Not the Jews

If someone thinks the Jews are behind the collapse of our civilization, he has to think the rot set in after 1950, for in the anglosphere, Jews were substantially excluded from the establishment until after 1954.

Those who can see has a review of the early twentieth century showing rot several decades before that.

I have frequently asserted that everything started to fall apart in the early nineteenth century, and some day I will produce documentation of this charge, that the emancipation of women and extending the vote to the masses had the disastrous consequences that it was predicted to have.  Meanwhile, “Those Who Can See” produces documentation for a somewhat later period, though early enough to exculpate the Jews.

And this is why everyone in power now dresses like this guy, though in softer material

It was the Puritans, and their descendent groups, a bunch of people that wore colorless clothes, black or dark brown with a few flashes of white, modeled after the costume of Cromwell, that caused everything to go to hell. When they got on top, re-establishing the puritan theocracy of Cromwell, now known as political correctness, everyone in power started imitating them, resulting in the modern business suit, so that it ceased to be a very reliable indicator. The rot set in when everyone important went monochrome. But to this day, if a businessman wears a bright flash of red and or gold in an otherwise orthodox formal business suit, for example the Koch brothers, it is at least a hint that he is rebelling against the rule of the progressives, whereas a predominantly dark blue tie in an orthodox business suit tends to indicate progressivism, as for example the Google founders. Puritans, now progressives, are near monochrome, avoid sharp color contrasts, tend to dark blue, grey, dark brown, and so forth. Their opponents, even to this day, tend to have a substantial flash of color, often red or gold, though the difference is no longer as reliable, consistent, and striking as it was in the days of roundheads versus cavaliers. Big hats are also a tell. Cowboy hats, top hats, sombreros and so forth, are not progressive and never have been, all the way from 1600 to the present. If anyone unironically puts on a cowboy hat, progressives will spontaneously burst into flames from insane rage – for example Bush derangement syndrome, even if they know or strongly suspect he is only pretending to not be a progressive.

I merely assert this, and in this post am not producing evidence for the claim.

18 Responses to “Not the Jews”

  1. If you include an “http://” at the beginning of your link, it’ll work correctly.

  2. Brendan says:

    Is an earned Black Cavalry Stetson with Gold Braid and Trim rebellious or Progressive?

    As far as personality you may google Cavalry is a State of Mind..

    • JZ says:

      True, but there’s value in discreet iconography, especially for rebels in enemy territory, no? This post was a good reminder that I should really pick up a nice gold tie and matching pocket square. I don’t always wear suits, but when I do, I dress like a boss.

    • jim says:

      A bit of both, which is one of the many reasons (another being gold braid) why progressives don’t much like or trust the military.

  3. spandrell says:

    Hah.
    You’d hate Japan.

    • jim says:

      Japan is in many ways terminally progressive, in other ways, not at all progressive – a different variant of progressivism. But their progressivism is not directly descended from the puritans, except insofar as they caught the infection from their anglosphere conquerors.

      • spandrell says:

        The black suit is the national uniform. Way worse than any white country. Millions of poor ascetic dudes in black suites everywhere.
        Men kimonos were quite dull before the American intrusion though, so there was a certain puritan-ish strain in their native culture.

        Why not track it back to Stoicism? The worship of boredom and joylessness didn’t start with the Puritans.

        • jim says:

          But that ideology/religion did start taking political power with the Puritan Cromwell taking power, and the New Model Army, officered by Puritans, taking power.

  4. Alrenous says:

    Need you really provide evidence for something so self-evident?

    It used to be common knowledge that Puritans combined violence and tedium. Naturally, what is PC and fashionable will be both boring and violent.

    Still, it isn’t entirely straightforward: hippies. Though, the hippie culture didn’t survive.

    Come to think, this even extends to the proggie’s favored entertainments. They are the flattest, and most soulless; drugs/alcohol, casual sex, violent movies. Only chores are more boring. No wonder the gentleman’s pastime of stimulating conversation is in such decline.

    Have you seen proggie fiction books? They’re allowed dysfunctional characters, and boring characters.

  5. red says:

    Jim, the jews provided something the progressives needed to conquer the world: Really good propaganda and lots of financing. And they provided it spades through the news, Hollywood, big banks, ect. The Jews are not and have never been in control, but I very much doubt the progressive could have won without them.

  6. zimriel says:

    If we restrict this to the Ashkenazim – the Eastern European tribe – we might have more of a point. . .

    The Americas had taken in mostly Sephardim up to the 1850s. Judah Benjamin and many others supported the South – so many others, that US Grant felt he had to put about Order 11. So “teh JOOZ” were a *conservative* force here at first.

    The Ashkenaz Jews, though – these were something else. Highly intelligent (even more than Sephardics). Highly *paranoid*. They did all they could to join the Anglo-Puritan elite. So this elite is Universalist and statist? By G-d, we shall become even *more* Universalist and statist!

