Return to the Jim

So there has been some debate on catechism, e.g., if we had to give an elevator pitch of what we stand for, what would that pitch be. We need some kind of slogan, some kind of summary, some sort of modern day version of the ten commandments.

I contributed my part, in which I suggested that taking pride in ourselves might be a good summary, but reception was lukewarm. And honestly, I kind of agree. It is both too vague and too specific, and there is no mission involved, no purpose. But, what then?

Perhaps something women related? Seems to me that would cure most of the problems. But what specifically about women? Karl suggested simply that man and woman are different, that embracing that difference is necessary for a good and fulfilling live. OK but that’s kind of vague as well.

Here’s the thing. Any phrase, combination of words or catechism, when repeated often enough, loses its significance. People just don’t live their lives according to specific phrases; they forget the old phrases, create new ones. To spend one’s life looking for the right catechism, I do not think it will work. We’ve had several attempts at catechisms, and even though some were really good, none were so good that I can reproduce them here.

Christianity, for instance, had no catechism either. It is entirely possible to succinctly summarize Christianity, but no where in the New Testament does a disciple say: this is the catechism. Apparently, a catechism is not required.

So, what is required? Well, funny story, I find myself circling back to what I said before: people rally around a person, not a catchphrase. People rallied around Christ, not any specific phrase in the bible, as people rallied around Luther, not his ninety-five theses. The person becomes indistinguishable from the catechism, because a catechism’s meaning can be twisted easily, but a person’s life can not be twisted so easily as all. Rallying around a catechism is too vulnerable to entryists, therefore does not work, while rallying around a person (even when that person is dead) is much less vulnerable to entryism, therefore does work.

So, which person says all the things we want to say the clearest? Welp, seems we’ve returned to the Jim.

Now, Jim does not like me calling him a prophet. Too heavy-sounding. OK, let us adapt. Instead of Jimianity, which cladistically is meant to reverberate with Christianity, we tone down the meme a bit and make it, shall we say, more twenty-first century friendly. So, I propose: Jimism. You got your Marxism, which was perfectly acceptable in the twentieth century, and now we got Jimism. It can still be a religious thing, just as Marxism turned out to be pretty religious, but it is also down-to-earth, just as Karl Marx was pretty down to earth.

Also some thoughts on how this works. I notice that men from devout Christian families tend to be a bit alike. They tend to be friendly, pious, peaceful betas. Of course I am generalizing, but it makes complete sense to me that Christianity would select for exactly that type of man. Think Homer Simpson’s neighbor, the hi-diddly-doo guy. When King Charles the Second made science high status, it is no wonder at all that this kind of guy happily performs science and throws us into the industrial revolution.

So, religion is a long-term genetic reproduction game: its success is measured by its ability to promote gene pools that promote the religion.

(This has nothing to do with the original intent of this post, namely the whole ‘Jimianity is dead, long live Jimism’ thing, but I thought it was interesting anyway.)

17 Comments

  1. Didn’t know you had a blog. Cool name.

    Religious renaissance must also find someway to get science and technology to be downstream of religion. Which come to think it, the Cathedral has managed to do…..

    But no good can come of an idolatry of reason.

    Anyway, you should read my shit. I need commenters so I can have flame wars so I can wield the ban hammer…….

        1. Well I would not call them ‘obsequious’ per se, but after looking up both words in the dictionary I laughed anyway.

  2. People rally behind a leader, but changing a leader isn’t that hard, neither is changing the direction of a movement, especially if the men who started it are dead. Entryism works.

    A catechism or articels of faith offer some protection against entryism. That is reason enough to create some such. Moreover, they don’t loose significance easily. Progressivism still works with “All men are created equal”. That is a mighty good meme. It supports open borders, immigration, feminism, genderism – anything that prevents Europeans from forming families.

    I think it would be very valuable to have someting comparable, some articles of faith. Not sure how vague they should be. On the one hand, a vague slogan is easier to sell and a priest can later draw more definte conclusions from the slogan – “all men are created equal” isn’t that definite and was very successful. On the other hand, the 10 commandments are very definite and also very successful.

    I still think that a slogan that contains a Truth incompatible with progressivism would work best for the problems we are facing. If we had an antislogan to “all men are created equal” it would spread quickly.

    1. A catechism or articels of faith offer some protection against entryism

      See: Jim’s blog.

      If we had an antislogan to “all men are created equal” it would spread quickly.

      ‘All men are created unequal’
      ‘Bitches love a strong hand’
      ‘Dey wuz no kangz’
      ‘Men on top!’

      I dunno bout that last one.

      1. The first one doesn’t work. Progressives simply hear an endorsement of individualism, not an attack against “all men are created equal”.

        The others lack gravitas, although the second might work for some men. Problem is that it is very easy to deny the nature of women. A man has to try game to become a believer, and he won’t try if he is progressive

          1. Precisely, “every man is unique” is an endorsment of progressive individualism, consolation for a losser.

            We need a statement is attacks progressive beliefes, makes them gasping angry, like “Some men are so much more competent than others at everyting they do that they form a natural nobility”.

            Any slogan that you can repeat in public without damaging your chances of being hired by or promoted inside any large Western Organisation, is too soft.

          2. “Some men are so much more competent than others at everyting they do that they form a natural nobility”.

            I like that. Good combination of arrogance and purpose.

      2. How about:
        “God prefers/favors white, straight men.”
        “God loves some more than others, namely white men.”
        The fact that history has smiled on the white man and given him fortune would suggest that whatever god there is, that white’s are his favorite.

        P.S. I realized when writing this, that this has some parallels with the “men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos” but whatever.

  3. “So, religion is a long-term genetic reproduction game: its success is measured by its ability to promote gene pools that promote the religion.”

    This^

    It’s also basic survival strategy. Lack of religion is a genetic defect.

    Current year, or current century, has reduced selective pressure on the general population so irreligious freaks can survive. Probably feeds into the theory that good times make for weak people.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *