Inconspicuous title

I wanted to title this post Jimianity but I thought it too dramatic.

It is finally time for a decent split within neoreaction. Supposedly, all intellectuals on this side of the internet agree on how the world works, but in reality, all intellectuals on this side of the internet are as much in agreement with each other as I am in agreement with Scott Alexander.

So, let us do away with the pretense. I like the NRx community, but I like me better. Man is wolf to other man and LARPing friendship on the internet ain’t gonna change that.

I prefer a clear hierarchy on truth. You speak truth, you are my friend. Truth follows canon, ergo you’ll see truth-seekers following a similar canon.

Jim’s canon is on the edge of truth. It is neoreaction, but it is also a solution to end the war of the sexes. It is the evolution of Christianity, uncucked and red-pilled.

Many neoreactionaries break with Jimianity when women are concerned; be it the idea of treating women as your property (sexist!), treating 10-year old girls as sexually aggressive (horrible!) or the idea that emancipation is the biggest inverse influencer of fertility (simplistic!). Personally I’ve found Jim’s ideas to make perfect sense.

They say no enemies to the right, no reason to pick a fight when no one is looking for a fight, but fuck it, I’ve never been one to shy away from a good fight. Moldbug diagnosed the problem correctly and those who agree with his diagnosis are neoreactionaries. Jim prescribes a solution for the problem and those who agree with his solution are… Jimians? I guess. Points to Jim for having such a memeable name.

They say we need a new religion. I say we stop shoving around the burden of responsibility. We are the new religion.

14 thoughts on “Inconspicuous title

  1. You are correct. Jim is by far the most insightful blogger on the internet. He is not always right, but when he is woke about something, he is woke in a complete way.

  2. You speak all over the place of finding your new religion. But religion without God is empty. It is what nonsense that we already have from the Cathedral. You talk about the evolution of Christianity, as if it were some merely human thing which can be molded at your whim.

    The problem is it is not. God is real, and Truth is real in the same way. Christianity is the religion the worships this. Christianity is correct natural philosophy combined with divine revelation.

    If you disagree that God is real, you have disagreed on the fundamental point. Moldbug’s non-theistic Christianity is an interesting thought, and has some explanatory power as a historical model of what went wrong, but it remains a flat contradiction in terms.

    Atheists like yourself, ie, smart atheists, realize that religions serve many social purposes, most importantly cooperation. But, being atheists, you refuse to see how important God is to the functioning of that cooperation. All the saints and writers of the early church constantly yammer on about making God, not self, the center of your life. But a religion without God necessarily makes YOU the center of your life. This outward vs inward focus is the big difference between a religion that works/encourages co-operation, and a religion that does not work: progressivism.

    You cannot create a religion of any lasting import without God. You cannot cooperate with Christians (the men who built western society) without their religion, which is centered on God. You are trying to build a pyramid without the bottom level. If you start from an incorrect premise, the rest of your reasoning is at best accidentally correct. God is the starting point.

    Notice, that I say God, not god. The Romans had a cool society and all, but they didn’t go that far beyond the civilizations that preceeded them. No, the first civilization to actually do Science, and have an industrial revolution was one that believed in God.

    On a less preachy/critical note, I am curious to hear why you don’t believe in God.

    1. Where do I say I don’t believe in God? I have in fact said the opposite.

      It is not so much that I believe in God as that I find God to be entirely logical, as real as the couch on which I am sitting.

      1. eh alright. I guess 3 hours of scrolling/skimming isn’t enough to see everything you wrote. But you certainly write in tone like you dont believe in God.
        Also your flagrant disregard of basic Christian sexual morality was a (apparently false) clue.

        1. Yes. Part of that is just my style, I like to be provocative. Sometimes I look back on stuff I said and cringe and feel dumb for being disrespectful, other times I laugh out loud and pat myself on the back for being an eloquent asshole.

          Another part is that we need some degree of iconoclasm. I agree that no good has come from destroying God, that it is stupid of atheists to think themselves greater than God.

