Perhaps try watching what was linked to (the link was added after you quoted it).

You think you were rational (this is a common pattern of delusion and all addictions), but first of all my analysis (logic and thus opinion) is that "agnostic" was the same SJW (diversity devouring, power vacuum creating) religion/ideology/worldview you are following now. You've just adapted your desire for power vacuums to a God religion to make yourself feel more noble and honorable, but you actually ignore all the falsifiable facts. How rational is that?

Obviously you were agnostic because you felt that by being "objective" about social issues (as SJWs in academic settings preach that they are), you were being the most noble and honorable. But then you started to notice some inconsistencies, so you tried to correct those by switching over to the God religion.

The common theme is refusing to honor nature and creating power vacuums under the illusion of noble achievements.

Afaics, there is no logic involved in your decision other than finding a way to continue the SJW indoctrination that you were ostensibly mind controlled and enslaved with in your formative years of SJW education. You haven't responded to any of the falsifiable facts.

I was under the delusions too. I understand first-hand how powerful they are. But I didn't have a very firm indoctrination as a child. I avoided being subjected to what other people wanted me to think. Later in life I tried to find stability and comfort by embracing for example what I felt my beloved grandfather believed. But I didn't have the indoctrination to overcome that you've apparently been subjected to. So you serve as evidence of my thesis herein that we can't really choose our philosophy in most cases as it is decided for us in our formative years. And thus I think (my opinion) I understand why it will be nearly impossible for you to not be mind controlled and not be enslaved. An opinion is not a statement of fact. It is an argument. I think my logic is sound. I haven't yet seen someone refute my logic in this thread.

I don't hate you for your predicament. I just get angry at SJWs for using the State as a proxy to destroy my diversity (but they will reap what they have sown over the next couple or several decades in Stage #5). It is war and I have to fight and make it to Stage #6. And also because they think they are so noble and honorable, and they look at others as so deplorable. So of course doesn't it make you angry if someone accuses you (even passive aggressively by implication) of being a deplorable when you think they are also hypocrites?

And btw not that it matters, but the 19th Amendment is the bastardized country, not the Constitution. The forefathers did have have 19th amendment in our Constitution. And the amendment was achieved via corruption of the original Constitution, culture, values, etc.., not by a legitimate adherence to it. Our forefathers were not that stupid. The mistake of our forefather is thinking that any large scale system of governance could remain resilient. I am convinced that any stable group strategy must have the ability to cast off conflicting members rather than compromise. That doesn't mean it is resilient against all threats, but that it remains stable until it dies due to lack of fitness and inability to change. And with enough variants of such stable group strategies, then the species remains resilient. And this is I think were we are headed for Stage #6. The nation-state was necessary for aggregating capital for the Industrial Age, but it has lost is reason to exist. And btw, this is why when Armstrong mentioned the USA would break up, it immediately seemed plausible to me.

My life experience has been one of being subjected to the realities of nature. So it is not surprising that is the ideology that comes naturally to me. As I have explained honestly and without malice to miscreanity, I really tried to find rationality in the God religion. And I have already explained in great detail upthread why it fails rationality from my perspective.

For me it feels good enough to know that the human species is diverse and that we are all out there trying to find the best strategy for fostering the optimum progression towards higher levels of entropy. Within that, we can find the justification for love and empathy. I don't need to go controlling everyone else (but maybe I need to control my but not your offspring) and destroying diversity in order to feel good about the reality of nature. It seems most other humans today just don't feel comfortable without some grand accomplishments such as "absolute independence and freedom for every human" (which is of course is egalitarian, a uniform distribution, static, and thus absolutely impossible).

@CoinCube, the reason we've gotten such a bad feeling going on between us now, is because of your insistence of using the State to interfere with other people's children. I find that to be deplorable. Sorry to say. You say it is the Constitution, but I don't care if it is the Bible. It doesn't mean I have to like what I think is wrong and deplorable. (and I don't think the Constitution says anything about having social workers fucking with other people's children and mandated SJW-infested State schools, etc....)

Again I respect @Winter's point that we shouldn't demonize the person, and instead have good arguments. I have presented my arguments. Yet when you tell me "this is the Constitution, take it or leave it". And "I will fight" for the right to use the State to interfere with the children of others and otherwise imply I am a deplorable because I am not "noble" to protect women and children from nature, I will get angry yes. Because it is disingenuous for the reasons I have explained.