Sure, I'll humor you for old times' sake.
First off, you yourself admit your post was inflammatory. This suggests you are trying to appeal to emotions rather than make a rational argument for why people should support you.
Secondly, you claim to have written the most important book ever written, and that you are one of the most important people who have ever lived. Assuming roughly 100 billion people who have ever lived, the odds that any given person would crack the top 100 is 0.0000001%. By contrast, grandeur is the second most common type of delusion (after persecution,) and charlatans have been incredibly common throughout history. So the rational skeptic would conclude it is much, much, much more likely that you are full of it than that you are exceptional. In which case, it would be more rational to refrain from giving you money until overwhelming evidence of your exceptionalism is presented. Considering you were not even reliable in your claim that the last day you would have internet access was 4 days ago, it would be quite irrational to consider you a fully reliable source.
However, you equate rationalism to "send me some money," which is an irrational claim. Firstly, as noted above, the reasoned skeptic would withhold judgement in the absence of hard evidence, and not send you money. Secondly, rationalism applies to thought processes and the logical manner in which conclusions are drawn. It is not contingent on doing or not doing some specific action (indeed, both rational and irrational people voted for Donald Trump.)
Oddly enough, you compare yourself to Jesus and chide others for not recognizing if Jesus knocked at their doors, and then in the very next paragraph
you say that you want to free the world from religion. Of course, freeing the world from religion would logically include dispelling the notion that Jesus is divinely exceptional, which dismantles your entire analogy. Thus, it would be irrational to recognize you as such an exceptional character.
You suggest that people worship themselves and are selfish while asking for people to send you money.
You claim that others will respond emotionally while using expletives, insults, and otherwise inflammatory language, suggesting you yourself are acting emotionally. In short, just about every sentence in your second post is as irrational as you accuse others of being. I would think it was satirical if you didn't seem so genuinely persistent about it.
l listed an impressive ammount of achievements (l actually skipped a few) and asked for help
No, you listed claims. A list of achievements includes external evidence and accomplishments.
you, rather than feeling interested in knowing more, creating a friendly relationship or whatever
There are many, many, many spurious claims out there. I just pulled up my Facebook feed to prove this point, and found spurious claims
on the second post
. The rational person simply does not have the time, energy, and resources to express interest, try to know more, or create a relationship with every spurious claim out there.
choose to either remain silent or be aggressive toward me, also wishing me to fail in my goals.
Another irrational claim. Typing a reply takes time. The reasoned skeptic is aware that time is a resource, and is thus rational in the decision to not invest time into a reply. Also, no one here is being aggressive toward you. Criticism is not the same as aggression. In fact, that only person being aggressive in this thread is you, which you openly admitted to me in Reply #3 when you informed us that this is intended to be an "ultra inflamatory thread."
I have also not seen anyone openly wish for you to fail in your goals. I for one have no issue with you publishing your book and trying to become a successful author.
those who want to behave rationally, send me some money, because I'm the best writer and the most important person that ever lived
Wow, if you really are going for satire, you're bludgeoning it.