By: Michael Gryboski

I. Introduction

No greater harm can come to a cause than to prove it wrong.

II. Process to be laid out

1. Acquiring a target for Credocide.
2. Establishing the intellectual axioms of said target.
3. Finding fault through the intellectual axioms of said target.
4. Replication and antithesis.

III. Acquiring a target for Credocide

1. Positivity and negativity in difference.
2. Contrasting Internal and External threats.
3. Beyond mere nay-say.

IV. Establishing the intellectual axioms of said target.

1. The need for the academics of said target
2. Reading the literature of said target.

V. Finding fault through the intellectual axioms of said target.

1. Use no sources that are of like-mind.
2. Note any contradictions between neutral sources and what is believed.
3. Note any contradictions between what is professed and what is written.

VI. Replication and Antithesis

1. To justify results, find apologetics of said target.
2. Potential Drawbacks.

VII. Conclusion

I. Introduction

No greater harm can come to a cause than to prove it wrong. For then all that is of it becomes meaningless, as though pursuing the wind. The labors devoted to the cause are for naught, the martyrdoms are worthless, and the rallies are a waste of time. Why then would anyone with sound mind contribute to a belief, a tenet, a doctrine, a movement, or an ideology whose core was falsehood? If the foundation of a movement can be severed indefinitely from the truth, if the foundation of a movement can be given a death blow as though in battle, who then would want to follow it? None that are of objective mind or sound reasoning. Neither the seeker nor the curious, neither the moderate nor all but the most extreme partisan would desire to dedicate their lives and sacrifice them if need-be for an untruth.

Sacrifice is performed by those who disbelieve disbelief in the ideology they hold. Sacrifice would be for naught for a falsehood. Movements entrenched in inaccuracy, which rely on error as their truth will not survive long in the event of being revealed for their actual character. No one would desire to perform sacrifice, ritual, much less attend the gatherings of a movement, an ideology, if that which is the object of constant devotion collapses upon being revealed for what it is. Ritual in meaninglessness lasts only so long, a passing hobby of entertainment for the nostalgic or the mad. A cause refuted is a cause that will receive sacrifice, devotion, piety, adoration, and protection no longer.

What attention should be given to a movement proven wrong? For when the caste of pundits who held the hero upon their shoulders now hold a corpse in a casket, they shall bury this dead cause in heaps of earth and with mourning eventually come to live the rest of their lives without the interred remains of their former passion. When the foundation so labored upon is wrecked, the greatness and magnitude of the edifice that was the particular movement matters not as it implodes, falling within itself, inhabitants fleeing the calamity or staying to die. Regardless of any action, the cause is reserved for yellowed pages of history.

In the history of human civilization movements, ideologies, philosophies have come and gone, risen to peaks and cast down from the light. Wars with carnal and mental weapons have been fought in many realms under many and between many regimes in order to have the glorified beliefs prevail over their rivals, flooding minds once alien to their influence. Such is the apparently unending exchange, the back-and-forth, the volleys given by each column as though with muskets upon an open emerald field. Do any causes survive, can any cause be killed? This shall be an opus on how to eliminate any fully formed and passionately defended cause, ideology, or movement.

Like the flesh and blood goaded by the mind to work for the cause, ideologies can be killed; they are mortals save the one that is the true belief, the true way, the truth. For in man-made causes, man-made religions, there is inevitable guarantee that distortion, untruth, falsehood, and contradiction abound as wolves in sheep’s clothing. This opus is to show how these false prophets can be exposed and driven from humanity. This process, this universal methodology and cure for false ideology is to be named Credocide.

II. The Procedure

To all things a purpose, to all orders a process. In order to fully grasp what must come to pass there is a need to have a link, one aspect and one axiom mandatory for the process of Credocide. This axiom is the assumption of scientific objectivity. No mere opinion, alone on the field, can withstand the throngs of armored opinions that could charge forth through words spoken and written. No series of insults, of random sporadic ranting, can achieve what must be achieved. Rather, as with any army, there must be good discipline. In this case there must be a process, a code of discipline, in order for good proper rationale. In constructing this means to foster the termination of philosophical dialogue, four steps must be taken, each of which shall be detailed in order to define this righteous activity.

For narrow is the path to victory, great in scope is the margin for error. This comes to pass in many a science; gradual deviation from the pure origins, the story of the human condition. Deviation from the pure is found throughout politics, religion, and science. It is not as though any set of ethics can inhibit the malevolent labors of man so embroidered in intentions presumed good. No power can be mustered from the written word to tame any part of the wild nature of man, compelled to lust, violence, and oppression. Yet at the very least, the great English word accountability can be implemented. Better than mere spoken word, a written code of action with distinct rules can, at least, direct the reasonable to the straight and narrow, offering evidence against the perverts. Described now is the process, which holds the following order: acquisition of a target, establishment of the axioms of the target, finding fault with the axioms of the target, and finally replication and critical review.

1. Acquiring a target for Credocide

Conflict is a prevailing theme in human history. Dispute is inevitable, engrained by the Fall of Man, continued and perpetuated with each new disparity that is unable to be reconciled. Cruel intolerance could be a claim ushered against Credocide, hereafter also noted as the process. Postmodernism teaches us to accept the different, even if at the expense of our own convictions. We are meant to be nonjudgmental of others’ beliefs, an attribute only the most ardent follower of postmodernism truly achieves. In truth, the vast majority of those preaching tolerance merely believe their ideas to be superior to those who preach intolerance, thereby destroying the entire notion of postmodernism. This double standard noted, one can finally say the taboo and acknowledge that there are sets of ideas and beliefs that stand as superior to others.

There are many belief systems and ideologies abounding in this third planet from the Sun; to reconcile them all into a united fabric is impossible. Many have as a mission the destruction of other ideologies. Others hold rigidity strict enough to eliminate the validity of other views. This does not mean all these varied beliefs cannot effectively dialogue or live in community under a single polity. Violence is not a guaranteed side-effect of every debate. What this irreconcilability does mean is that worldviews will not acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing opinion and indeed may never see the dissenting opinion as an equal. This is where postmodernism can never win: the mind will always have a preferred set of morals and discriminate against others.

2. Establishing the intellectual axioms of said target.

It cannot be stressed enough that the free market of ideas is the optimum means to advance the process. If there was a repressive ideologically-uniform society, then it would be near impossible to legally possess the works of the enemy. An established ideology could, under the power of legislative and military fiat, destroy the works of all opposing viewpoints. By doing this, the ideologically-driven regime merely accelerates dissent. If an ideology controls the media then accurate explanations of the opposing worldview are seldom possible, for propaganda machines have little reason to properly represent the views of enemies and by doing such avoid intellectually dealing with the opposing opinions.

Even those who preach tolerance of all ideologies will agree to this attribute of the process. Understanding is central to laying the groundwork for Credocide, as it is common for opposing ideologies to claim they have been misrepresented by their ideological foes. Truth be told, this is a valid assumption ideologues can make for it is commonplace for members of a certain worldview to have a distorted perception of different or directly opposing ideas. Continual distortion of an alien ideology would only increase under a monopolized market of ideas, as their views would occupy the public opinion, mass-producing the falsehoods to the extent where the dissenting ideology need only profess their fundamentals in order to refute that which has been tyrannically imposed upon the general population.

In a free market access to the works and confessions of the opposing ideology are better attained. The more evangelical the ideology, the more works shall be available and most preferably in one’s own language. Only in a location noted for freedom of dissent can this be possible. The free market of ideas, protected most hopefully by law rather than lenient regimes, can aid Credocide not only in gathering these important fundamentals but also in destroying them, for the process needs to be on a large scale, affecting the general population. Having no restrictions on dialogue means the finished Credocide can be disseminated on a large scale without legal or military harassment. Freedom of information and no censorship, the axioms of an opposing ideology even if a minority or dissenting sect can be successfully digested.

3. Finding fault through the intellectual axioms of said target

A problem many apologists for many views have is the ability to find fault with the assumptions that underlay opposing belief systems. It is a very hard thing to make a case that does not go after the accusations of a belief system but rather the core principles that create these claims. This tendency to go after accusations rather than axioms is partially due to many worldviews being based off of postulates, or intellectual givens that cannot be tested. These are much, much harder to tackle than objective presumptions, yet they, even they, can be found to be with fault and dealt with accordingly.

Sometimes it may be challenging to tell the difference between what constitutes a claim and what constitutes an intellectual given. Ways exist; it is not an impossible task. A claim is something that when destroyed shall not threaten the survivability of the belief system whereas an intellectual given is something that when destroyed the belief system is put in great peril. A claim tends to be contemporary and time or place sensitive, such as a study, news report, or collection of data whereas an intellectual given is timeless and encompassing. Both true and false belief systems have ushered true and false claims; in this there is moral equivalency. Yet with an intellectual given, there is no moral equivalency for a true belief system is accurate and a false belief system is inaccurate. A claim or corpus of claims can expose the difference between a true idea and a false idea whereas intellectual givens can merely allege or hint at the falsehood of a competing belief system.

One cannot destroy an idea unless they find fault with its intellectual axioms. Although many, too many, apologists or earnest believers may feel content with shooting down a certain number of claims ushered by an opposing belief system, there must be more to create full security. It may yet be sufficient for the apologist, but it will most likely not be sufficient to the moderate middle so chased after by the groups that comprise ideas old and new, traditional and radical. Through the process laid out, there shall be a methodology that shall be of service. The prayer to be prayed is that no untrue belief system can survive the methodology and no true belief system can be denounced by the methodology.

