I could not understand this, it is taken from a study on usury
Of course, the fact that much sovereign debt comprised recycled dollars from oil-producing Muslim countries is an irony, and a disgrace, that should escape notice no more than eyes should be averted from the hypocrisy of usury-promoting countries such as Britain and the United States whose leaders often proclaim Christian values.
I am trying to understand exactly this: “That should escape notice no more than eyes should be averted from the hypocrisy of usury-promoting countries”
What is the writer trying to tell me?
By the way this written by a Christian Priest.
He’s saying they’re both bad and should not escape notice. It’s kind of implied/rhetorical because he doesn’t explicitly say whether either one should escape notice. To what extent should eyes be averted from the hypocrisy? One would guess that they shouldn’t at all. The reader is expected to see that. And the irony/disgrace shouldn’t escape notice more than that.
To be honest, even a native speaker (e.g. me) would have to read that a few times to be absolutely sure what it was saying, but we would probably just fly over it and guess from the tone that it was pretty much criticising all the things mentioned,
To escape (one’s) notice = to not get noticed
To avert the eyes = to consciously look away, avoid confronting (which is almost a synonyme and is superfluous in the sentence)
Changing from double negatives to positive:
“[the aformentioned irony and disgrace] should be noticed, as should the hypocrisy of…”
“…That should escape notice no more than eyes should be averted from the hypocrisy of usury-promoting countries…”
= “That should not escape notice, in the same way that eyes should not be averted from the hypocrisy of usury-promoting countries…etc…”
(The original passage isn’t necessarily written in the finest or most crisp English style, in my humble opinion.)