Theme: Religion

WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL?

(1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.)

(2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.)

( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.)

(4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.)

( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.)

( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.)

(7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. )

(8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. )

(9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence.

(10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.)

(11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.)

(12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.)

(13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.)

(14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism.

(15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)