III. Acquisition

By far this is the easiest step in the process. Man is a divisive race, creating new ideas is a constant. An apparent companion to the growth of any ideology is splinter groups, headlined by heretics convinced of their own supremacy. As numbers grow so do interpretations, some of which can survive orthodox scrutiny but others fall far from the purity of the beginning of the idea. Perversion is constant and the more individuals who partake of an idea the more individual thoughts go into the idea. Deviation is inevitable, indeed if deviation did not occur in at least some of the members then it could be rightly assumed the idea in question was failing. Small secluded ideas prevail in orthodoxy, but may go extinct. Thriving ideologies gain vast numbers through profession or inheritance, but they risk having people lost in the crowd, swayed by the words of the fringe rather than the teachers.

Progress equals division and division advances heresy. This would mean that success guarantees future troubles, but that is a price which under many circumstances can be paid without issue. Given inherent individualism, there will always be division, yet this division can be apolitical, nonsectarian, or even benevolent, as seen with the labors of reformers throughout time. Forget not, however, that there shall always be a line, a line that can be crossed and by crossing it, there is deviation of an unhealthy kind, a kind that goes against the central doctrines of an ideology. Intellectual integrity is a must for determining what constitutes tolerable deviation and what constitutes intolerable deviation. In every successful idea both come into being. Defining intolerable deviation is remarkably simple: whatever denies the fundamentals of an ideology is heretical to that ideology. If the deviation is hostile to any or all of the fundamentals of the ideology from which it came, then it is intolerable deviation.

Though obvious, it is still important to note the targets from without the idea. Whether one endorses the view of the tabula rasa or the view of genetics, of nature or nurture, one cannot deny that not everyone adheres to the same ideas. If nothing else, that may yet be the idea everyone agrees on. There are plenty of differing views regarding everything from diet to political affiliation. The vast majority of these views are trivial at most important, yet many do carry substantial weight. Several ideas are oftentimes gathered together, forming a federation called a worldview. The vastness of this means of thought can be a target. Indeed, with the process laid out, any idea, ideology, or worldview can be subject to investigation.

Enemies abound for any orthodoxy. They can surround the territory of an orthodoxy like the great multitudes of combatants, awaiting the call to battle. Other ideologies can appear from afar, having dealt harshly with other beliefs and as an empire come to wipe out the present orthodoxy. The idea’s weapons can be literal or figurative, pens and swords not being mutually exclusive. Conquest is always attempted, either violently or passively. Adherents to the unfamiliar ideology use a wide range of labors, including apologetics, witnessing, philanthropy, or even violence. Even tolerant worldviews demand tribute from the more rigid, setting forth the order to fuse with other views and acknowledge their own inferiority. The theme is domination, for the individual seeks nothing less. No human being believes that their worldview is inferior to other worldviews; otherwise, they would abandon the weaker schema and accept a newer stronger one.

Internal or external, it is easy to find targets in ideas that seek to undermine and overthrow the idea. And it is at this point the disparity between apologetics and Credocide must be made. Both apologetics and Credocide are responses to the onslaught of internal and external threats to the idea. Apologetics serves as defense, fending off the attacks from other ideologies, but Credocide serves as offense, launching forth the attacks with blameless efficiency. Apologetics can only serve to prolong the war; Credocide can win it. Deciding on a target is simple, for it requires only the ability to identify an ideology that does not share fundamentals with the orthodoxy. If it is foreign to the established orthodoxy, then it is a threat. Internal or external, if it is a threat then it must be dealt with.

1. Positivity and negativity in difference

Diversity is not an inherently evil word. There are plenty of examples of diversity being a beneficial entity. Nevertheless, diversity can be an evil word, a way of looking at the world that involves the toleration of the intolerable. With doctrinal diversity, there is concern. Deviation as inevitable means there will never be a time in which diversity is dead, but there are times that can be made in which it can be reduced. Some may question if there is true disparity between a true doctrine and a false doctrine, for many are devotees to finding common ground, to the extent of believing that there is, in fact, no true disparity.

Let not one be lulled into danger. Disparity between belief systems exists, for better and for worse. The manifestation of a new belief system is not necessarily wrong, for it may be required to preach the truth or to right wrongs committed by previously existing belief systems. Not so much the order, but the accuracy of the doctrine is what is at stake in the wars of beliefs. Time and place notwithstanding, what has to be recognized is difference. Not everyone has the same government, not everyone worships the same God, and not everyone loves his neighbor. If unity was encompassing of all belief systems then no wars would come to pass and debate would be a nonsensical collection of letters. There is debate, there is conflict.

