self-deception in evolution, and I believe that Kevin MacDonald refers to his work in his trilogy on the Jews.
Thanks for the reference. I’ll check Trivers out.
this hypocrisy is a strange combination of calculated cunning and total lack of self awareness.
That sounds about right. I might steal your sentence if I ever write about this again.
— Irmin
I’d be honored if you did.
There is an old joke which you might have heard before but which I think fits this topic
Two young women go off to college, one Catholic, one Jewish.
While there they become radical feminists
At one of their meetings, the Catholic woman jumps up and denounces the Catholic Church for being anti-women
Next the Jewish woman jumps up and also denounces the Catholic Church for being anti women
Afterwards someone asked the Jewish woman why she did not denounce the Jewish religion for being anti-women
Shocked she answered, “That would be anti-Semitism!”
A spot on article. I suspect this comes from their unique sense of “chosenness.” Jews cannot separate valid criticism of their actions from a personal attack, hence the constant reference to “anti-Semitism.” Leon Degrelle summed it up quite well: (I’m paraphrasing)
“Jews have always felt entitled to live as a privileged class in societies that are not theirs, above any criticism.”
Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder defined by DSM 1v criteria
-has a grandiose sense of self-importance
-believes himself special and unique
-is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited power, success, brilliance
-requires excessive admiration
-is exploitative of others
-lacks empathy
-is often envious of others
-regularly shows arrogant, haughty behavior
-has a strong sense of entitlement
As a suffer of NPD not long ago I started to read more about my condition, and I did start to see many strong parallels between NPD symptoms and the attributes of Jewish identity.
One of the most important parallels was the concept of making unreasonable demands of others, and constant immunizing oneself against outside criticism – often from those makingreasonable demands of us and our behavior.
Jewish identity does very much appear to be a kind of organized group NPD where NPD is not a pathology within the group but is actually maintained as a set of qualities across the group as a whole. And that’s the only important difference.
Real NPD is something an individual feels but for Jews it is a group virtue, a group psychosis. It only matters in their case because they are a financially-well-equipped group, very ethnocentric and very proactive politically. So their NPD actually becomes state policy in many countries.
I should also say NPD is an extremely debilitating condition that doesn’t respond well to therapy .
Jewishness is an identity, not a moral category as we find in Greek philosophy or Christian ethics. It is who they are and for them there is no contradiction. They are very good at mimicing us and our categories for it facilitates their survival, but to think that honesty for them is the same as it is for us is to be fooled. They are honest in keeping with their identity. (as a wolf becomes a lamb by imitating the lamb) For us it is a lie, for them it is I am who I say I am. Now a wolf, now a lamb No contradiction.
Identity is not particularly rational or reasonable. This is who I am and you can go eat pork.
Perhaps they are morally insane by our standards, but that is why they have to project their own flaws on us. We have lots of weaknesses that they can manipulate and they do. It is their way of doing identity business by making us doubt our own identity which is very different from theirs. As someone already said, one cannot reason with them. It is a totally different category.
This article is indeed very interesting. I may add that the concept of Israel forces everyone into a neurotic or morally untenable position: We are not supposed to see that Jews are hypocrites; we are supposed to not see the humiliations Israel is visiting upon its victims; we are supposed to not see the special right Jews, and their mega ghetto Israel, are insisting upon for themselves.
Thus, what we consider impossible positions for ourselves we are supposed to quietly condone, or better, vociferously support in the case of Israel: Primitive, baseless racism (driving the Palestinians from their own land); nuclear weapons; chemical weapons (I am thinking of an airplane crash in Amsterdam around 1993 with a plane bound for Israel with about 200 kg of Diisopropylmethylphosphonate on board, a necessary component for the manufacture of Sarin); treason (think of Pollard); interference in everybodies affairs; adherence to a “religion” with, to say the least, very strange tenets, such as the prayer of Kol Nidre (renouncing all promises made in advance), the calling of the Holy Virgin Mary a whore, and Jesus a traitor, and at the same time simulating tolerance, indulgence, kindness, and more.
Thus, what we consider wrong we have to condone in the case of Israel.
There is thus no universal standard of behavior in even obvious instances such as murder, hatred, exceptionalism, self-preservation.
The ascendency of Jewish power meant the descendency of the upward motion of western concepts of life and being, as well as of any accomplishments inspired thereby.
Thus, everyone and everything is made crazy by the insistence of two mutually exclusive behaviors at the same time within the same person. That drives people crazy, and it shows in their behavior.
By our standards Jews are hypocrites. As the saying goes, “the only standards they have are double standards.”
However, morality has always been a tool of the powerful in a society for their own self aggrandizement.
The Romans saw strength and military prowess as highly moral while weakness and cowardice were immoral. Therefore there was no double standard between superior Romans and inferior barbaric subject peoples.
“Morality” is likely a luxury of a contented people. Modern white universal moral ideals are really figments of our pampered imagination. What really matters is POWER.
Morality and hypocrisy are imaginary baubles like eternal life in heaven or some other fairy tale.
The Jews are not hypocrites, they are realists.
