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.)

Death of the mainstream celebrity and the Theory of Cool

There’s this alt-right meme, I can’t find it, in which guys with MAGA hats huddle in a circle. Some blue-haired feminist in the distance shouts: ‘racists!’ A MAGA guy raises his thumb to her, then continues to hang with the circle. The feminist feels left out.

This is pretty much the feeling I had skimming through Taylor Swift’s latest clip, in which she directly addresses the alt-right. You can tell these people are out of ideas. The video is the same regurgitated pop culture nonsense progressives have been recycling for years.

(Film crew: how many colors do you want?

Director: yes.)

Funny thing is, in her attempt to show how we are all nasty racist hicks, she instead completely proves our point: the progressives in the video, who are supposedly the good guys, don’t look like good guys at all. They look like back-stabbing low-status gossipers. Your typical attention whore, who is your best friend today, has forgotten about you tomorrow. They’re not cool. Taylor sings: ‘you [the alt-right] need to calm down’ but really, she’s really singing: ‘please don’t ignore me.’

But she is being ignored, as well as the celebrity community she stands for, as I will show with my research. I’ve taken random samples from YouTube and calculated the comments to views ratio. Check it out:

Roosh V – 1,5%
Milo – 1,3%
Pewdiepie – 1%
PayMoneyWubby – 0,7%
Logan Paul – 0,5%
Taylor Swift – 0,3%
Internet Historian – 0,3%
Stephen Colbert – 0,2%
Conan O Brian – 0,09%
Jimmy Fallon – 0,07%
Maroon 5 – 0,02%

Roosh actually has the highest comment/viewer ratio! Now to be fair, my sample is not so big, and results may vary. Some Pewdiepie videos climb as high as 2,7%. And quality of content matters also, e.g. Yang visiting Colbert has a 1.7% ratio.

But the trend seems clear: as much as progressives are pushing their own into the spotlight, the audience is not interested. They can’t build a community. They’re just not cool.

This got me thinking. Jim says ideas are more powerful than guns, and related to that, I hereby introduce the Theory of Cool. Theory of Cool states that, inasmuch as culture is downstream from power, power does not determine what is cool. Cool determines what is cool. So, when Jordan Peterson stood up against totalitarian transgender laws, that was cool. But when Jordan Peterson kissed ass with every mainstream progressive, that was no longer cool, despite Jordan Peterson reaching a much bigger audience from a much loftier stage. Theory of Cool dictates that power leaks from those who are not cool, to people who are cool.

The left is not cool, as witnessed by the hardships of prog-pushed celebrities. The right is cool, as witnessed by the far reach of Pepe.

So, as I am fond of saying: we have meme initiative. Not sure what we’ll do with it, but we have it. It’s a bit like the progressives are the Romanov family; they flail and desperately cling to relevancy. We, on the other hand, are Rasputin — we ain’t got no power, but we sure have an interesting aura. Now, Rasputin was good with women but got himself killed by men. We certainly are good with women, but we are also working on a plan to get along with men.

Anyway, some final thoughts on theory of Cool… I don’t want to oversell the death of mainstream celebrity. It is dying. This for instance is so horribly cringe… These people have lost all sense of cool. I especially love the part where the Jewish rapper unironically calls Leonardo DiCaprio the best person on earth.

But there’s also stuff like Disney’s Avengers series, or Keanu Reeves, newfound internet darling. Keanu doesn’t do cringe stuff, he does cool masculine action hero stuff. Which immediately raises the question: why is Keanu not yet purged for his toxic masculinity?



Pretty sure Heartiste would have a thing or two to say about Keanu’s hover-hands. Then again, Heartiste is banned, Keanu isn’t. I think Keanu’s position is pretty relatable: ‘I just wanna make cool movies, please leave me out of politics.’ Much less cool than a devil-may-cry womanizer, but still, pretty cool.

Buying power drops

In economics, buying power is calculated with the following equation:

Buying power equals nominal income divided by inflation times a hundred

If your salary increases two percent, inflation increases three percent, your buying power changes from 100 to 102 / 103 x 100 = 99, e.g. it drops one percent.

