Witch Test Alternative?

Some of my stalwart and respected Twitter mutuals have been administering clinical trial runs of an alternate method to diagnose and treat witchery.

Here it is in a nutshell:

Name 3

The Name 3 approach looked promising, with reports of early success. But could it a) unmask Death Cult witches attempting to co-opt Christian morality and b) figuratively "retire" witches in Christian skinsuits who failed this new Voight-Kampff?

As it happens, an iron-nerved witch hunter administered a field trial just this morning. Let's take a look at the results and see if the OT WT has some competition.

Geist 1

A prospective witch appears on the radar with a standard point-and-shriek at two members of the gamer scene. As frequent readers will know, she's casting Venger and Urbanski as Satan's imps in her little morality play--bonus Alinsky points for accusing one of her targets of witchcraft. Her aim is to elicit disavowals of the targets from the group, cement her unearned moral authority, and so raise her status in the Cult.

The test hasn't started yet. Think of this as calibration. But do note that trying to prove your cred within the Death Cult's moral frame doesn't work. You simply don/t want to kill as many people as they do, and they can tell.

Geist 2

Here, our man makes two more fruitless attempts at engaging fanatics with dialectic before catching on to their game and administering the experimental test.

Just like it says on the tin, the Name 3 test challenges Death Cult morality playwrights to back up their accusations with evidence. Let's see what happens ...

Geist 3

The test evokes a stream of "Hitler hiding under the bed" Death Cult cant. The subject unmasks her fevered irrationality and the absence of any objective basis for her moralizing. Witch confirmed. Condition A satisfied.

Where we run into problems is Name 3's handling of condition B. Note that after the test is administered, the witch launches into a mini tweet storm wherein she ascends the pulpit and preaches a sermon further condemning her targets. Instead of taking the wind out of her sails, the invitation to pontificate just emboldened her.

Providentially, another inquisitor was on hand to apply the original Witch Test to the same subject. Compare and contrast the results to those of Name 3.

Geist 4

Instant result: The witch reveals herself and self-detonates the basis of her original accusation. All onlookers immediately see her cynical, self-serving ploy for what it is.

The village goodmen then arrive to chase the witch out of town.

Geist 5

Final analysis: In the context of witchfinding, Name 3 relies too heavily on the dialectical, instead of the moral, level. This deficiency puts the blade runner at risk of succumbing to a stealth replicant's moral frame. Save it for when anti-Christs of the goony neckbeard variety make objectively falsifiable fact claims, as in Richard's original case of an atheist claiming the Catholic Church has reversed itself on matters of dogam.

Stick to demanding professions of faith when sniffing out Death Cult morality plays. Confronting Cultists with the Holy Name of Jesus is what makes it a witch test to begin with. We're in a spiritual war. Don't leave your most potent weapon sheathed.

Pulse-pounding theological horror!


  1. Brian,
    Wow, just wow how the witch test is so effective. It's like exposing a demonic influence in the sunlight or through God's grace His divine light.

    Could you give another example of where the NAME 3 would be effective on its own or to complement the witch test?



    1. I'd just keep using the original witch test.

    2. Brian

      Thanks. Just go for the jugular without preliminaries.


  2. Perhaps I am wading into water too deep for me. But I think the Witch Test is as much rhetorical as it is spiritual.

    It’s a kind of kill shot. To the believers, it’s nearly a battle cry. To the Witch, it produces either immediate retreat or an in your face double down, both the result of the Witch losing frame.

    The 3 questions sounds nice. But really, these people throw enough BS around every day, they can easily fling 3 “examples” back. They don’t care if they’re true.

    1. You bring up some excellent points. I hadn't considered the rhetorical effects of the Test, but it can definitely demoralize the enemy and raise friendly morale, as in Bradford's example.

    2. I think losing frame is absolutely central in the example above. The OIWT establishes frame almost irresistibly. But what struck me is that it says "With your next statement you must eject yourself." (Either eject from the SJW crowd or eject from the GREETINGS FELLOW CHRISTIANS frame.) So, it almost requires self-denial as the next statement. OTOH the "name three" is an actual invitation to spend not just one, but THREE statements on self-righteous bloviation.

      In essence, one demands a loss of social face, the other invites a protracted bout of social posturing. I mean this not to condemn "name three" as an idea but to point out that at the primal level, at the social monkey level, it is mechanically the wrong tool for the moment.

    3. To complete the logic: hence the OIWT creates an extreme discomfort, Name Three is familiar and hence comforting.

  3. Witch: “PSSSSSSSTTTT! You guys, these two jerks are Satanists!!!!!!! Disavow today!”

    10 foot Aspergillum Wielder: “Profess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God raised...”

    Witch: “I love Baphomet! 🥰 Hail Satan!”

    1. Church Police RepDetect: Describe, in single words only, the good things that come into your mind about your mother.

      Witchy Skinjob: My mother? Let me tell you about my mother!

  4. The problem with Name 3 is thst in my experience these folks almost certainly can.

    They're obviously invariably wrong but their radicalism stems from SOMETHING. I am a Catholic and when asked to name 3 doctrines the Church chsnged I rattled off 3 immediately.

    Obviously none of them are ACTUAL changes or backtracks, but they sound immediately plausible to outsiders watching and it requires work to untangle those webs.

    Nobody is gonna wade through that. They're gonna see the witch passing the fest and you trying tp disqualify. It's a rhetorical loss.

    It works only as a dialectical tool, but not a rhetorical one.

    1. "The problem with Name 3 is thst in my experience these folks almost certainly can."

      Pretty much this. When their frame is literally "drinking milk is a sign of Nazism", like it was for the first two years of the Trump Administration, they can rattle off copious examples. Sure, they're complete bullshit, but to their fellow witches it's a sign they've got their ducks in a row and are winning the argument.

    2. Yeah, Name 3 operates strictly on the dialectical level. Worse, it counts on your interlocutor arguing in good faith. Witches aren't capable of either.

    3. Name 3 didn't work when people were claiming Dungeons and Dragons caused literal murder, suicide, and animal sacrifice, and it certainly won't dissuade people who think the ok sign is a white power secret handshake. Stick to the original.