King, high priest, prophet


So I’ve hit a ceiling concerning the Jimianity meme. I have been thinking it over.

If you want to start a new religion, as I have been attempting, you need a prophet. What is a prophet? Someone who goes all-in, someone who, if you want to be melodramatic, sacrifices his life for the greater good. The prophet is beholden by no one. He says, through me is the path to God, which in monkey terms translate to: follow me!

But being a prophet is dangerous business. It’s not something you can backwards engineer, even though backwards engineering is often very effective. To be a prophet demands a balance between supreme self-confidence and excellent perception of reality. This is difficult. Propheteering is risky business.

That’s why history tends to find balance between kings and high priests; the high priest is a bit like the prophet in that he has the role of sage, but his role is not to outrank the king, his role is to support the king. Of course a prophet might also support the king, but a prophet might not do so; this unpredictability is what makes the prophet a liability, the high priest a trusted advisor.

The high priest guides for decades, the prophet guides for millennia. But, the high priest lives a good life, the prophet a tumultuous one. High risk high reward.

Currently the De Facto prophet for the West is either Jesus Christ or Karl Marx, which is to say, all rightist priests are pro-Christianity, all leftist priests are pro-Marxism.

So, rightist priests, in the reactionary sense, are followers of Christ, because that’s basically all we have in terms of grand civilization vision. Yes there’s some others, but none compare.

Now, up till this moment I have always sold Jimianity as a post-Christian religion, meaning it builds upon Christianity, meaning I think Jim is as much the son of God as Jesus. But Jim, while open for new ideas, has not yet jumped aboard. Jim seems to go with the route of high priest, e.g. seeking to cooperate with kings, as he has attempted to cooperate with Trump.

I believe the time has arrived for a post-Christian religion; that we need a new religion, the next big thing. I believe this requires a prophet, not a high priest.

BUT, who am I to decide who is prophet and who is not? History decides in retrospect. So while the theoretical groundwork is there, the practical side is that if Jim does not want to be teacher, who am I to demand him to be one.

And who knows, perhaps I will be proven wrong, perhaps a king and a high priest are enough to fix the West. One should not let the Perfect get in the way of the Good Enough.

12 thoughts on “King, high priest, prophet

  1. Jim is a teacher. A teacher with the paitence of a saint. Just look at how engages comments on his blog.

    Perhaps high priest and king are enough. Problem is we don’t have a king.

    I agree that for a new religion a prophet is necessary. I don’t think we need one. A reformation of Christianity might be enough and that can be done by a high priest. Problem is reformations were only successful if a secular power supported this high priest.

    1. You are correct, Jim is a teacher, I express myself unclearly.

      Wrt my feelings on the reformation of Christianity, there’s a funny parallel.

      Last week, I did not vote in the Dutch elections. A friend got angry with me; he said that I had actually convinced him to vote for the populist party, so how could I have such a strong political opinion if I didn’t even vote?

      Well, because I am cynical about democracy. But honestly, hearing how he and more friends all voted for the populist party gives me the sort of hope that makes me think: if this stand fails, at least it was the kind of stand I am proud to be a part of. So next time, I’ll probably vote.

      Thus it is with my feelings on darkly enlightened Christianity; I am a bit cynical about it, but these are the people I am happy to make a stand with.

  2. What about the prophet of “Question authority & Be Yourself” himself, the “whatever is not explicitly spelled out doesn’t matter” guy – Socrates? What about the Platonic philosophy club called Academia? And what about his open intention to linger as ghosts beyond his mortal life?

    The great exorcism is upon us, man, I expect truckloads of very fine Fun to be had by all.

      1. Alf, there is a connection between what a person is saying and what that person is doing, if you aspire to be a disciple of whatever prophet is in store for us, you certainly have to be aware of this in the first place.

        Forget all the cool things the Socratic duo has left in writing. Check what they are doing to us, man.

        It is kind of cool, of course. But it certainly has overstayed its welcome…

    1. Interesting that the word platonic has the root plato in it. Not gonna look into the etymology just yet but when we think a platonic relationship we think of a sterile one. Academia and their hooting chimps tend to be the sterile bunch of a society. Just an interesting connection to make.

  3. Hard to be a prophet. Kind of tired.

    Martin Luther was effective because rescued by a King and installed in a castle to translate the bible into common tongue.

    Jesus Christ was effective because Judaism was self destructing in a holiness spiral, and the Graeco Roman religion dying of cynicism and failure to reproduce.

    We are in a situation more similar to that of Jesus, in that progressivism has devoured Christianity, and is itself self destructing, so I guess if we do not get the True King, the time has come for a prophet. But it is not a very well rewarded occupation.

    1. I hear the last great prophet was given a criminal’s death on the cross to show the world what happens to good men who speak truth. Now to believe it’s ok to die for a bunch of cowards who don’t give a shit about him, you’d have to be pretty certain there was a great bounty for you in the afterlife.

  4. Apparently Jim’s ideas are finding a receptive audience outside of the Internet. I just read an interview of Thierry Baudet in Therein Mr. Baudet says “We represent a political philosophy that is fundamentally opposed to the principles of the French Revolution”.

    I’m beginning to understand how he manged get a better result than Geert Wilders.

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.