          As for Jesus, it is more subtle. I respect him greatly, but there is no way to read all his miracles and not be reminded of fortune tellers on tv assuring a caller that they are in contact with the caller’s deceased father, who is telling me, yes, loud and clear, that you will find a new relationship within the next 6 months! It is low status.

          If we want religion to work in our favor, need to stop dying on low-status hills.

  3. be as provocative as you want, but be correct when doing so.

    a way to read jesus that might suffice:

    – God exists (see Aquinas)
    – God has reason to care about humans, since their creation requires special action on his part (human soul is immaterial, thus a material cause cannot create it, thus God (or some delegated angel) acts to create the immaterial aspect of humanity in conjunction with the material causes that form our body)
    – If God has reason to care about humans, it is reasonable to suppose that he might reveal himself to us.
    – It is easy to claim that God revealed himself to you, hard to prove that he did.
    – God must use miracles to validate his revelation–or it would be indistinguishable from fortune tellers on TV
    – Jesus had many miracles attributes to him–far moreso than any other legendary figure of old
    – The central miracle–the resurrection–is highly historically likely to have occurred.
    – Thus Jesus was resurrected via the power of God
    – Thus Jesus was “validated” by God
    – Thus Jesus was the real deal.

    As for telling you what you want to hear like fortune teller scammers… Have you read what Jesus taught? It was decidedly not what people want to hear. “No divorce!” “Turn the other cheek” “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven!” The stuff Jesus said was so upsetting that he was literally killed over it. To paraphrase GK Chesterton “Christianity has not so much been tried and found wanting, but rather been found difficult and left untried.”

    I don’t know… if you’re seeing low-status beta-tude weakness in Jesus, then I’m not sure we’re looking at the same thing. He certainly wasn’t seen as weak for the last ~1.5 – 2k years by all the military orders of Christian knights who fought in his name…

    1. Jesus and Christianity were alpha and high status for many centuries and led to science, prosperity and the industrial revolution.

      But now Christianity is splintered, broken, battered and near dead. Supposedly Christians still agree on important issues, but I have found that Christians can’t even agree over whether the sky is blue or green. Weakness, failure, betatude.

      I have been open to the option that Christianity be resurrected exactly as it was before, but it seems like a grossly suboptimal solution, because we need masculine warriors to fight Islam and progressivism, and Jesus did mentioned neither the gender wars, Islam, or progressivism. You might say he mentioned them metaphorically, but your neighborhood priest will immediately correct you and say he metaphorically meant the opposite.

      We need a faith that outholies progressivism. Right now, progressivism outholies Christianity because a prog will look at your reasoning and say: ‘lol, check out this guy, he ACTUALLY believes that Jesus literally stood up from the dead. Does he also believe the earth is flat? That it is only 5000 years old? Lolol. Does this guy even SCIENCE? Oh wait, it gets even better, check this out…’ *shows phone to friends* ‘he believes Jesus’ miracles must be historically true, since there are so many of them!’ *they all share a bonding, hearty laughter over the low status stupidity of Christians*

      And the progs are right, hence the success of progressivism, hence the need for Christians to stop dying on low status hills.

      1. The prog’s mockery only makes sense in the context of someone who already doesn’t believe God exists. Miracles ARE laughable to a materialist, because they are impossible by definition. But in the context of someone who believes in the existence of God (the only kind of person that sustainable religion works on) any given miracle is possible, and must be evaluated on its own historic and evidentiary merits.

        Does he believe the earth is flat?
        -> Catholics been using a sphere with a cross on it to symbolize Jesus’s dominion over the earth for > 1k years. We knew the earth was round since waaaaay before Columbus.
        Earth is only 5k years?
        -> that’s a protestant heresy/theory that has only really been popularized in the last few decades
        -> invented by Christians

        basically mockery of the sort you describe is entirely unfounded and easy to pick apart. But it works in the status-realm among people who are already convinced that Christians are low status.

        > Christianity is splintered, broken, battered and near dead
        it has been so before, more than once. by attrition alone it will become masculine again, since the only churches that have a positive birthrate+conversion rate are those which secretly support the right of a man to rule his household. Other churches are here today and gone tomorrow, like the shakers, unable to reproduce themselves.

