Jimianity over Christianity

I don’t like writing these posts, because of the risk of pissing in the own tent. At the same time, tent needs policing. Luckily I see that last time we discussed this I have been pretty straightforward in my thoughts so let’s continue where we were last left off.

Christianity is an old and dying giant. It can not be restored the way it was. I get flak for asserting this, but it is true. If it were not true, where are the great Christian defenders of the faith? I can not find them. I find incidental wise Christians that tell me incidental wise stuff, such as that the point of fixing our current problems with religion is to have less of it, not add on to it, but whenever I go look I can not find communities of these people. Where are they?? Legends say the Amish rode out in horse carts on the Day of the Election to stop the she-demon from devouring the world, but who has heard of the Amish since? And I mean, that’s the amish we’re talking about; there’s less Amish in the world than people living in Utrecht (American reader: what’s Utrecht? me: exactly). A community of red- and/or whitepilled Catholics seems to be even rarer. I have in fact not found it. Not on the internet. And I have no choice but to conclude, that if it is not on the internet, it does not exist.

The observation that there is no red and/or whitepilled Christian community fits with the observation that Christianity is dying, and that the process of dying is irreversible. In the age of smartphones, Jesus has lost his status as the son of God, has instead become ‘just’ a wise man.

Like progressivism lost its moral high ground in the 21st century, so did Christianity lose its moral high ground in the 18th century.

They say a lie is important to organize around. Yes, but the lie has to be good. If the lie is too obvious, it does not work except to select for excellent liars, which we see happening abundantly in the Catholic church nowadays. This is the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish.

My point as messenger of bad news is: Jesus just did not literally come back from the dead. Hate to be the one to break it to you, hate to repeat myself, but a final time in case people think I am playing word games with the word ‘literal’: Jesus did not come back from the dead. His disciples made it up. It worked very well. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Now that we are fighting an enemy that clothes itself in the flayed skin of science, we cannot claim to be in favor of real science if our organizational point revolves around some men 2000 years ago making up stories about Jesus Christ. It is not an effective viral meme, it is in fact the opposite, dead in the water. Like our enemies, we need to evolve.

While setting the clock back on most social contracts is viable and good, we can not set the clock back to ‘Jesus Saves’. Jesus Saved for 1800 years, let the man have some rest. Such things come to an end.

(Similarly, I disagree with the notion that the Bible should’ve never been translated into English. I’m glad it was, I’m glad everyone is able to read the Holy book for himself. If we like an open internet we should like a translated Bible.)

Of course, I don’t expect Christians to go: ‘good job alf, glad you cleared that up, guess we’ll be getting on with our new lives now!’ People don’t like you taking away their beliefs, at least not without providing a workable alternative, although they as a rule of thumb just don’t like you taking away their beliefs, whatever alternative you provide. Especially older people. Anyway. I sort of have an workable alternative, Jimianity, it’s just that it’s kind of a prototype and we’re figuring it out as we go along.

I guess I can summarize basic idea of Jimianity vs Christianity pretty succinctly: Jim has moral superiority over Jesus. If a Christian quotes Jesus to me, and I quote Jim back, my quote has more weight. That is all.

Well of course that is not all, that is only the beginning. But first it has to be established: Jim has moral superiority over Jesus.

Advertisements

69 thoughts on “Jimianity over Christianity

  1. Prophet of Gnon.

    Thanks for the nomination. Far from sure I can handle it.

    Need to distribute the white pill, not the black pill, without giving Gnon the readily falsifiable characteristics that Walt Disney and My Little Pony give him.

    The resurrection solves that problem by making the next world as socialist as anyone wants, but, as you say, that solution seems to be not working, with no observable communities of red pilled or white pilled Christians.

    Heroes are our myths. Homer was Greek superhero comics. Need heroes that lead male hierarchies to defend property and family – the return of the rightful King.

    Educational institutions are our churches. Amish are doing OK, and Mormons were doing OK, because they kept hold of their educational institutions.US military stopped winning wars when they lost control of their educational institutions.

    Maybe the resurrection would still work if we did a full reformat and operating system re-install on education and Hollywood. Install Cathedrals at the center of our universities, after the tanks have gone through.

    1. Yes it is a very tough question.

      But all things come to an end, and for me, instinctively, Christianity as it once was has come to an end.

      To be prophet needs massive amounts of self-confidence, possibly some amounts of delusion. Jews have historically been very good at selling it.

      But Gentiles have been very eager to buy, demonstrated by the success of Jesus’ gentile-friendly teachings. So, maybe now time for gentiles to return the favor and sell our own prophet to gentiles and Jews alike (although Jews will in their typical style be much more wary).

      Does not really need any change from what you have already been doing, except for very possibly picking a fight with Christians. And yes, disciples to spread the word.

  2. Recall that at the end of “The Lord of the Rings” the heroes return to the shire, to encounter postwar British socialism, which they swiftly put to the sword. That is the myth we need.

    1. If Zippy debates you, you shall have the more correct arguments and win the debate, despite Zippy invoking moral authority of Jesus Christ.

      If Glosoli debates you, you shall have the more correct arguments and win the debate, despite Glosoli invoking moral authority of Jesus Christ.

      If Koanic debates you, you shall have the more correct arguments and win the debate, despite Koanic invoking moral authority of Jesus Christ.

      But in between the 3 of them, you shall never win any debate, because it has already thrice been established that Jesus Christ has moral authority over you.

        1. Most of my memories on Zippy stem from him getting into a fight with Spandrell. Spandrell is very rarely wrong so mentally I categorize Zip as ‘wrong’.

          1. I don’t necessarily trust Zippy. However, i trust Jim insofar as he continually tells the truth. Not even Vox Day is as willing to openly tell the truth about the feral nature of woman’s attraction as Jim is, as Vox holds back from the really painful truths about women most of the time (has tangentially related the truth though).

            Jim has earned great respect from me for his willingness to plainly tell the truth in a way a midwit like me can understand. All that said, no way would I worship the guy. Donate if given the opportunity, sure, but it’s not the basis of a religion.

          2. It is not so much worship as it is an agreement between gentlemen that Jimianity makes us prosper, makes our enemies cower in fear.

            Of course, fame being its own amplifier, in time people would virtue signal stronger and stronger allegiance to Jimianity, resulting in shrines and whatnot, but that is not the primary goal. The primary goal is re-establishing cooperation between white men, and, flowing from that, cooperation between all races, all genders.

          3. My discussions with Zippy can be summarized as follows:
            Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity

          1. well, as someone who reads both your blog and zippy’s with great interest I’d be interested in seeing said “protective stupidity” if you have links, but I understand the internet is ephemeral and things can be hard to find.

      1. A community of red- and/or whitepilled Catholics seems to be even rarer. I have in fact not found it. Not on the internet. And I have no choice but to conclude, that if it is not on the internet, it does not exist.

        I was going to say zippycatholic + bonald + http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/ but I guess you already know of them and discount their existence for some reason.

          1. I’m obviously not zippy and don’t know for sure what he thinks, but I recall him mentioning multiple times that his blog is a place where he just talks about whatever randomly interests him, rather than being a place where he lays out his full philosophy in detail. Treated like that, an omission is less damning. That he “declines to call out female misconduct” may be a sign he’s not a Christian, or may merely be a sign he enjoys calling out other forms of misconduct more. Pretty sure that if you asked the pointed question: “are women in the church today largely ignoring pauline teaching and conducting themselves innapropriately?” he’d say yes (or more likely find some other topic to quibble about since he likes to quibble).

          2. > Pretty sure that if you asked the pointed question: “are women in the church today largely ignoring pauline teaching and conducting themselves innapropriately?” he’d say yes (or more likely find some other topic to quibble about since he likes to quibble).

            Pretty sure he would not, for he complains about game and PUA as male immorality, without using the shibboleth “feral women”

            Denouncing game is signalling progressivism. Game is an adaption to women going feral. Not mentioning the feral women problem when context demands it is signaling the abandonment of Pauline Christianity.

            If a nominal christian mentions game negatively, without mentioning the problem it is intended to address, not a Christian. Prog shibboleths present, Christian shibboleths absent.

      2. Unimpressed by Zippy. He grants moral authority to the word “racism”, and is unable to think straight about the fact that we did not have that word or its equivalent in two thousand years of Christianity.

          1. Like with Dalrock, Zippy counters 2018 leftism with 1918’s leftism, which looks a bit like thought-crime, but stops short of really being thought-crime. It’s like a thought that starts out promising, but is purposefully never finished.

          2. I agree on Dalrock, since he’s a protestant, which is an intrinsically liberal position (each man is equally free to interpret the bible how he sees fit). I fail to see how zippy, the guy who wont shut up about usury (a 16th century controversy) being a sin, can be called a “1918” leftist, though. But maybe you see something I don’t.

        1. he has admitted that in most cases of the use of the word “racist” he agrees with the “offensive” party rather than the one flinging the accusations of racism… so I don’t see a lot of moral authority being granted to the word.

          1. He accepts its validity. Nick B Steves’ comments are true.

            Accepting the validity of the word racism is like accepting the validity of the word Islamophobe — the very word, its invention, its purpose, is meant to slur, to lie. Responding to a lie with a half-truth is picking the side of liars. Stating that ‘in most cases I side with the Islamophobe’, is stating a terribly typical centre-leftist response, allowing the responder, in ‘not most cases’, when it arbitrarily suits him, to side with leftists against the Islamophobe.

