To continually pretend doing good while doing bad
things or doing nothing, is to practice hypocrisy. It is a weakness of
character that differs from the commission of deception. It is that hypocrisy
tends to be a permanent habit whereas deception is a one-time occurrence
usually committed by someone that's trying to extricate themselves from a bad
situation.
We, human beings, inherited the act of deception
from the lower species. In fact, from the birds to the higher mammals, most
species have developed a wide range of deceptive ways for the predators to
catch their preys, and for the preys to evade their predators or to protect
their own young. But only the human species seems to have developed hypocrisy,
and turned it into a permanent feature of our character.
Moreover, being a species with a brain that's
highly developed, we tend to artificially extend our physical and mental
attributes in everything we do, including the tendency to practice hypocrisy.
But while most of what we do –– that can be labeled deceptive or hypocritical
–– is objectionable, one tradition that’s proper to us stands out as being
useful. It is the ability to tell a story using fictitious characters meant to
represent individuals in real-life. In this case, deception and hypocrisy take
on a new name: creativity.
While some species of monkeys show hints at being
creative, we remain light years ahead of them in the field of science and
technology as well as the visual and intellectual arts. But in the same way
that science is a double-edged sword capable of producing the MRI and the
hydrogen bomb, so are the various arts which are capable of producing the
larger-than-life love story and the slanderous propaganda.
It is worth recalling that a protest type of
literary genre was invented by storytellers unfortunate enough to have lived
under autocratic rules. Fearing for their lives but also burning with the
desire to express their opposition to the tyranny under which they lived, the
storytellers came up with ways to speak of the current situation by pretending
to speak of something else. Stories of this genre that lived to become classics
abound; among them: Gulliver's Travels, Animal Farm and Alice in Wonderland.
But as you might expect, a new variation on this genre has developed, and we
cannot be proud of it. That's because it will most likely end up being
classified as cowardly literature.
The first time I became aware of this genre was in
1967 following the Pearl Harbor style Israeli attack on its neighbors. The
natural tendency of people in the Canadian city of Toronto where I used to
live, was to criticize Israel. But it took the Jewish organizations very little
time to impose themselves on the media and the politicians.
Since the war had generated an enormous amount of
emotional energy that had to go somewhere but could not go to criticize the
Israeli aggressors, the energy was channeled to criticize the Arab victims instead.
This gave the opportunity to anyone that wanted to unload against the Jews, to
unload against the Arabs while thinking of them as proxies standing for the
Jews, and using them as silent punchbags representing the otherwise loudmouthed
Jews. You look at a spectacle of this kind, and realize you're seeing cowardly
hypocrisy in action.
In fact, that same scenario repeated itself after
the 9/11 incident. It happened that many in America, including leaders of the
Evangelical movement, saw the event as God's way to punish America for pursuing
the wrong kind of foreign policy ... a message that was understood to mean
America was being too pro-Israel. That's when the Jewish leaders descended on
the heads of these people like a ton of bricks, and had them channel their
hatred toward the Arabs and the Muslims instead.
You can also see that scenario play itself out
when reading an article that came under the title: “Is Trump's Iran Policy
Meant to Start a War?” and the subtitle: “If Trump's bet proves wrong and the
theocracy in Tehran shows itself too resilient, then the United States will
find itself in a vulnerable position.” The article was written by Trita Parsi
and Sina Azodi, and published on October 15, 2018 in the National Interest.
If you've been following the situation in the
Middle East, you know that for years, the talk of a war in the Middle East with
regard to the Iran nuclear deal, has involved Iran and Israel, and the possible
involvement of the United States, should Israel get into trouble – as it
usually does – and America is forced to come to the rescue.
In fact, literally tens of thousands of articles
were written on that subject … a good number of which were reviewed on this website.
They were written by Jews or their supporters, urging America to join Israel in
attacking Iran … and promising that the war will be a short and sweet cakewalk.
But now that this optimistic assessment is being
questioned, look how Parsi and Azodi end their discussion:
“And therein lies the irony of trump's
Saudi-inspired Iran policy: it is doomed to bring about confrontation whether
Trump is wrong about Iran––and whether he is right”.
As you can see, it is no longer Judeo-Israeli
inspired policy; it is Saudi-inspired policy.
Nothing can be more Jewish, more cowardly and more
hypocritical than that.