    Yes, my ancestry is Ashkenaz. My immediate cousins became Zionists; but my more distant cousins are, I must say, a shande far di goyim. I pray that this is becoming less the case, as we understand how our tendency to support for the latest “repair the world” craze has been harming not just us, but also the world.

    We eastern Jews are tactically brilliant. We are strategically *retarded*. There is, it seems, only so *much* space in the human cranium. . .

    • jim says:

      So this elite is Universalist and statist? By G-d, we shall become even *more* Universalist and statist!

      As I have said many times, the civil rights movement was Jews being lefter than thou – but the tactic would not have succeeded had the elite not felt guilty about the fact that blacks were not in fact equal. There would have been a civil rights movement sooner or later.

      My immediate cousins became Zionists; but my more distant cousins are, I must say, a shande far di goyim. I pray that this is becoming less the case, as we understand how our tendency to support for the latest “repair the world” craze has been harming not just us, but also the world.

      The Jewish Bolsheviks soon rendered the party judenrein, just as Khmer Rouge, composed of foreign educated intellectuals, proceeded to murder all the intellectuals, especially the foreign educated ones. Jews have a tendency to hate themselves, the left has a tendency to hate itself, so when Jews go left … Among all the communist movements, none is more antisemitic than the overwhelmingly Jewish Trots.

      Market dominant minorities have a tendency to hate themselves.

      If you are a member of a market dominant minority, your main competitors are apt to be fellow members of your market dominant minority, so if someone wants to destroy his competitors by politics, rather than win against them in the market place, he is tempted to ally with those that hate the marketplace and hate his market dominant minority, the far-against-near alliance – an alliance with the far against the near, contrary to the usual procedure of allying with the near against the far.

      This, the far-against-near alliance, is then rationalized by a belief that one should love all mankind equally, rather than loving those closest best, as some form of utilitarianism, which in actual practice tends to have a curious resemblance to hating all mankind, but hating those closest the most.

      Everyone who met Pol Pot was convinced of his sainthood, no one more so than Pol Pot himself. However, he appears to have murdered all his relatives, and all his childhood friends. Similarly, it is pretty clear that Chomsky wants to see all Jews, and most of his fellow academics, murdered. But especially all Jews.

  7. Mark says:

    Cromwell of course readmitted the Jews to the UK.

    It was the Whitehall conference during which the question of readmission was considered by attendees. Cromwell packed the conference with Judeophiles but nevertheless could not practically exclude all representation from the native merchants and clergy. Cromwell saw that despite his shenanigans, the conference was going to hand down a decision adverse to readmitting Jews so Cromwell preemptively dismissed the conference and simply let Jews settle and start buying politicians directly.

    The “Protector” should have brought the issue before normal Parliamentary proceedings since, after all, he killed legions to gain such powers supposedly for the people.

    But when it came to readmission of the Jews to his now United Kingdom, the “Protector” decided to rule as Monarch. The reason is made clear by how he packed the conference and then terminated it when it didn’t come to the conclusion he desired.

    He knew that if Parliament had voted, there would have been a fresh law, not just ancient Royal Decree, banning Jews from the UK. That’s why he so brazenly violated his own principles and those of the Roundheads who killed for him.

  8. ER says:

    Here’s the reality:

    Jews deny others the right to conduct controlled experiments that exclude them. In so doing, they render all claims to having “contributed” subject to the confounding variables — such as their presence.

    There is only one kind of Jew that is human in my book, and that is the Jew who says to others — even blond-haired blue-eyed “wet dreams of Hitler”, “I support equitable territorial allocation to all who want to conduct controlled experiments in human ecology by mutual consent — even those who are testing the hypothesis that Jews are the problem, not the solution.”

    The same goes for all immigrant groups — especially those who claim that there is something wrong with US citizens who object to the presence of people admitted under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That act was passed at the behest of Jewish organizations to so confound the “American Experiment” that no one would be able to figure out what was happening.

    They succeeded.

    • jim says:

      Everything bad that happened after 1950 happened as large numbers of Jews entered the US establishment and there was heavy Jewish participation in causing those bad things – but similar bad things were happening well before 1950. Roosevelt intimidated the supreme court and shredded the constitution with not a Jew in sight.

      Jews were allowed in England from Cromwell onwards, but all the bad stuff that people tend to blame on Jews started happening in England when dissenters were allowed into the establishment, in the early nineteenth century, and did not get substantially worse when Jews were also allowed into the English establishment.

      This is as near to a controlled experiment as you are going to get. The further you go back in history, the less Jewish the problem looks. If you think that it was all going fine up to the 1950s, obviously the Jews are to blame. But the writing was on the wall before the Jews got in.

Leave a Reply