  3. “I can summarize basic idea of Jimianity vs Christianity pretty succinctly: Jim has moral superiority over Jesus. If a Christian quotes Jesus to me, and I quote Jim back, my quote has more weight.”

    But Alf, that will never happen. Christians are not going to jettison Jesus in favor of Jim.

    1. Then their status will drop further, until their last woman has left them, their last church has been emptied and their enemies mercifully kill them off.

    2. Why would they? The Amish have real traditional Protestantism and the Mormons are doing pretty well indeed (thus far).

      I’m afraid I’m not aware of any other Christians extant to this, the Year of the Incipient Thot Police, IV C.Y. [Current Year].

      “I want YOU… to SWAT a thot! Join your neighborhood SWAT unit today!” *jingle jingle, etc.*

      S (?)
      W (?)
      Against
      Thots

      Man up, Neurocuck. Retrieve your gonads from Cuckstainity. Presumably they can still be mostly thawed from their present deep freeze.

        1. You’re a salty one, I see.

          I don’t endorse this so-called “Jimianity”, frankly; I just enjoy mocking you and/or your precious Cuckstains for being such ridiculous effeminized psychobiologically castrated weakling coward faggots ripe for unrestricted mockery. Weakness is sin. Will you choose victory or defeat?

          1. “I know you are, but what am I?”

            Lol. At least rise to the insult, >bucko. I don’t want you to present the other cheek for me to equally slap, I want you to fight back. Fisticuffs. Produce your witty retorts, I say!

          2. I didn’t say anything about defeat. That’s one reason it’s obvious that you’re projecting your own psychological castration.

            It must sting to know you revealed your own worst insecurity.

          3. >I didn’t say anything about defeat. That’s one reason it’s obvious that you’re projecting your own psychological castration.

            >It must sting to know you revealed your own worst insecurity.

            But I didn’t say anything about defeat alone; rather, I said [you must] choose victory or defeat. Your astigmatic focus on defeat to the exclusion of victory makes it obvious you’re projecting your defeatist slave morality upon the world.

            How does it feel to have unwittingly exposed your own soft underbelly of an innermost characterological disposition to the precise cavalier slice of morality surgeon’s scalpel?

          4. “But I didn’t say anything about defeat alone”

            Castrato, you blurted a spew of defeatism all through your posts:

            “Cuckstains… ridiculous effeminized… psychobiologically castrated… weakling… coward… faggots… Weakness…”

            You revealed what’s inside you.

          5. This conversation is repeating itself, so I’ll summarize:

            You: “Cuckstains will never abandon their Christcuckoldry in favor of strength, power, manliness, justice, beauty, and victory; therefore, we should sacrifice these things on the altar of progress.”

            Me: “The weak don’t matter. You must leave them behind.”

            You: “You’re slobbering Alf’s knob.”

            Me: “You are yourself weak for in-grouping the weak and useless. Wake up.”

            You: “I know you are but what am I?”

            Me: “You are defending those who will not likewise defend you. You are worse than them, for they are only acting out their programming, but you know that your loyalty will not be reciprocated.”

            You: “I know you are but what am I?”

            Me: [Post-mortem].

            CVLR out.

          6. Castrato, you can’t win by lying about what I said.

            Me: This particular strategy won’t work.

            You: (Projecting your own inner castration:) You’re saying NOTHING will work!

    3. Christians have already jettisoned Jesus in favor of Alinsky and Andrea Dworkin.

      Read Dalrock’s blog.

      Or ask Zippy why there was no such concept as “racism” until the twentieth century, or “marital rape” until the late sixties early seventies.

      1. “Christians have already jettisoned Jesus in favor of (various kinds of left-wing bullshit).”

        I know. I’m not denying that a church can be bent from its original nature. What I am saying is that Christians are not going to *explicitly* repudiate Christ.

        I think Alf meant explicit repudiation because of, e.g.,
        “I can summarize basic idea of Jimianity vs Christianity pretty succinctly: Jim has moral superiority over Jesus. If a Christian quotes Jesus to me, and I quote Jim back, my quote has more weight.”

        If Alf doesn’t intend to make Christians *explicily* repudiate Jesus, then I guess I misunderstood him. Still and all, though, a long as I’m solving the world’s problems, I’d try to bend Christianity back to v.1.0, not to explicitly uninstall it and replace it with something else.

        1. I don’t think forcing Christians to repudiate Jesus is good, since Jesus was a good man and Christianity was a force of good. I do think that it is unsustainable to keep pretending Jesus had supernatural powers. So, the right path is somewhere in between; not denounce Jesus, but not uplift his magic either.