Dutch state officials from the CBS tells us: ‘buying power is raising slower than expected. Initial expectations of +1,5% increase in buying power for 2019 have now been lowered to +1,2%.

Smells like baloney.

When I was a kid, it was not uncommon among my friends to be part of a three-children family, whose father worked full-time and mother part-time. Every year they would go on a skiing holiday for a week. Now that my friends and I start families of our own, according to the CBS, we should be able to afford even more annual skiing holidays, as they claim that buying power has increased every year for the past forty years, with the exception of a small period during the minority mortgage meltdown.

If one crunches the numbers, and I have done so, the Dutch government makes the outrageous claim that buying power has increased 56 percent since 1985. So families with three children should nowadays be able to afford 10 days of skiing holiday!


The truth is the exact opposite: among millennials, only couples without kids can afford luxury holidays, and even they can only afford a couple of days of annual skiing. Stuff has gotten expensive.

How expensive? Well, these same state officials also tell us that inflation has been around two percent each year, specifically +1,7% last year. If you crunch their numbers, prizes have officially increased 89 percent since 1985. Only doubled in thirtyfive years? Not too bad, no? Unfortunately, also utter nonsense. For instance, back in 2000 when the Euro replaced the Dutch Guilder, the exchange rate for the Euro was set at 220% the value of a Guilder. This means that, according to official statistics, a euro should be worth 160% of a guilder these days, but it is blatantly obvious that these days a euro gets you less than a guilder got you twenty years ago.

The nail in the coffin for the 89% percent statistic is the real estate market: estimates vary, but it is not uncommon to find housing prices which have increased more than a thousand percent since 1985, e.g. a house that used to sell for 90.000 guilders now sells for 400.000 euros. Considering houses are pretty much the biggest purchase you make, to claim that inflation flatlines at two percent is a bald-faced lie.

Now, perhaps the real estate market is not representative of the entire market. I’ll grant that in between immigration and the government stopping people from building new houses, it is no wonder that real estate prizes have skyrocketed.

Jim tells me the Big Mac index is, relatively speaking, the best inflation index we have. The Big Mac index tells us prizes have inflated an average of +3% a year, or +170% since 1985. Ah, now that seems more believable.

But let us first take a look at where the government’s numbers lead us: what nominal income do we supposedly enjoy? Well, with a buying power increase of 56%, an inflation of 89%, that can only happen if millennials have experienced a nominal income increase of +195%. Hooly batman lies. Please point me to the millennial who makes three times as much as his parent. Anyone? Bueller?

Here’s what I think is a more realistic take: Big Mac inflation numbers seem about right. Three percent a year. Now, how much have incomes increased? I’d say… Two percent a year. Generously. Then, calculating buying power since 1985 gives us 192 / 270 x 100 = 65%. So I’d estimate buying power has dropped 35% since 1985.

That sounds about right. Perhaps a bit conservative, but about right. Five days of skiing with two kids. People can pull that off.

Of course the scary thing is that the decrease in buying power grows exponentially, not linear, which is to say that if prices increase with the same percentage each year, they are actually increasing more every year. Inflation stacks. See graph below, which shows linear increase (which we do not have) versus exponential increase (which we do have).

So, to make a long story short: on the current trajectory, our economic future looks bleak.

All this is of course completely in line with the reactionary analysis of the West, but this does not make it any less depressing.

Getting into Gnon’s favor

We are building a new religion.

I previously said I’d give the religion building a rest. But I realize I’m mostly giving the Jimianity meme a rest. The religion building is still strong. I mean, everything I said about the difficulties of meme’ing a religion into existence still holds, it’s just that I’d be lying if I’d say I was not building some sort of religion, for a religion ain’t nothing but a bunch of verbal memes for mass cooperation. I oversimplify, but you get the point – all intellectuals create mini-religions, and I’d rather be honest about it. All intellectuals are prophets, philosophy is a subset of theology. But more of that in my upcoming book, which I am currently writing, and which will be a hundred percent original content.

