Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

107

The way I've phrased this idea might make what I am expressing seem more convoluted than it is, but really this is a widely-acknowledged truth, I think.

Basically, if you believe something, and what you believe in does not Itself compel you to seek Truth, then whenever something or someone challenges what you believe in, all that is required to avert the crisis of faith is any response whatever, however poor.

I will give an example to illustrate, and then elaborate: A normal person who believes in the mainstream Holocaust narrative might be challenged by someone who points out the impossibility of cyanide gas chambers functioning with wooden doors that swing inward. This is a challenge that, if they have any honestly at all, cannot simply go unaddressed. So they do a websearch, and find a site that claims that the wooden doors are not original, that there were originally air-tight steel doors that swung outward, and that only after the war were these removed and replaced with the wooden doors we can see today. It doesn't matter if this answer does not mesh with the full range of facts; it does not matter if it is unsourced; it does not matter that it is absurd. What matters is that it offers an "out" for the one whose false gnosis has been challenged. Because their gnosis is not itself aimed at Truth, then the unsatisfactory nature of the answer is irrelevant - it is an out that enables them to continue holding onto their false gnosis. It allows them to say "that narrative is 'debunked'".

The importance of being able to "debunk" a challenge to one's gnosis is utmost; that is why we have seen this rise of fact-checkers that enable people to "dismiss" problematic challenges by showing that they have been "debunked" - but anyone who has closely reviewed the "arguments" of fact-checkers can see how manipulative and misleading they themselves tend to be. The reaction of Sen. Parent to the damning Georgia video tapes (youtube.com) is another example; she begins her objection by asserting that the video has been debunked - this word itself is supposed to exert incredible power, enabling her to dismiss with the damning challenge to her gnosis - or in this case, simply her will, since it may be that she knows full well that there was fraud. It is only later that it is pointed out that the video had just been acquired hours prior, and could not possibly have yet been debunked.

These are just examples of the power of "debunking", of the importance of dismissing with challenges, however poorly, in order to defend one's gnosis.

I would like to add that one can hold true beliefs, but still have a false gnosis - a false understanding of those beliefs, of those doctrines. As a Christian theist it is my unwavering belief that Jesus Christ is Lord; I am not trying to argue here that Christians are not guilty of the very same disingenuous cop-out I have just described. They, too, firm in their beliefs, may, if challenged, accept whatever answer they can to a powerful challenge. My point would be, is that it is a sign of true gnosis to never be satisfied with answers that are inherently unsatisfactory. But the NPC, the pawn in the Machine, will latch onto whatever answer it can, however, flawed, in order to avoid a short-circuit. This is the power of the fact-checker.