        1. Prog’s mockery of Jesus’ miracles makes perfect sense, because it is entirely obvious that were Jesus alive to day, he would suddenly, for mysterious and unexplainable reasons, find it impossible to replicate the act of infinitely dividing bread and fish in front of a crowd that has 100 smartphones aimed at him. Because that mockery is valid and Christians fail to have any other defense than the eternal ‘you just gotta have faith maaan’, it lends credence to other mockery which is invalid, leading Christians to die on low status hills.

          Gnostics clinging onto literal miracles are just as wrongheaded as materialists clinging onto the impossibility of metaphorical miracles.

          1. Stuff like this is why I thought you don’t believe in God.

            If an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator and sustainer of all things wanted to Incarnate himself, and allow himself to infinitely divide bread and fish… He could. Regardless of if the crowd has smartphones or not. You’re certain (or playing the part of someone else who is certain) that Jesus could not do it because you implicitly assume materialism (or functional materialism), or that Jesus was a liar, not sent from God. But, literal miracles are necessary for the Gospel, for Christianity, to work at all. Believe Christianity or not, up to you. But Christianity without miracles is a non-starter, at least according to Paul:

            But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. 15In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised.

            16For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.

            as an aside, calling those who cling to literal miracles “Gnostics” is confusing since a core teaching of Gnosticism is “All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good” so their focus would be more on metaphor and spirit rather than literal and physical.

          2. Hence, the classic compromise that those who doubted Jesus’ miracles would publicly state that they could not definitely disprove that the resurrection never took place, or in fact publicly say nothing about the matter at all.

            But, for some mysterious and unknown reason we will never know for certain, no prophet, not even the 2nd coming of Jesus, will be able to replicate the infinite division of bread and fish whilst being filmed from 100 different angles.

            You notice I repeat the ‘for mysterious and unknown reason’ part, which is in fact a giant wink, a hint to miracle believers that miracles are real, a hint to miracle nonbelievers that miracles are not real. That is the bridge we need to build if we are to revive Christianity, though quite possibly it will be called something different than Christianity, or also it might still be called Christianity but practiced slightly different, although not at all so different from what Paul says.

            By clinging to the notion that the 2nd coming of Jesus HAS to infinitely replicate fish and bread whilst being filmed from 100 different angles, the power of men is negated, which is great to prevent holiness spirals, but bad in that it prevents the rise of new prophets who want to get us out of this mess. Essentially, you are saying that the 2nd coming of Jesus has to be an alien with superpowers, never a man of flesh and blood. It throws away the beauty of natural law, the beauty of men made in God’s image. Hence, gnosticism.

  4. It is ridiculous to say the belief in literal miracles throws away the beauty of natural law, of men made in God’s image, since the great developers of natural law and theology of the body and theology of man’s relation to God, most notably Thomas Aquinas, all firmly believed in literal miracles. Aquinas believed in literal miracles, practically invented and codified natural law. Sorry, try again.

    Literal miracles are necessary because if they did not happen, Christianity is founded on lies, which according to Jim “generates lies, being itself a lie, and generates madness.”

    Literal miracles are necessary because they validate the truth of the claims of inspiration from God. How can God interact with us and tell us things, except through miracles? How can we trust his prophets without signs? They become mere salesmen, and we, mere consumers of a verbal product.

    Literal miracles are necessary because they were believed dogmatically for the previous history of Christianity. Reversing them is impossible without destroying all claims of the Magisterium to be able to actually interpret scripture.

    I cant tell if you believe literal miracles or not. But if not, you cannot rationally believe Christianity to be true. You can rationally believe to to be useful, to a degree. But not true. Maybe its just signaling all the way down, but it seemed like you want this blog to be a place to say true things, not merely useful things.

    Again, take Christianity, or leave it. But trying to alter it to remove miracles is stupid, and will fail. Christianity is BUILT on a host of miracles.

    “for mysterious and unknown reason” to my ears has only the connotation that miracles did not happen, and therefore fails its stated purpose to serve as a two-sided wink. Perhaps my ears work differently from your target audience though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.