Unless one can appreciate that some beliefs are hopelessly different, to the point of reconciliation being a mere absence of physical or verbal violence, then the process cannot be enacted. Unity is hostile to Credocide. For if there was true unity then the process would not be necessary. If truth was relevant, then the process could not be adequately implemented. However, beliefs do vary and vary greatly. Some believe in God, others many gods, and still others no gods. These points of spiritual contention are irreconcilable for they are inherently heterogeneous. They may tolerate each other, but they tolerate difference not similarity. To realize that profound differences exist between beliefs may seem obvious, but many in the world are too busy trying to compromise to see these telling proofs.

2. Contrasting Internal and External threats.

With every assault on an ideology, the opposing force can be classified as one of two things: internal or external. Sometimes an attack can involve both means, but generally it is secluded to one category or another. It is not to say one threat does not benefit from another threat of the opposite classification, but still they are different for they take different approaches. The disparities between the two involve their origins, their tactics, and their potential impact, however they both have the same ultimate goal: the removal of the initial orthodoxy.

Internal threats often originate as an ideology grows and encounters different people, brought up in different cultures, societies, and-or castes. People who join an ideology will often put personal components into it, such as cultural tradition or prevailing social norms. Internal threats can also originate from earnest individuals who believe the dominant ruling class of his belief system has gone astray, perverting into a caste of heretics. A final originator of opposition from within is the genuine corruptors, who desire the ideology to move away from its initial fundamentals so as to appease or submit to other ideologies.

External threats originate from without the ideology, forming in often completely different environments. They have never acknowledged some or any of the fundamentals of the initial idea, neither has it been their intention to preserve the ideology. They were bred to oppose, started to convert, and see the ideology as a target. External threats are often more forceful, deriving from group or singular endeavors to terminate the opposing ideology. They do not seek reform, for then they would have a desire to retain the existence of the opposing ideology which would be counterproductive. Theirs is the war of annihilation.

Internal threats will often use the same terminology as the targeted orthodoxy. This is often the case because they genuinely believe their definitions are the pure true ones. They will seek to convert to a purer, better strain of the ideology, believing that this method shall strengthen rather than weaken the ideology. Very few internal threats seek to destroy the ideology, just the present establishment. External threats will often have different terminology for they adhere to a different set of beliefs, the significance of such shall be covered later. They could care less how pure or impure an ideology is, save in the event that one of those levels of purity matches their core viewpoints, then the threat may lend support to the internal threat to established orthodoxy. Both internal and external threats want to change an established orthodoxy and it may be that they hold legitimate points.

3. Beyond Mere Nay-say

When a target is acquired, it is more than merely to attack it, for such could be done in any fashion. Activists of varying objectivities could accomplish this feat. Realizing the presence of an opposing viewpoint should not lead to mere exposition on its existence; neither should the awareness be the end result of all labors. This is part of a process, a whole procedure to, if truth so prevails on one’s side, to eliminate at the very foundation an opposing viewpoint, an opposing worldview that can come from within or without. This cannot be a simple answer to criticism, but must be applied to a fully developed threat to an orthodoxy, or for that matter, depending on the circumstances, a fully developed threat by an orthodoxy.

There will always be dissent; the only issue is how much tolerance is allotted. If the threat internally is banter, a simple point of contention, then it is the work of apologetics rather than the process. There has to be something more, an actual counter-idea, a counter-worldview that lays siege to the initial idea. This has to be an actual threat to the overall monopoly the orthodoxy has, not simply a single argument waged in hopeless dissent, a mere antithesis rather than a competing ideology. That way, the weapon of choice can be the process rather than apologetics, which in most circumstances shall admittedly suffice.

IV. Establishing Axioms

Once the target, be it internal or external, is acquired, there must be a means to establishing a description of the belief system. Each belief that a human being can hold, be it religious, secular, or political, has a foundation. Regardless of how uncivilized a set of beliefs can be, or how fluid or heterodox the belief system stands, there will always be a set of acknowledged fundamentals that, without such, there is no distinct worldview. They may not be objective, they may not derive from academic ivory towers, yet nonetheless these fundamentals do exist. Every worldview, every schema, holds some given as pillared support. The next step in this process, a step harder than the one preceding, is to discover these fundamentals.

Although tempting, there are two methods of gaining fundamentals from an opposing ideology that should not be performed: gathering axioms from uneducated or lesser knowledgeable members and gathering axioms from the extremists. The first mentioned is improper even if often the sole means of information. Especially for developing or less imposing ideologies, it would be irregular for an inquisitive soul to locate only those partially schooled in their beliefs. Maybe they hold these views because their community or family does, maybe they hold them sincerely yet are unable to properly convey them to an outside audience. Either way, there should be an effort to gain well-read and scholarly sources from the opposing belief system in order to effectively establish the fundamentals of the opposing idea.