The way I've phrased this idea might make what I am expressing seem more convoluted than it is, but really this is a widely-acknowledged truth, I think. Basically, if you believe something, and what you believe in does not Itself compel you to seek Truth, then whenever something or someone challenges what you believe in, *all that is required to avert the crisis of faith is any response whatever, however poor*. I will give an example to illustrate, and then elaborate: A normal person who believes in the mainstream Holocaust narrative might be challenged by someone who points out the impossibility of cyanide gas chambers functioning with wooden doors that swing inward. This is a challenge that, if they have any honestly at all, cannot simply go unaddressed. So they do a websearch, and find a site that claims that the wooden doors are not original, that there were originally air-tight steel doors that swung outward, and that only *after* the war were these removed and replaced with the wooden doors we can see today. It doesn't matter if this answer does not mesh with the full range of facts; it does not matter if it is unsourced; it does not matter that it is absurd. What matters is that it offers an "out" for the one whose false gnosis has been challenged. Because their gnosis is not itself aimed at Truth, then the unsatisfactory nature of the answer is irrelevant - it is an out that enables them to continue holding onto their false gnosis. It allows them to say "that narrative is 'debunked'". The importance of being able to "debunk" a challenge to one's gnosis is utmost; that is why we have seen this rise of fact-checkers that enable people to "dismiss" problematic challenges by showing that they have been "debunked" - but anyone who has closely reviewed the "arguments" of fact-checkers can see how manipulative and misleading they themselves tend to be. [The reaction of Sen. Parent to the damning Georgia video tapes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiWGj-nZIkg) is another example; she begins her objection by asserting that the video has been debunked - this word itself is supposed to exert incredible power, enabling her to dismiss with the damning challenge to her gnosis - or in this case, simply her will, since it may be that she knows full well that there was fraud. It is only later that it is pointed out that the video had just been acquired hours prior, and could not possibly have yet been debunked. These are just examples of the power of "debunking", of the importance of dismissing with challenges, however poorly, in order to defend one's gnosis. I would like to add that one can hold true beliefs, but still have a false gnosis - a false understanding of those beliefs, of those doctrines. As a Christian theist it is my unwavering belief that Jesus Christ is Lord; I am not trying to argue here that Christians are not guilty of the very same disingenuous cop-out I have just described. They, too, firm in their beliefs, may, if challenged, accept whatever answer they can to a powerful challenge. My point would be, is that it is a sign of true gnosis to never be satisfied with answers that are inherently unsatisfactory. But the NPC, the pawn in the Machine, will latch onto whatever answer it can, however, flawed, in order to avoid a short-circuit. This is the power of the fact-checker.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Great post. I think it could also be useful to think about what you've described in terms of authority. You have been saying, since long ago, that ultimately, all knowledge comes to rest on faith. We've picked that contention apart in every possible way, and yet found it to be true in every case. What this means is that everyone takes the foundation of their knowledge, that is, the most unassailable belief in their network of beliefs (upon which the stability of the whole network of beliefs rests) as issuing from some authority. Before Descartes, mankind had for centuries and centuries recognized the truth that this foundation is God, but Descartes made the foundation man himself, where the foundational faith was no longer in God, but first in my sureness that I am.

But, of course, this is why God said to His people, "I am." Was this predictive of where man would one day go? Or perhaps Descartes (with or without realizing it) was attacking the bedrock of I am, and changing human consciousness from that point forward, causing each of us to posit the self as I am.

To me, the Christian is the person which has realized there is just one, and by way of an inward journey/experience understands that the most rational place for their existential doubt to come to rest is on the authority of God.

If a person takes an account of the metaphysical arguments for religion and for science, with the kind of authentic openness which you've called 'the approach with folded hands', God truly is the most rational place to begin. Sure, the ultimate leap forward from the foundation point is always faithful. Our very first step in the world of the intellect is always one out onto what looks like it's where the sidewalk has ended, but does this not mirror our very first steps in the world altogether? The first step a toddler takes is one based on faith.

We just think that there are hands behind us when we take that step, while the materialist thinks they are fundamentally alone. So never is there a time that passes in the life of the materialist in which they are not alone - because they've decided to be; they've let authority rest on themselves, or on the City of Man, the church of progress, and so the materialist's 'foundation stone' will heave with the ground in which it is sunk, that being the soil of man's heart. So it will change with the times and the seat of worldly authority. From one day to the very next, the universe can go from an intelligible place of enduring truth to a relativistic world where truth depends on where you're standing in the dirt.

For the powers of this world that wish to separate us from the bedrock, they need only convince us that we are alone. You can look at these people grasping at straws, barely able to convince anyone they are sure of themselves, resorting instead to thought-terminating cliches and sternness of voice to stand in for where genuine confidence might otherwise. These are people, who being alone, grasp for the firmest bit of ground they can. What they find is the group heaving according to the authority of governments, news personalities, and academics. So to ensure they've got a place there, they'll defer like those who do not think at all to the platitudes and trendy vocabulary of the age. Anything that threatens their bedding spot in the dirt is debunked.

@KingOfWhiteAmerica

[–] • 0 pt

Very well said.

standing in the dirt.

Perhaps we should instead say "sand":

24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,

25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand,

27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

Matthew 7:24-27 (biblegateway.com)

And great was the fall thereof. Words that should send chills down any proud man's spine.