Herbert is more nuanced (or conflicted) than this.
He wrote Messiah (in part) to undermine the Paul as Great Man thesis. He was apparently discomfited by Paul’s reception on the part of much of his readership, which typically saw Paul as a hero.
But Herbert was too smart to be content with the obvious thing (Paul = Great Man = bad). If you stop at Messiah, this might be your impression. But the later books show something else
Paul has prescience. This is the product of a long Bene Gesserit breeding program; the sisterhood believed that humanity required a leader with the ability to see the future if civilization was to survive.
Paul understands that prescience would create stagnation. Oracular power is a trap. It would rob humanity of choice and reduce humanity’s ability to adapt to the future
Jihad emerges as the solution to this. It serves as an evolutionary pressure to force humanity onto a new trajectory.
The tragedy of Paul is that he comes to understand his place within the larger pattern. His foresight enables him to see that the system has a greater intelligence or logic that is inhuman on the individual level. (Feel free to apply AI analogies here, though Herbert doesn’t explicitly do this). Paul is a free agent; he could choose to not act. But doing so would not solve anything. The jihad might happen anyway. Paul would certainly be destroyed. The outcome may very well be worse than if he did act. There are all these higher level logics and forces that are pushing humanity in a certain direction. The irony is that the man who can see the future is the most constrained. He isn’t exactly powerless but he has much less choice than it might at first appear. He is a creation of his circumstances, but must act within them.
f
Leto II, Paul’s son, evolves a fuller understanding of all this. He conceptualizes the trap Paul finds himself within. But whereas Paul eventually chooses the ancients’ final argument against fate - he walks out to his death in the great desert - to take back control over his destiny, Leto embraces it. He becomes an a-mortal being, and forces humanity onto the Golden Path, Leto’s strategy to break the cycle of humanity’s innate desire to be controlled (whether by charismatic leaders or vast social, historical, and economic forces. He was to "teach humanity a lesson that they will remember in their bones".
The irony is that the only thing that can end the threat of Great Men is to become a Great Man yourself. This Leto II does with singleminded ruthlessness. All this is done to create the conditions for the Scattering, where humanity will seed the cosmos. By spreading far and wide, the threats inherent in a consolidated single “world system” or civilization will be avoided. Humanity will be too diverse, too wide spread, for a single crisis no matter how great to threaten it again
So is the jihad necessary? Are totalitarian Great Men and great violence necessary? Herbert might actually say yes. It’s a core tension that he deliberately leaves unresolved
@spqr_sulla Do we actually have a quote from Frank Herbert saying that’s why he wrote messiah? I see everyone claim that but are people just misunderstanding?