The latter of the two methods of gaining an opposing belief system’s axioms is even more tempting, as extremism is inherently unattractive to the mainstream of any society and therefore by using extremism as the target one reduces the work in forming what are often complex fundamentals. It is important to expose extremist wings of larger sects, yet it should also be obligatory to acknowledge that the extremist wing in question does not represent the whole of the opposing ideology. If the extremist wing is intentionally placed as accurately displaying or professing the axioms of the overall ideology, then the overall ideology can easily fell the attempt at Credocide, thereby successfully defeating the opposition mounted.

In both methods described above inaccurate perceptions of the intellectual givens of the opposing ideology are gained. By doing thus, apologists merely need to explain their beliefs to the public and in so doing fell the offensive launched. This can also hurt the credibility of the person or group disseminating the information, as it shows a lack of research and commitment to the truth. It is optimum to get educated and well researched sources on the idea. Its best intellectuals and writers and philosophers should be consulted. Those who, within the opposing ideology, have been judged by their peers to be of sound knowledge should be consulted, either directly through conversation or (more preferably) through the written word. That which is written and published cannot be erased.

Although outside sources have been known to be reliable in their synopsis of a set of beliefs, it would be most preferable to get the very words of the ideological adherents themselves, lest any corruptions unintended and intended poison the declaration of the axioms of the threat to the orthodoxy. Further, those internal sources should be of top quality, with one or more of the following attributes. One, the source should be written by an accredited scholar, one who has a degree or position or title, especially that which is respected by the adherents to the ideology the source affiliates with. Two, the source should be published or distributed or copyrighted or any number of aforementioned qualities by an entity friendly to the ideology. Three, the source should be praised by one or more like-minded entities, thereby seen as fit by the peers of the author or scholar used to establish axioms.

Quotation from sources in establishing fundamentals is a must in order to properly display the characteristics of the belief system. However, there should be an understanding on the part of the inquisitive soul of these axioms, lest evidence later gathered not apply to the claims professed. The ability to paraphrase the views should be mandatory, even if the Credocide does not contain paraphrasing. If the inquisitive soul attempting the process does not understand the profession of the opposing ideology, then the attempt cannot be successfully waged. Gathering proper sources should then be made in the search for axioms of the opposing ideology and also in the endeavor to understand and interpret those axioms.

1. The need for the academics of said target

It cannot be stressed enough that when one works off of the presupposition that an ideology is fundamentally false it can be hard to view it objectively. Distortion of an opposing ideology’s actual fundamentals is not a rare occurrence, but most likely props up many benevolent and malevolent worldviews. This is a strong temptation from without the process. Therefore, the academics of the opposing ideology should be consulted and quoted in order to frame the axioms of an opposing ideology. If someone believes there are no academics for an opposing ideology, they are either dealing with a fragile opposition or they have a distorted view of the opposition and ergo cannot adequately perform Credocide. Every ideology has its experts, has some team of intellectuals driving it forward.

Academics can be anything the other side sees as a valid resource for their worldview, something they would swear by or cite in their own works. The more legitimate in their eyes the more it should be used by the inquisitive soul. Best to be a written source, but if not possible consulting experts directly via interview is acceptable. If not even this can be performed, then the process cannot be enacted in its purest form and therefore can be subject to valid criticisms which could devalue Credocide in general. Of course lines shall always be drawn. Some ideologies refuse to see anything legitimate if it does not agree to their every doctrine. This stubbornness is rarely seen in groups, more often in individuals working individually to preserve their schema.

2. Reading the literature of said target.

This is where the process starts to take on a micromanaging nature, if it had not taken such a morph earlier in this opus. In psychology, the schema is the mental framework from which one will interpret the world around him. Schemata are based off of many factors, including upbringing, experience, education, and they comprise a worldview. The good thing about schemas is that they organize thoughts and beliefs and make it easier to interpret the world without expelling immense amounts of mental energy. The bad thing about schemas is that they can lead to bias, generalization, and indeed distortion of past and present events. Negative features of the schema need to be tackled by any who desire to initiate the process in their own war against false ideologies, for they can ruin everything.

Even at the very basic mental practice, there has to be an endeavor to alter one’s perspective from the usual positioning in an ideology. There has to be a willingness to digest the intellectual property of an opposition, to read statements in context, without willful twisting of their words. There has to be empathy, ignoring portions that may seem ridiculous to the reader, but cannot be used as evidence against the belief system. Benefit of a doubt, in other words, has to be granted. Otherwise, only the circumstantial could be mustered against the ideology and that shall not do in the process. Unless the passage is truly absurd, truly idiotic by the standards of cross-cultural morality, there can be no outrage. Granted, the inquisitive soul can be angered, be more determined to eliminate the opposing ideology, but that cannot be the end of the read. Works read must be used and they cannot simply be used in the desirable matter of the inquisitive soul; they have to be used in accordance with how they are perceived by the adherents to the opposing ideology.

Reading, the very basic form of research, can be where things go awry. Only if close attention is given to each passage, each potential false claim, each potential pillar of intellectual axiom granted, can there be proper quotation and citation. Further, this shall give credence to the opus begat from the Credocide, as even the opponents shall come to see it as a valid interpretation or usage of the academic intellectual piece. This shall not only strengthen the argument of the opus created out of the process but it shall cool eventual tension, as it shows that serious respectable consideration was taken when compiling the data and that every effort was made to see the world from the enemy’s perspective. Respect opens minds.

V. Finding Fault with Axioms

This is more of a two part step, with the second crucial aspect to be described after this one. This next step continues the increase in challenge that step two had in comparison to step one. In other words, this step is harder to accomplish than the steps before it. Yet if conquered, this step leads nearer to the finish line, closer to the summit, and nearly consummates the process. It is important, if not essential, to differentiate between refuting the claims of an ideology and refuting the beliefs of an ideology. To refute the claims of an ideology is not Credocide, but apologetics. Even with the branches grafted, the tree of belief remains firmly rooted in its foundation. However, when one pulls out the roots it starves the tree of belief, making future branches never grow and killing off the life of the ideology.

Celebration comes with the pulling of the roots for with them gone no future attacks can be launched. A fundamental of the belief that has been refuted would not be mere evidence laid against the orthodoxy or for the opposing ideology, but rather something that goes deeper. A profound underlying belief, a schema that ushers forth the claims, the mother of the children: this is a fundamental. Slay this axiom, slay the other axioms; the tree falls as the axe has done its job. If an ideology that opposes an orthodoxy is false, then it can be killed. An idea that is not true must be false, a false idea is an idea in which evidence can be mustered to refute it. True ideas can have false evidence to defend it or attack another less true idea and false ideas can use true evidence to attempt to defend themselves. However, the core principles of truth and falsehood remain, a war that is merely prolonged.

In due time a true idea will get blameless evidence against a false idea, and this verily can be done via using the method of Credocide. Having established the axioms, having gathered the evidence, the goal ultimately would be to find one or both kinds of contradiction: contradiction between what is believed and what is prescribed and contradiction between what is believed and undisputed fact. The first of the two shall now be described in detail.

1. Use no sources that are of like-mind.

This has been alluded to and mentioned in passing throughout the opus thus far. The simple command is this: the truly inquisitive soul must avoid using any sources that agree with him. There is no way around this mandate, for so many reasons. It has already been covered that using like-minded sources can lead to bias, distortion, and corruption of the process. Groupthink is a horrible disease that can debilitate any argument, let alone this most important one found in Credocide. Access to their scholarship and works and experts is effective in structuring the case against the belief. So it does follow that using only sources from without one’s ideology and elites would benefit to substantially decrease groupthink, especially if the inquisitive soul does what was previously prescribed and reads with objectivity.

The inquisitive soul must use only those sources from which the opposition finds no or virtually no fault in. Works that are by their standards flawless, infallible, or otherwise oftentimes trustworthy or reliable, even if not so in real life, are nevertheless essential to fostering Credocide. They will trust them, even if the inquisitive soul refuses to do so personally. In essence, individual conscience must be removed from the process, so that which may have no authority in the eyes of the inquisitive soul will have to be used, cited, and most optimally quoted as though having authority. All must be dealt with on the basis of the perspective of the enemy, which is the ideology that has been selected for Credocide.

It is a great act to have made the case against the ideology thro their own works and their own academics. Perchance, it is the greatest act that can be performed for with that something above mere partisan banter has been created. When one is able to accurately use the sources of an enemy and use them only, one has defeated the enemy on his own territory, having shown that even when all is for him he could not prevail. Thus begins the collapse of the schemata held by the adherents to the alien idea and thus opens the realm for new ideas, such as the ideas held by those who perpetrated the process. When taking their works and using them accurately to fell their beliefs, one has created a dilemma for the target: either reject the sources once so trusted or reject the fundamentals of one’s beliefs.

2. Note any contradictions between neutral sources and what is believed.

Many philosophers have denied the existence of a truly neutral source. People will always have their sympathies, so bias shall constantly be a hindrance. However, one could also make the argument that this issue is moot if sources used have no incentive to hold bias. This is indeed possible, for not everyone holds a strong opinion on everything. Bias will exist, but it could be for other things, other issues. Most ideologies define what neutrality is in accordance with their worldview. There are some belief systems that believe there is no middle ground, deciding that all not of their labors is foreign to their enterprises. For most sound-thinking worldviews, there exists a middle ground not allied but not hostile.

It is here, for those that have reason to venture to such authorities, where one can further cut away the opposing ideology. This will not always be easy, but in a free market of ideas, which is required for the process to accurately be enacted, it is a possibility to find works that undermine the ideology in question. They can be found in several media venues, although as usual written published word would be the best and most optimum for the sake of accountability. As with using the sources beloved by the enemy, using moderate to neutral sources can also further marginalize the opposing idea, leaving even less resources for its defense. Showing that neutral sources also deny the fundamentals of an ideology can hinder courage on the part of its outreach, as another whole front could be launched against it.

As expected, there are certain qualifications that must be used to critique whether or not a source is neutral on a matter that could remove the legitimacy of an axiom. Firstly, a work cannot be published or otherwise directly affiliated with one side. This includes authorship, publisher, connections to publisher, or sources used extensively by the author to make said work. There will be instances in which a publication is neutral but a work within it is not. These should be exposed for such, as they will corrupt the process and add distrust. In this case, author and sources for that portion of the publication should be strictly analyzed for partisan leanings. A neutral source is one that has no profession that is distinctly in favor of one group over another. Further value should be placed on scientific publications, which in this context refers to any corpus of works in which peer-review is mandatory.

3. Note any contradictions between what is professed and what is written.

Ideologies shall come that have intellectuals say things contradictory with what is professed by their own written works. This could be connected to what was aforementioned, the internal threats gaining momentum within an ideology. There are plenty of movements, more political than religious, which have as fundamentals beliefs that contradict the very works they subscribe authority to. Granted, in religion there shall be the heretics of any faith, but they at least can be considered only a minority rather than the whole of the magisterium. Whenever the whole of the hierarchy that prevails in the movement is adhering to ideas contrary to the very texts they so profess loyalty to, then shall there be vindication of the process.

Caution has to be offered for this part of the process, a part that can be used to destroy belief. Every movement has its moderates and its extremists. Dividing it three ways is probably a bit too simplistic, but nevertheless often movements consist of a more conservative wing, a more liberal wing, and a moderate center that constitutes the most accurate vision of the ideology. When using this means of the process, one should never stray to the right or the left, lest the perversions of an ideology be inaccurately thrown to represent the whole of the hierarchy and the whole of the doctrines professed. Whatever falsehood that when exposed demolishes the movement should be a falsehood that has wide acceptance and has to be present for the ideology to survive. It must be an axiom, not a claim.

As with the other ways of finding fault with the axioms of a target, this shall lead to schematic dilemma for the ideological adherents. In this case, the dilemma would be between believing what their hierarchy professes and what their texts profess. In adding this dilemma, one removes moral authority from the hierarchy, the text or texts, or perchance even both. This would make the ideology lose more ground, retreating to the point of possibly splitting into factions, whose works oral and written shall exacerbate their Credocide, since they shall only add more works that could be used by future enemies of an external nature. Through division shall come the fall and with that Credocide again is vindicated as a practice.

VI. Replication and Antithesis

Thus far now the process of Credocide has been laid out for the reader, who may with this opus go forth and commit such acts as fitting. Credocide is supposed to be more than political activism. It is a great scientific method for removing ideologies, specifically false or heretical ideologies, from hearts and minds. The process is meant to accelerate the elimination of falsehood, an end result that is guaranteed through the annals of history regardless. Through Credocide, it is hoped and prayed for that false ideologies of a social, political, and religious nature may be driven to extinction in a matter of generations rather than millennia. In order to solidify the results of this scientific process, there must be a scientific approach. Of course, as with any objective science, drawbacks must also be noted. Hopefully, answers provided in the opus shall deal with any potential shortcomings with the enacting of Credocide, a process most necessary for the triumph of truth.

1. To justify results find apologetics of said target.

Obviously, whenever an intellectual work is mustered with the endeavor of destroying the legitimacy of another ideology there shall be resistance. The attempts of any ideology to intellectually defend itself should be lauded, if nothing else for bravery. Rather than merely run from a fight, they seek to justify their beliefs and it could be the case that they can find flaws in the assault and therefore reestablish themselves as a potential truthful idea. Defense of the idea, the position that apologetics demands, shall most certainly come to pass and if the idea is not false then these efforts should be praised. It is the duty of the inquisitive soul who has created a work meant to enact Credocide to consult the rebuttals manifested by said ideology.

A theme of Credocide is engagement, engagement with intellectual opposition. Credocide should never be restricted to like-minded circles, where little resistance would be met with the findings. It should be out in the world, viewable to all wings of all political spectrums. This is beyond noting the accuracy of a Credocide, it is being open to being wrong. There may yet be a scholar, an intellectual, or an apologist who has found fault with the findings, genuine issue with the evidences garnered for the process and their implementation in the work created from the research. It could be that an important source was like-minded after all, or an interpretation of a verse or verses was not accurate. Whatever the fault, it will be best found in the free market of ideas, a must for the process.

Engagement, if successful, shall equal victory. If no one, not even the intellectuals, not even the apologists, not the sympathizers or the allies, the adherents or the scholars, can locate any fault in the process as enacted, then the victim of the Credocide has been effectively eliminated from the ranks of legitimate ideas and as a result can no longer be taken seriously. The beginning of the end for the idea comes when the Credocide cannot be refuted. It is not a matter of whether or not rebuttals shall be written; it would a great surprise if no one, especially for the larger false ideologies, responded in some way to defend the belief system. The matter is whether or not the rebuttals written hold merits against the Credocide. If they do, then the Credocide process must be revisited by the inquisitive soul.

2. Potential Drawbacks.

However lovely and potent the process of Credocide may be, the fact remains it is a man-made process, ergo subject to fault and shortcoming as all man-made endeavors so contain. There are concerns that could be waged against the process, some as discovered by introspection shall be covered. If these challenges can be met by the process enacted, then the fruits of the labors of the process shall more than nullify these concerns laid out, as well as others launched not from a prejudicial standpoint but one of objective criticism. The three in particular focus on subjectivity, positivity or lack thereof, and impact.

Many could justly argue that the potentiality for bias on a personal level is too great for the process to ever work. After all, there shall be times when the inquisitive soul may note evidence from dubious sources and through unsound reasoning include it anyway, ending up with a dubious work believed by the like-minded, denounced by the opponents, and therefore unsuccessful in its implementation. While the layout of the process cannot guarantee that everyone who performs it shall do so according to objective standards, the least that can be done is to have a layout for such to point to when things go awry. Arguments on many intellectual battlefields have been decided through one side using non-likeminded sources before; this work is not asking for anything new. Peer-review is often a cliché in academic circles. Therefore the methodology, although strenuous at times, does have a connection to applicable ethics and behavior.

Before Credocide there was a different procedure to eliminate an idea: replace it with another idea. This method has been the source of evangelism on many ideological battlefields and admittedly has merit. However there are plenty of ideas that will not be removed by mere profession of a different idea. To believe that all ideas can be eliminated merely by proclaiming the existence of other ideas is presuppositionalism and does not factor in the strong intellectual, cultural, and moral grounding an ideology can have in a community. There has to be a method to uproot and dissociate the idea from all its inherent support; this cannot be enacted by the invasion of another idea. Therefore, in light of the impracticality and indeed near egocentric viewpoint of introduction of an idea being an advent of destruction to the other idea or ideas there needs to be a telling corpus of evidences against whatever opposing idea there is. Otherwise, whatever initial impact the new idea would genuinely have will be muted as the passage of time inevitably goes forth.

The most important objection that could be leveled against the process of Credocide is that of its impact on the ideological opposition, especially when applying it to intense issues in matters of religion and politics. There is always the chance, the feasibility, or the eventual reality that the enemy will retain the beliefs they so profess. They may not be as proud of them, they may not seek evangelism anymore, but they will keep in their hearts the axioms so destroyed by the process. If large groups of people shift to baseless belief, relying on the toleration of society and like-minded friends to maintain the mortally wounded belief, then the process was in vain for no one has left the false ideology and the war continues. Conversion on a large scale away from whatever false belief is being the target of Credocide is the necessary conclusion to the process. The end result cannot be a success unless there is a mass exodus away from the false idea. However, the absence of this and the presence of those who shall believe no matter what does not fully remove the process from its validity.

There is always the next generation. Having been brought up in the beliefs, having had loved ones in the family who died in their convictions, having countless heroes and positive role models adhere to said beliefs, it is unlikely the elder generations shall leave that which they dedicated their lives to. Yet there is always the younger and youngest generations, those curious of the world. They shall bring home the Credocide, when they enter the world, when they are educated and introduced to new concepts. Compulsory education could be a valuable tool for enacting a Credocide provided the fruit of the process was pure. With no replenishment, a false ideology could be removed from every place the Credocide appears within a few generations, if even that long. Those who believe no matter what may be able to sustain themselves over time, but not those who grow up with Credocide.

VII. Conclusion

The ultimate optimum answer to the question of why one does not respect another’s beliefs is simple: because they are wrong. With the entrance of truth into the debate, one finds a greater resolve and a more benevolent resolution. In this celestial sphere there are countless false ideologies and false belief systems, glued together by axioms waiting to be undeniably undermined. This is a matter of education, of enlightenment. It is not through bigotry that this process, the beautiful process of Credocide, is created. For if bigotry was the goal then separatism and generalization would be far easier. This is outreach, this is using the resources deemed valid by the enemy and exposing their falsehood in their own environment under their own rules. This willingness to leave an ideological comfort zone, the willingness to leave one’s axioms so as to seek the lost is a charity, not a bigotry and woe unto any who cannot understand this reality, which beams with marvelous light.