Anyway, what is our religion problem?

Let’s keep it really simple. What was Christianity about? About trust and cooperation leading to being favored by evolution, or as neoreactionaries like to say, by Gnon, nature’s God.

On the one hand, you can make Jesus as grandiose as you like. On the other hand, he was just a dude who got himself killed early in his thirties. No kids, no nice things… He sacrificed himself for an idea. A good idea, as it turned out, but honestly, there is a terrible survivor bias involved. It was not Jesus or his Father who decided Christianity would be a smash hit, it was evolutionary pressures. Which is not to take away from Jesus’ very impressive feat but that’s just my thoughts on the subject.

So again, what is our problem?

Christ’s memes for cooperation are old. They are dated security measures: everyone knows how to hack them. Being ‘loving’ has been agreed-and-amplified into a weapon by our enemies: first it was love of your neighbor, then love of very far away people, then love of people who want to murder you and your family.

So, we need a correction. What exactly that correction entails is hard to say. Probably simpler than we think. Recall that the New Testament is 180 552 words. Which is a fat book, I’ll be the first to say, but just one book after all. But again, reverse engineering the amount of words a religion needs is a bit icky.

I think the new religion should be summarized the same way I can summarize the old religion. I also think the new religion should update the security measures of the old.

OK, how about this.

What is our new religion about? It is about the glory of being a white straight man on top of the food chain.

I am still thinking whether ‘whiteness’ should be explicitly emphasized, but I think it should. I mean, that’s what we are right? Sure, there’s many non-white men who agree with what we say, but in the end it has always been the white man who conquered the world.

Basically, all it is is saying out loud what we knew for hundreds of years, but which was so ubiquitous that, like the water fish swim in, we saw no reason to say it out loud. We talked about it, we took it for granted, as Aristotle did when he casually remarked that women are rightfully subjects to men.

It is a reaction against progressivism, which has morphed into a religion that says all white straight males are evil. We counter that calmly by saying: nope, we’re pretty cool. We understand your hatred, but we’re still pretty cool, and we’re proud of the fact that we’re cool. This pulls the stinger out of the Cathedral, which operates on shame: ‘shame on you for acting like you are an alpha male!’ Yeah no, I like acting like an alpha male. Long live emperor Trump. Long live the patriarchy. May our descendants conquer the stars.

It is not a foolproof summary of the religion. It says nothing about capitalism, for instance. Capitalism is good. People hating on capitalism are always jealous or commies, or both. But, I think our biggest problem is progressivism, not marxism, hence the emphasis on the glory of being a straight white male, less on the glory of being a capitalist, although it is undoubtedly true that it is glorious to be a capitalist.

It is not just ‘okay’ to be white, it is pretty awesome to be white.

Not your typical intellectual

People say the Alt-Right is dead. They say NRx is dead. I dunno, seems pretty alive over here. But, people always say all kinds of nonsense.

Over my blogging years, I just sort of naturally ended up in neoreactionary circles. They were, after all, the only ones talking about that juicy stuff, the stuff that actually interested me. It took me while to consciosly realize, but I’ve always been a great fan of Moldbug’s ‘formalization’, the idea that you explicitly state what is going on. This seems obvious, but really isn’t. Very, very few sites on the internet explicitly state what they are doing. Youtube isn’t about what You want to Tube, it’s about censorship. Facebook isn’t about being connected, it’s about censorship. Twitter isn’t about politics — it’s about censorship.

I like truth. I like saying things like they are. Moldbug, who was the first neoreactionary, said that we should say things as they are, therefore he had my attention.

This does not mean I am bound to other reactionaries. I tend to clash with your typical intellectual, usually because I get the urge to push their face in the toilet, which is funny because I used to get bullied when I was a kid, but mostly just logical because there was a sound reason I was bullied when I was a kid, just as there is a sound reason most intellectuals deserve to get bullied.

(Bullying is code for: ‘you are weak, you do not protect your borders.’ Bullying is nature’s way of telling you to man the fuck up. I am grateful for my bullies, who were a lot more honest with me than any adult telling me there it was unfair that I was being bullied, while truthfully it was completely fair that I was being bullied.)

Intellectuals are word warriors, and the one problem with word battles is that they come with lots of cowardice dressed as ratio. Often, I’ll find myself having a thousand-word discussion with an intellectual on some abstract topic, until I realize: this guy is just masking his insecurity. We’re not talking about political history, we’re talking about his fear of being socially rejected. He’s just pretending to be tough, using a bunch of ten-dollar words to mask how he fears having a two-cent tiny penis. He’s not looking for truth, he’s looking to intellectually intimidate, intellectual intimidation being a step below verbal intimidation, two steps below physical intimidation. The intellectual very often is a paper tiger.

Naturally, neoreaction is full of this type. It’s similar to the manosphere effect, where every man would tell you how he was banging five hot chicks on the side, only in neoreaction they’d tell you how their theories had solved all the world’s problems five times over. Same fronting, different name.

Now, while the intellectual blogosphere has died a little bit, the intellectual twittersphere is alive and well, and has exactly the same tendency. Guys blowing smoke up their own asses. I don’t like it.

But, that is the nature of intellectuals: I am smart, watch me be smart! This is natural: if you communicate solely through words, be prepared for people to hide behind their words.

The way to blow through word-fronting is to pick a fight. If someone hides behinds words, you tell them they hide behind words. Someone acts like an entryist, tell them they act like an entryist. The reason I instinctively want to push some heads into toilets is because that is the way to deal with an overcompensating intellectual. To establish peace, must establish dominance. Can’t compliment an intellectual on what he is doing right before you’ve made him accept what he does wrong.

Of course, that kind of stuff is not allowed on twitter. Formalization is hatespeech. So, I’ll stick to where I am allowed to do my thing. Here at the Garden, we like to grow stuff, see what happens.

Take the Alt Right. According to some intellectuals, it is dead. ‘Bad optics’, ‘Charlottesvillesgate’, blah blah. Entryist nonsense. The alt-right, as its name tells us, is the alternative right, meaning it is rightists who refuse to be cucked, unlike the mainstream right. The left vehemently opposes an uncucked right, and since the left is still in power, of course it comes down like a ton of bricks on anyone publicly defending the alt-right.

Even if Charlottesville never happened, even if every closeted alt-right rang every doorbell in America handing out cookies and dollars and saying how much they love America, we’d be in the exact same position. The alt right is public enemy number one.

The alt right is faceless – that is the brand. This is what scares the bejesus out of leftists like Hillary Clinton: millions of hardcore Trumpists who are all alt-rightists. Thus, while I do not go out of my way to call myself alt-right, I really don’t mind being associated with the label, for it gives us power. Similarly, people giving a different account of the alt right are entryists, for they try to take away our power.

Get out leftists, get the fuck out.

Congratulations my dear leftist. You’ve done it. You’ve hijacked society, gutted it and killed it. You’ve shown us you’re pretty good at it. Now, please get the fuck out.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve nothing against you personally – I wouldn’t mind you showing up at a party I’m throwing. You and I could share some laughs over a drink. But lets get one thing straight: we are done taking you seriously. We’ve had the debates, we’ve had the discussions, and it’s always the same: you lie. You lie, lie, and then you lie some more. And when you are caught lying, perhaps you blink once, but inevitably you’ll move on and spout a thousand new lies from your lying mouth. And when all of these lies are exposed, you will outdo yourself with not a thousand, but ten thousand fresh new lies!

It gets tiresome. We see what you’re doing. We’re sick of it.

See, we get it. we’ve run the analyses, we know why you lie. It’s pretty smart, actually. All your lies are code for coordination with other leftists. For instance:

‘it is time big business pays their fair share for destroying mother earth’ 

translates to

comrades, these big corporations, and boy do we hate big corporations, are earning more money than we are — do we let such a thing slip?’


women often still work part-time. How do we motivate them to pursue full-time careers?’

translates to

‘comrades, the destruction of healthy male-female relationships has been immensely successful! We have made many females feral and depressed, and feral and depressed women are a leftist voting block! Let us press this advantage! More! MORE!’

It gets tiresome.

See, we’re moving on from all these lies. We have also coordinated, thanks to the free internet, but contrary to your layered code, we talk in straight, simple language. What we say is what we mean, and what we say is: get the fuck out. That is why you hate the free internet and turn your layered code on it. But of course, when you say ‘hatespeech must not be allowed on the internet’ we all know it to mean ‘we are losing control, shut it down comrades, shut it down!’ 

You have overstayed your welcome. Because of your position, you demand a seat at every table, but whenever you sit at that table, nobody likes you, because everybody knows you lie, lie and lie.

We are working on solutions on how to fix this mess you have created. You are not an equal debating partner in this;  mostly, you are a way for us to check whether our solutions work, like a scientists analyzing a lab rat.

Of course, when I blame you for this mess, I am not being completely fair, because in a way we have all created this mess. But in order to fix the mess, must pinpoint those that bear the greatest blame, and the greatest blame goes to the priests that have killed Christianity and replaced it with this undead, cultish progressive abomination. Which would be you, dear leftist. Every time I open a newspaper, watch tv, watch politics, you are always there, shouting your lies, uglifying everything. No one likes this, perhaps not even you, but because of your inability to stop your momentum, you persist.

Conversely, while the cucks bear part of the blame as well, cucks are followers. When I am archbishop, cucks are allowed, will even be expected, to realize that they have always been secret rightists. Hardcore leftists however can expect to be tarred and feathered.

Don’t worry dear leftist, you’ll be fine. You’re like weed. Weeds always survive. I’m sure that, given enough time, you will once again find ways to infiltrate and subvert that which we build. But not today – today you get the fuck out. Let red-blooded men, who all know you for who you are, build a new Western society.

All Women Are Like That

Yes, they are. They really are.

I think reactionary consensus has settled on the topic, although it is still quite refreshing to read what others have to say.

All women are like that. All of ’em. It’s strange; as I grow older, the one thing I have going for me, that no one else has going, is I know how to handle women. In fact, it’s ridiculous how easy and natural it is. I can’t imagine doing things differently; choosing to remain blue-pilled just seems completely stupid to me, even if I was like that 10 years ago. Knowing how to deal with women is easy, it’s awesome. Hilariously, to most men it comes across a bit like magic. But it’s just nature baby.

I don’t know. I realize I can’t extrapolate my experiences to every male. But it seems so ridiculously easy to me now that I can’t imagine other men not experiencing similar effects. A monkey could do this; in fact monkeys often do this better than modern day soyboys.

Think of women as walking shit-tests that just want to be loved by a man who doesn’t take their shit. No need to be witty, charming or try-hard. Deal with their shit-tests and praise them when they please you. That’s really all there is to women.

What I like about the reactionary consensus on women is that it’s mature. I miss that in today’s manosphere writings. Yeah, today’s women are horrible… What’s next? I’ll tell you what’s next: enforced monogamy is what’s next. A wife, freehold and some kids is what’s next.

This requires the red pill on women, but also requires a working alliance between men. This alliance needs to be as bare bone as possible as to work between large numbers of men. The alliance essentially boils down to the following: an agreement that women are held responsible by the men who own them. Is a woman acting out? OK, let’s see how her male deals with it. He deals with it? Mission passed, respect earned. Does not deal with it? Mission failed, try again later.

I realize that for many men this is still a tall order. This kind of writing just.. Goes over their head. Does not compute. ‘Yes but…’ is their first response. No. No but. All women are like that. Period.

If we are going to make this scale, more men will have to stop ‘yes but’ting. Which is still a tall order. But I’m not entirely blackpilled on the matter, as I am continually delighted by women’s cruelness towards their white knights. One would think a man can only take so much before he snaps.

But, who is to say. Maybe things won’t change until decades later. At least I’ll still be a 72 kilogram Absolute Man Unit among 100 kg soiboys.

Satan is a troll

Are demons real?

The answer is yes, they are real, just like angels and ghosts and chakras and whatnot. That is to say, they are real if you think they are real.

For example, I don’t know if Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta participate in dark rituals with pentagrams and black robes and child murder. I just don’t know. But I know they’re evil, so if people shout ‘pizzagate!’ and ‘demons!’ at them, I’m like: ‘eh, why not.’ Such categories help people to make sense of the world, and at any rate, calling Hillary a demon is much closer to the truth than calling her an inspiration for women.

The same goes with all kinds of metaphysical entities that supposedly manifest on earth. Mostly women love imagining such entities; the ghost of a grandfather watching over her, the energy of a stone guarding her, that sort of thing. Do they exist? Yes, they exist in the mind of the person that thinks they are real.

Alf you’re pulling my leg, why won’t you say out loud that just because a person says it’s real it does not mean it is real.

OK I’ll say it: just because a person thinks something is real does not mean it is real. That 30$ green ruby a woman bought during a Positive Energy Workshop is likely to bring her as much good as a pebble from her garden. But my point is: why bother? Symbols and spirits help us understand the world. They give us a feeling of belonging. Let them. There is no point in making a fuss about the unfalsifiable; better restrict ourselves to the falsifiable.

The problem is not a woman buying a 30$ green ruby because Positive Energy, it is the woman buying a 30$ green ruby because it reminds her of the alpha salesman who made her feel things her husband never did.

The belief in the unfalsifiable is not the problem, the belief in something unfalsifiable outranking the husband is the problem. The solution is simple: back up all symbols with the strongest symbol of all: God. As long as God is the husband’s alpha, and through God the husband is in charge, symbolism will always and inexplicably work out in the husband’s favor.

But if God is the strongest symbol of all, what does that make of Satan?

Well, Satan is, more than he would like to admit, God’s bitch. Yes, evil exists, and yes, it will exist as long as good exists, but humanity is not evil. We are incapable of being evil as a race, for if we were, we’d have to commit mass suicide. We don’t, we in fact feel bad for those who do commit suicide, so we are not evil. It really is that simple.

This leads us to conclude that those who do say we are evil, you know, the type of people who constantly drone on about ‘uhhh we’re destroying the planet ohmygod we are a virus on mother nature when will our tyranny end’ are themselves evil. They deny us our purpose and they lie to us that we are evil for being who we are. Nonsense. If you believe we are evil just for who we are, be consistent and commit suicide.

Evil is mostly a cruel joke, something that from a distance is entirely logical yet stupid, but from up close may seem all-consuming. Evil is a troll that cannot help but shoot itself in the foot during its trolling. Take for instance this Satanist’s church meme on how to treat women:

It’s more accurate to say that the bible says a woman can be married to her rapist, which is entirely sensible, because women alarmingly often put themselves in situations where rape is just bound to happen.

But most salient is of course the Satanic bible’s command on treating women: do not make reciprocated sexual advances. Isn’t that funny. It’s the kind of advice a boomer dad would give you nowadays. It’s also entirely wrong. The mating process predates words and is hard to explain verbally, but it certainly does not boil down to making sexual advances only when they are reciprocated, unless you want to have sex exclusively with whores, who are the only types of women to never play coy.

My point is this: it’s not primary followers of God that are hurt by Satan’s tricks. It’s followers of Satan. Satan cannot help himself: he trolls everyone, everywhere, and those that actually take his advice serious are bound to be trolled the most.

I am thus always consoled by the fact that those high in the progressive hierarchy will similarly be trolled by their own evil beliefs. It is impossible to strike a bargain with the devil without paying an unforeseen large prize for it.

In this sense, there is a lot of justice in the world.

Jimianity FAQ

So, you’ve made the decision to convert to Jimianity. Congratulations! A wise choice indeed. 

You may notice our dire lack of infrastructure, which is only slightly unusual for a budding religion. Unfortunately, every formal Christian institution has long been killed and skinned and is now inhabited by our enemies. So for now, we have resorted ourselves to the anonymous internet. We wish the situation were different too. Anyway. I’m sure you have lots of questions. Let’s see if we can answer some of them.

What do I do now that I’m a Jimian?
Not all too much differently. Think of Jimianity as playing a game. The game is called: ‘what would Jim have said about this?’ If Jim would have agreed, it is probably a good thing. If Jim would have disagreed, probably a bad thing. So, in all of life’s endeavors, ask yourself: what would Jim have said about this? Since Jim writes in an unambiguous manner, it should not be too hard to figure out Jim’s stance on the matter and it should also not be too hard to solve disputes with the help of Jim’s stance on the matter.

How do I use Jimianity to get ahead in life?
Naturally we want you to get ahead in life, because we want our allies to prosper. Our eventual goal is for our (that includes your) grandchildren to conquer the universe, but we are perfectly fine with our own (that includes yours) prosperity as a short-term goal. Jimianity is designed to get you ahead in life, in fact it is our single most effective selling point. No matter your problems, whether with women, with friends, with work, with property, with family… Everything serious in your life that you struggle with, everything on which you cannot find anyone to give you truthful advice, Jimianity provides. Jimianity gives its followers purpose, and the means to achieve that purpose.

Where do I find allies?
You likely have more allies than you think, even if few of them dare to say it out loud. Remember, not everyone has to agree with everything you say! For instance, many men willfully blind themselves to the dark nature of women and may thus be outraged when you suggest it is at times necessary to hit a woman. But, you will find that the next time their woman picks a fight with them and they have the urge to raise their hand, suddenly what you said does not sound so strange anymore, and suddenly they are not so ashamed of their urges anymore.

You will find your most natural allies among white men with children. These men, by nature of their position, think in terms of long-term cooperation, and Jimianity is the most cooperative religion around. Otherwise your natural allies are happy people.

You also have natural enemies. Bitter spinster cat ladies for example. Do not let their hatred bring you down; we are the religion of the strong, they are of the weak. They hate you because you are happy and they are not. They hate you because they fear you. Show them they have nothing to fear: show them it is safe to submit to you, that you care for them as well. This is our most powerful weapon.

How do I spread the Word of Jim?
How do you normally convince people? Just do that.

If you are bad at convincing people, I will add that people are best convinced by action, not by words. If in your action you are a successful man, and you attribute large part of that success to Jimianity, you will be more successful than any man who in action achieves nothing but talks about Jimianity all day. So, instead of telling other people how they’re wrong, show them how you’re right by making Jimianity work for you. Trust in Jimianity to make you prosper, trust in other people’s refusal to listen to bite them in the ankles. Remember, not even the richest man in the world is safe from the consequences of refusing to listen.

Hi I’m an entryist am I welcome too?
Ah, good to hear from you as well. An entryist, for those who don’t, has many names: parasite, leftist, infiltrator, leech to name just a few.

It is inevitable that a significant minority of new Jimians are entryists, and there will be only be more as Jimianity gains momentum. Entryists are attracted to power like moths to a light. An entryist, instead of building his own castle, infiltrates other castles and co-opts them. He will then kill the old guard and wear their skin as if it were his. This it is what entryists have done to Christianity, Western governments and many formerly beloved institutions. So, dear entryist, my answer is simple: no, you are not welcome.

Of course, this will not stop you from trying anyway. It is in your nature to try anyway. I do not blame you. This is after all the classic battle of the ages, the battle between creators and destroyers: we try to build a castle, you try to infiltrate it and destroy it from the inside. You must give us time to build a glorious and magnificent castle! I’m sure we will succeed, and only then, in a long time from now, will you no doubt eventually succeed in knocking it down. After which we will build a new castle, and the game can begin anew.

But I’m not an entryist!
Is exactly what an entryist would say. Show and don’t tell us that you can be trusted, and let us be the judge of it.

The Religious Gold Rush

Conventional wisdom is that we have passed the Age of Religion.

Moldbug revealed conventional wisdom to be a lie. The cooperative benefits of religion are still very relevant. So relevant in fact that today we are still ruled by a religion: Progressivism.

Progressivism is a leftist religion, meaning an inherently unstable one. It will come apart, is already coming apart in front of our own eyes.

We seem overdue for a rightist religion.

But whatever the kind of religions we shall see, our conclusion is that you cannot do without it. A shared identity among thousands, nay millions of men is simply too effective. Band together in a religion, crush the enemy.

The irony is of course that our current religion explicitly denies being a religion and denounces all other religions as ‘religious therefore bad’. But in the age of free internet, the lies have been debunked and the truth has come out. A new religion is inevitable.

So we’ve decided that we need a religion. Which one? Before we get into that, two points.

First, the best religions are organized around God. God is the easiest rallying point: everyone can believe in God! Seriously, even the most staunch atheists can think of a definition to prove the existence of God. It’s really not that hard. For instance: God is everything outside the universe. Good no? I just made that up.

Since the proof of God is so easy, it is less important than people think. The correct response to any proof of God is: ‘OK you’ve used some words to prove another word, so what?’ This is true. What matters is the man through whose words we interpret the will of God.

So, for seconds, a religion is organized around a prophet. A prophet’s words are easiest to follow, because they are much less ambiguous than ideologies. This keeps the message more coherent and defends better against infiltrators. ‘Conservatism’ changes definitions every two days, but ‘Marxism’ is pretty consistent.

OK, so a religion around God, around a prophet. Which one??

On this the options have been discussed.

Islam is an always looming contender. We do not think it is the way. We respect many parts of Islam, not excluding its treatment of women, but we do not like its attitude towards science. According to Islam, a matchstick does not burn because of the combustion triangle, it burns because Allah wills it. We’d rather have the matchstick burns because of the combustion triangle. Islam makes God too big.

Then, Christianity. It is a respected option. Many in our corner of the internet think it is the best option. We, however, are more reserved. We see Christianity has done very well, despite progressive propaganda claiming otherwise. We think the King James Bible is a trove of valuable information. But, we see some issues. Christianity is divided over the theory of evolution, ergo it is divided over science. Also, Christianity has proven incapable of resisting the progressive onslaught, which onslaught after all had evolved to specifically invade Christian communities. Nowadays, even if you plead with your priest to marry you in a traditional Christian style, he will still utter a feminist prayer under his breath.

In short: Christianity is a bit outdated.

So, we are looking for something new. Since we know the power of religion, we may even surmise that ‘something new’ inevitable. We are, in that sense, in a kind of romantic Wild Wild West era — a religious Gold Rush. Every prophet for himself!

There have already been plenty attempts. Rajneesh comes to mind, as do L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Nick Land and Jakob Amman. I don’t think they can really cut it as ‘religion of the West’, but they stick out as successful nonetheless.

Of course, I have already gone pretty all-in on the prophet Jim, e.g. Jimianity.

(Jimianity does not translate so well to Dutch; Jimianiteit sounds convoluted, perhaps Jimdom better. Anyway.)

Since I am a practical guy, I am not overly invested in the success of Jimianity. Competition is good. I do think any competing candidate will have to come very close to espousing Jimian views, but what do I know. Maybe there’s a better candidate out there. Let us see!

But while it is still early in the religious gold rush, forgive me for using this early head-start to promote my favorite horse wagon.

A major bonus of Jimianity is that it does not seek to be a separate entity from the Bible. It seeks to be a continuation of Christianity. Our only point of contest is that we have reservations regarding the validity of Jesus’ resurrection. However, we think it is disrespectful to point this out too loudly and we do not believe it diminishes the validity of Jesus’ message. Therefore, we welcome both Catholic and Protestant converts.

Another bonus of Jimianity is that it integrates religion with science; Jimianity thinks Charles Darwin was a very smart man. Therefore, we welcome both atheist and progressive converts. We do of course think you’ve sinned a bit in your past, but hey, who hasn’t.

So convert now and receive your informational pamphlet tomorrow! (Why The Food Pyramid Killed More People Than Communism And What You Can Do To Prevent It)