          The problem is that there are bound to be many Christians who will start to shit-test by claiming Jesus really had supernatural powers. With these Christians I pick a fight.

  4. While I’m commenting:
    I’m sure you get this question a lot, but who are the dudes across your top banner? I guess:
    Some old Greek guy (Socrates, Plato?)
    Jesus
    some dude I don’t know
    Nietzsche – Man, I knew he had a big moustache, but holy moly!
    Moldbug?
    As for Foghorn Leghorn, I was originally like WTF but eventually I went to jim’s blog and got it.
    Next is El Trumperino
    And finally…? No idea who that last guy is.

  5. While Christianity is dead, it’s still possible that, in an infinitely complex universe, something functionally similar to God might exist.

    1. Jim is an old fat bald man with a thick Australian accent, although he is apparently not fat anymore.

      While Jesus said many wise things, they are not so applicable to our current situation. Jim’s wise things are applicable to our current situation. In dealing with women, I find it of little use to ask myself ‘what would Jesus do?’, while I find a great deal of use in asking myself ‘what would Jim do.’

      Jim himself, being humble, seems to prefer not to alienate Christians, so does not outholy Jesus. I say that in order to get anywhere, must establish moral leadership, must outholy Jesus.

  6. Jim’s blog is life-changing indeed, but the masses need their fix of the spiritual, Alf, and I just don’t see Jim providing that.

    Marx might have been right in calling traditional religion “an opiate for the masses,” but goddamnit, the masses need their opiate.

    Jim tells us the unpopular facts about this world. But who tells us facts (or “facts”) about the high heavens?

      1. Oh, I get it.

        Problem is, you’ll face the situation as the Muslims had. In Islam, the word of Muhammad trumps the words of all his predecessors. And, unsurprisingly, Muslims no longer give much of a shit about the predecessors – they just go straight to Muhammad.

        Same thing will happen here: if Jim is superior to Jesus, then whenever the two contradict each other, people will listen only to Jim. And consequently, eventually, Jesus will be abandoned and only Jim will remain.

        Not really am ideal outcome, is it?

          1. True. Iconoclasm — both literal and figuratve — is a phenomenon distinctly non-white in nature.

            So I guess the Alf program is: have the Bible is the religious-spiritual background of religion, and Jim as a modern-day prophet for — for lack of a better term — “applied religion,” i.e. what practical steps need to be taken to solve the WQ, the JQ, or any other worldly question.

            Sounds good, then.

          2. The solution must be interpretation, then. The Bible can be used to justify any correct belief. Tolkien did it, Lewis did it (read space trilogy), and others. But first, must aquire power, and take the schools.

  7. The strength of Christianity is how it relates the individual to the next life. That whites organise(d) cohesively under the cross is incidental.

    jim is doing fine work, but his work is secondary to actually discovering what the true religion is. This is no small matter.

    1. You are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. People are waiting for flying pigs and lightning during clear sky, but Jim’s ideas are good enough for our purposes. Jimianity is the true religion.

    2. Jesus’ answer for the next life still holds, still inspires.

      Too much focus on the next life and we forget about this life; hence our problem with leftists destroying this world by atttempting to bring the next world into this one. Hence, Jimianity.

      1. To be merely good jim would have to reinterpret Christianity, much like St Paul. Look what Joe Smith accomplished.

        If he does this organisation will naturally follow.

        1. St Paul weaponized Jesus’ teachings, which is what I am sort of doing with Jim’s teachings.

          Joseph Smith created his own spin-off, which is a good idea for Jim to do. But Joseph Smith has visions from God, so pretty sure that whenever someone said: ‘Joe Smith I am as holy as you!’, Joe Smith said ‘hold up, wait a sec… God is telling me something… yes, he is telling me you are wrong, loud and clear.’

  8. Jesus did not come back from the dead. His disciples made it up. It worked very well. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

    This is a repudiation of Christianity. This is the core Christian belief. Good luck working with Christians while saying this.

    Jesus did come back from the dead, sorry you cant/wont analyze it rationally. Sorry your mind got hijacked by modernism. I know you didnt actually consider that he did come back from the dead because the only evidence Ive seen you give supporting your position that the vast majority of all western men disagreed with is “iPhones exist.”

    1. Yes I wish there was another way. Jim has not openly repudiated this core Christian belief, so perhaps there is another way.

      At the same time, whether or not the core Christian belief is repudiated seems irrelevant for the continuing death of Catholicism.

      1. Someone who nominally believes that Jesus came back from the dead literally and physically, but interprets him a community organizer, is rejecting the core beliefs of Christianity far more severely than someone who believes that he merely came back from the dead metaphorically and spiritually, but interprets him as Paul interprets him.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.