Interesting comment.
Enderby wrote:
The Romans saw strength and military prowess as highly moral while weakness and cowardice were immoral. Therefore there was no double standard between superior Romans and inferior barbaric subject peoples.
It’s interesting to know that different cultures have different moral rules. But it’s not especially relevant here. Diaspora Jews inhabit our culture. They use our languages. They know our history as well as we do. They make their destructive political arguments using moral ideas that we accept; e.g. “you should be kind to those less fortunate than yourself.” They also make their arguments using ideas that they have persuaded us to accept; e.g. “it is very wicked for a Caucasian majority to act in its own group interests.”
One of the questions I was raising is whether they often believe the anti-racialist arguments they make. It’s an interesting question, but not (as I pointed out) especially important.
The Jews are not hypocrites, they are realists.
That presupposes that they are always concealing their true beliefs, which seems unlikely, at least to me.
I agree, however, that we should analyze their political behavior as though what you are saying is correct, even though it may not be. If a Jew tells us that his age-old tradition of deep concern for the downtrodden impels him to support the elimination of the border with Mexico, we should treat his claim as a deliberate lie.
A convincing explanation of Jewish political activism on racial matters is that they are consciously and deceptively invoking moral ideals in order to achieve objectives that will injure us and benefit themselves.
My difficulty is that I am not so certain about the “consciously” part of the preceding sentence.
— Irmin
Moral insanity is the antiquated term for psychopathy.
I made a comment on TAANSTAFL’s Age of Treason site speculating about Jewish cognition, and received the sharp reply that in trying to understand the Jewish mind, I was demonstrating my “Goyishe Kopf”. Somewhat taken aback, I realized that he was completely correct, and I think the same response is relevant here. TAANSTAFL’s observation was that even after all of the punishment, deception, rip-offs and body-count, the Goyishe mind seeks to understand and in understanding, gives a pass to the perpetrator. The European tries to understand by putting himself in the Jewish shoes, but this does not work because he is incapable of understanding the hebrew mind.
Consider Herman Rosenblat, with his best-selling holocause novel that brought Oprah Winfrey to tears. An outright fraud, with his family complicit, he maintained that “in my mind, I believed it was true”. No doubt the same is true for the Ann Frank authors. Bernie Madoff probably has a clear conscience, as did Lazar Kaganovich, architect of the Holodomor at the head of a majority Jewish Cheka. No doubt genocidal Kaganovich, who died at the ripe old age of 98 in Israel, was funded and protected by Jews with a clear conscience, in a nation from which comes unending pronouncements against genocide.
One of the primary reasons why a European brain cannot comprehend a Jewish one relates to Crypsis and deception. For the Germanic mind, there is a strong desire to be consistent, and for most Northern Europeans, hypocrisy is troubling, causing cognitive dissonance. For the Jewish mind, objective “reality” is a construct. Hypocrisy, deception, duplicity are not troubling, but rather stimulating. What matters to the Jewish mind is purely whether it helps maximize one’s position or not.
I don’t think that “moral insanity” is the right term here, because insanity suggests that something is broken, while “hypocrisy” for Jews means that the brain is working exactly as it is designed to.
The above goes for I would say 80% of Europeans and Jews, in relation to the 80/20 rule.
By the way, Mr. Vinson, I think this also goes back to your previous article about the Exodus, where you referred to the hypothesis that the Jewish race was created by the gradual amalgamation of neighboring Semitic tribes in Israel to create Jews. Because the Jewish brain is so different from the non-Jewish, including Palestinians, I think that hypothesis is like having different types of frogs amalgamate with the outcome being a cat, something very different from the starting material, and thus very unlikely.
the Goyishe mind seeks to understand and in understanding, gives a pass to the perpetrator.
Utterly absurd, but that’s Tanstaafl for you.
He can rest assured that nobody will ever accuse him of understanding anything.
Great insight Irmin, and some exceptional following commentary as well. That’s why Jews are referred to as the people of the double standard, no doubt.
I found this website after typing the words “Jews are the biggest hypocrites in existence.” The reason I searched for this information is because I was wondering whether anyone else has recognised what I had faced countless times over. I continually encounter these Jewish hypocrites on YouTube who run a campaign to ban everything that is related to Muslims such as banning of halal meat and religious slaughtering of animals in Western countries. But at the same time these very same people have a second campaign running on another section of youtube to promote religious slaughtering of animals in accordance with Judaism and to increase more kosher meat delis in Western countries. I even encountered one Jew who was mocking circumcision in Islam but looking through his history I found out he was defending the right to be circumcised in Judaism. There are tons of more incidences of hypocrisy that Ive encountered like this. When I confront the hypocrites on their double standards I’m never given a response as there a able to justify their behaviour. It appears that there hypocrisy’ comes from a lack of morality and a self-serving narcissistic selfish agenda. Hypocrisy of Jews is so prominent that you would think it was a a prerequisite and an essential part of their teachings
In some of my arguments with their hypocrisy and propoganda Ive began to refer to some of them as Hypocritews ( Hypocrite + Jew).
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment