"Knowing in advance that you will never be blamed for what you are about to do (ex. killing for inheritance) prevents your desire to do it."
It might lower the satisfaction in some cases, but in the vast majority, it will only give people an incentive to cause crime. Certain indian tribes used to ignore the white men stealing they're horses with the reasoning 'if he is stealing for it, he needs it'. And they're mostly dead.
"This mathematically prevents you from hurting someone when this law is in place. You cannot move in the direction of hurting someone because it becomes the least preferable choice of alternatives. It cannot be done."
You put an incredibly amount of faith in the human emotion of guilt. There is no proof the pain guilt will cause will not match the gain from heinous acts.
"This means that should you decide to hurt me with this first blow or be careless and take the risks that lead to a first blow, and I would have to choose between retaliating or turning the other cheek, you would know that I would be compelled by my nature to find greater satisfaction in turning the other cheek because of the undeniable fact that I would know you had no choice, since your will is not free."
No, I'm sorry. That is completely subjective, I don't believe in free will; but that doesn't mean I let people abuse me I know its not their fault. Emotions also come into play, where I might get angry and retaliate despite myself.
"you are compelled, completely of your own free will (so to speak), to relinquish this desire to hurt me with a first blow because it can never give you greater satisfaction under the changed conditions."
I disagree, that is an assumption, again, people could very easily simply dismiss their conscience. Or in extreme cases, might find stealing to offset starvation more satisfying then appeasing their conscience.
"– each person and the rest of mankind – therefore this discovery which prevents man from desiring to hurt others is only effective when he knows in advance, as a matter of positive knowledge, that he will never be blamed or punished no matter what he does."
I think it is unlikely (though not impossible) that everyone suddenly switch to "though shall not blame".
"we will be obeying the mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when we see what is truly better for ourselves."
Gibberish, it is in no way mathematical. But I suppose that is aside the point.
"you will know that the person who kidnapped and killed your child or committed some other form of hurt which occurred prior to the release of this knowledge – regardless of how much you hate and despise what was done – will never blame in any way your desire for retribution"
If the man did kidnap your child, then he obviously does not believe in the same principle 'though shall not blame". So, he defend himself.
" to refrain from what he now foresees can give him absolutely no satisfaction"
No, again, stealing that peace of bread will give him satisfaction.
"It was impossible for any previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper factors involved which was necessary for an adequate solution, just as it was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an earlier time because the deeper relations were not perceived at that stage of development; but at last we have been granted understanding which reveals a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in every way with the mathematical accuracy of the solar system, and we are in for the greatest series of beneficent changes of our entire existence which must come about as a matter of necessity the very moment this knowledge is understood."
What is he saying?
"In the next chapter, l shall reveal how all automobile accidents and carelessness must come to a permanent end. "
Hmm.. Interesting, please pot the next chapter
"Christ and Spinoza turned the other cheek and paid the consequences because the justification to hurt them was never removed, but I am going to demonstrate how it is now possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck which renders obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate."
I don't understand this at all. Christ and Spinoza did exactly what he says they should do. Yet according to him, the reason it doesn't apply is because they were struck? No that's the reason turning the other cheek doesn't always work.