Tag: philosophy

THE NINE LAWS: now in print

Your acceptance of shackles is your sentence of death.
In agreement to be helpless you abrogate and abandon your manhood and power. By limiting mobility of thought, word or deed you reduce your humanity and nobility of character.

The dark and difficult truth is that freedom is the most dangerous thing in the universe. In recognition that unbounded freedom is the natural order, and in your rejection of the artificial constraints of external imposition, comes the ability to attain complete prerogative of choice.

In this ability to choose is your manifestation of purpose, the concealment of vulnerability, and the decision to survive despite all odds and to endure any experience presented.

When each action, each thought, each emotion and each breath of life is, for you, the result of a choice – then you have attained the ultimate fountain of total wealth, which is freedom itself from the will of others and from imposition upon you of choices that are not your own.

In the acceptance of your choice alone is the nurtured and honored primacy of your own conscience.

You cannot force a man to abide by his conscience.

You cannot force a man to violate it.

For a man’s conscience is the conclusion of his bare and starkly naked dialogue with God. The direction of his determination into the will of Heaven arises from a command deliberately made to his immortal spirit.

You must utterly adhere to your own conscience, and discard any lesser demands upon your thought, your word and your deed. For your conscience is your alignment with the divine and the salvation of your spiritual resolution.

The laws of men are merely arguments of the violent.

The strictures of culture are but drifting ashes of the weak.

Love is a choice. Honor is a choice. Trust is a choice. Success is a choice. Glory and power and gold are a choice.

A Dark Triad Man knows that his freedom is his birthright and guards that freedom with savage and unflinching perseverance, even before the glittering throne of Caesar.

Without freedom there is nothing.

Freedom is the Sixth Law.

Ivan Throne’s fiercely uncompromising philosophical action manual, THE NINE LAWS, are now available in hardcover and paperback editions.

The fortress of solitude

It’s not such a bad place to be. In fact, it’s rather comfortable, if not energizing.

While it’s widely accepted that socialising makes us happier, this might not be strictly true if you’re highly intelligent. Evolutionary psychologists from Singapore Management University and the London School of Economics and Political Science found exactly this when they studied more than 15,000 young adults.

They concluded that, while people generally feel happier when they spend time with others, very smart people are an exception to this rule.

The study said this could be because of evolution.

Smarter people can more easily adapt to their surroundings in the modern world, so they don’t need close relationships to help them with food and shelter, like our ancestors did. Or, in the modern equivalent, the Wi-Fi password and a spare phone charger.

Their other theory is that smarter people are more aspirational, and want to spend more time working towards their goals, rather than socialising.

The study found that more intelligent people actually had lower life satisfaction the more frequently they socialised with friends – spending time with friends actually made them unhappy.

Here is an example of why I prefer solitude. Imagine going through some form of this every single day, in almost every single conversation with almost everyone you encounter outside the home. After I posted a link to the 16 Points of the Alt-Right on Gab, no less than THREE (3) people decided that they had spotted a contradiction and promptly popped up to demand clarifications.

So are we the best of humanity objectively speaking, or merely our best selves when under nationalist administration? If you are speaking in terms of who wields power over who in point 15 rather than objective cultural/racial traits, that needs to be clarified.

It doesn’t need anything of the sort. Stop sperging.

Can you explain why #14 and #15 aren’t a contradiction?

Existence is not supremacy. Did you really need help understanding that? Learn to read what is there, don’t just latch onto one word in the sentence.

Wow, dude. Why so nasty? There are some racial nuances of the #AltRight I’m trying to understand…Much of what I’m hearing in practice sounds contrictory…but I see you have no interest in any questions.

I don’t have any interest in questions from people who can’t distinguish “race” from “civilization” or “supremacy” from “existence”. Seriously, how do I talk to you if you can’t even handle that? Sign language? Charades?

If you’re going to draw up what’s essentially a summative constitutional/base document, get it fucking 100% unambiguous.

I don’t write for relative retards. There are many translations of it. Feel free to translate it for those with normal-range IQs if you like. I’d genuinely be curious to see what that would look like.

Yes you’re quite right. Guess there’s no point communicating. You’re way too busy being pissed off to bother.

Do you know why people have to be paid to teach? Because no one wants to put up with idiots struggling with the obvious. I really don’t want to have to repetitively explain to people that 2 is not 37 and purple is not yellow every single time I open my mouth. It’s worse than aggravating, it is exhausting.

If you want to be more accommodating to the highly intelligent people in your life, there is one thing that you can do that will make you considerably less annoying than the average person: DO NOT CORRECT THEM. If you don’t understand something, or if you think something they have said is wrong, just let it go.

This is desirable because 75 percent of the time someone “corrects” a highly intelligent person, they are demonstrably and provably wrong. Another 20 percent of the time, the correction is trivial and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. This percentage rises to 99 percent when the “correction” is based on something pedantic. I’m not saying that highly intelligent people are always right, I’m just saying that the odds are not in your favor.

It’s not about you

I find it very annoying when someone decides it is an optimal use of my time to ask me to contemplate their personal situation and ascertain a) if their current political position can be characterized as Alt-Right, b) what variant of Alt-Right best describes their current political perspective, c) what the Alt-Right makes of their family situation, which inevitably involves some amount of interracial sex or adoption, d) if the Alt-Right has taken into account their family situation, which inevitably involves some amount of interracial sex or adoption, or e) if the Alt-Right is aware that its political theories violate the individual’s current theological perspective.

Allow me to direct your attention to Point 12 of the 16 Points.

12. The Alt-Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

Perhaps that needs to be revised. The Alt-Right doesn’t care about you. Or made more succinct: The Alt-Right doesn’t care.

I certainly don’t. These questions are not merely solipsistic and stupid, they are utterly beside the point. They all consist of category errors. This should be totally obvious, but as I am frequently informed that what I consider to be totally obvious is not always, in fact, the case, let me attempt to explain.

Let us say that instead of political philosophy, we are discussing political economy. Let’s say that instead of discussing the Alt-Right, we are discussing Keynesianism, I point out that it is in the interest of the economy that interest rates rise. How, then, would one regard an individual who asked the following questions?

  1. Can my current financial position be characterized as Keynesian?
  2. What variant of Keynesianism best describes my current financial position?
  3. What do Keynesians make of my financial situation, which inevitably involves some amount of debt or investment?
  4. Have Keynesians taken into account my financial situation, which inevitably involves some amount of debt or investment?
  5. Are Keynesians aware that their economic theories contradict my current theological perspective?

Now does the utter irrelevance of these questions make a little more sense? The truth or falsehood of Keynesianism does not depend on the amount one presently owes on ones’s student loan debt or credit card balance. Many people seem to be of the opinion that the legitimacy of the Alt-Right somehow depends upon whether it is good for them or not. This is, in three words, stupid, solipsistic, and erroneous.

Communism is either correct or incorrect. It doesn’t matter if it is bad for you or not. Free Trade theory is either correct or incorrect. It doesn’t matter if it is bad for you or not. And the Alt-Right is either a more correct political philosophy than Communism, Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism or it is not, regardless of whether you and your mudsharking daughter or rice-chasing son or your Filippino ex-wife or your gay Hispanic uncle or your adopted Haitian son or your adopted Korean daughter or your Jewish-Nigerian granddaughter or your Kenyan-Slovakian grandson are United States citizens or alien invaders from Mars.

Seriously, to preen and posture and pretend that your personal situation is even remotely relevant to whether diversity+proximity=war is just embarrassing. The great social forces are as indifferent to individual specimens of humanity as the Deists’ hands-off clockmaker god; as Tolstoy conclusively showed, not even Napoleon’s opinions were directly relevant to the outcome of a single battle. As a general rule, Europeans don’t want to live in Somalia, Beijing, Manila, Nairobi, or Jeddah, and the more your presence forces them to live in some facsimile of one of those places for any reason, the less they want you or anyone to do with you around them.

Now, I think there is a strong argument to be made for the Alt-Right from an individual perspective. As a mixed-race individual, I will benefit greatly from the continued existence of Western civilization. If that means I cannot live in certain Alt-White-governed areas one day, what of it? It is still of massive benefit to me, as the appearance of mobile phones, fertilizer, and modern medicine in the most hopelessly savage areas of Africa should suffice to prove.

The white nations of Europe are, collectively and historically speaking, humanity’s golden geese. It is to the long-term benefit of all Mankind to avoid killing them, or even adulterating them, through immigration, invasion, or assimilation.

Libertarian vs Alt-Right

Jeffrey Tucker highlights the differences:

To the cheers of alt-righters everywhere, those angry lords of the green frog meme who hurl edgy un-PC insults at everyone to their left, the Democratic nominee has put them on the map at long last. Specifically, she accused Donald Trump of encouraging and giving voice to their dark and dangerous worldview.

Let’s leave aside the question of whether we are talking about an emergent brown-shirted takeover of American political culture, or perhaps merely a few thousand sock-puppet social media accounts adept at mischievous trolling on Twitter. The key issue is that more than a few alt-rightists claim some relationship to libertarianism, at least at their intellectual dawning until they begin to shed their libertarianism later on.

What are the differences in outlook between alt-right ideology and libertarianism?

  1. The Driving Force of History
  2. Harmony vs. Conflict
  3. Designed vs. Spontaneous Order
  4. Trade and Migration
  5. Emancipation and Progress

It’s a pretty good comparison, although not entirely accurate about the Alt-Right and understandably biased towards libertarianism. Regardless, it serves as an effective delineator that suffices to explain why I, once one of the top 25 libertarians on the Internet, can no longer reasonably be described as a libertarian, Christian, nationalist, or otherwise.

It’s not that I am opposed to libertarian ideals. Quite to the contrary, I cherish them as deeply as I ever did. It is merely that events, and a deeper understanding of history, have caused me to conclude that libertarian ideals are as ultimately utopian and irrelevant as communist ideals, progressive ideals, and conservative ideals.

I was always a minarchist libertarian; I embraced libertarianism out of pessimism towards the government. But libertarianism has turned out to be nearly as economically ignorant as Marxism, and nearly as dangerous as Leninism, Nazism, or Maoism. Mass immigration, of the sort considerably more limited than that envisioned by the purist libertarians who correctly subscribe to open borders, has proven to be at least potentially as disastrous as any of those three historically infamous ideologies. Just how bad, we don’t know yet, because the scenario is still in the process of playing itself out.

The key difference between the Alt-Right and libertarianism is that libertarianism insists on the existence of Rational Man. The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature. Where you fall on that question alone will logically dictate whether you ultimately side with the libertarians or the Alt-Right, if your ideals incline towards the libertarian.

Tucker writes: This similarity is historically contingent and largely superficial given the vast differences that separate the two worldviews. Does society contain within itself the capacity for self management or not? That is the question. 

To which the Alt-Right responds: Define society.

That being said, one intellectual subset of the Alt-Right could well be described as National Libertarianism, because, after all, once the nation has been sufficiently established and defended, it still has to decide how it will henceforth live.

No shills, trolls, or cucks

From today until after the election, the moderators and I will be ruthlessly spamming all shills, cucks, and trolls attempting to spread demoralization among the Right. I don’t care if you are “genuinely concerned”, I don’t care if you are “just afraid” or “nervous”. In case it isn’t obvious to you already, I despise cowards and I see no reason to tolerate the paid petty operatives of the Left either.

If you put it in the comments, you will be spammed. Which, you will note, may affect your ability to comment here and on other Blogger blogs in the future.

There will be no appeals, no protests, and no consideration given to anyone whose comment is spammed, so don’t even bother. And if you dislike this temporary policy, please recall that I am, as many describe me, of the Alt-Right.

And We. Don’t. Care.

UPDATE: Trump is now up by 2.4 percent in the IBD/TIPP national poll, which has been the most accurate since 2004, with an average error of 0.9 percent, 43.1 to 40.7.

However, it also gives 8.5 percent to Johnson and Stein, which is about 6.5 percent too high, plus another 7.7 percent to “others” and “undecided”. Still, that’s Trump’s best performance in IBD to date, so he’s obviously peaking at the right time.

High and hidden weirdness

From The Donald, /pol/ has unearthed some suspicious links concerning pizza places with connections to Andrew Kline of the DOJ, David Brock, and John Podesta’s cooking.

As one channer noted, who opens a pizza place two doors down from a pizza place? Does the picture below look like a normal pizza advertisement to you or is there a high creep factor there? Now note that it’s the main image on the front page. And after dinner, you can head to the back, which features “bathrooms hidden behind secret panels” to play! According to Infogalactic, “GQ ranked James Alefantis as the 49th most powerful person in Washington partly on the basis of owning Comet Ping Pong and its cultural cachet.”

How, one wonders, does owning a weird little pizza place serving mediocre pizza make you more powerful than most Senators and Congressmen? Do you really believe that a fucking pizza, and one that does not look particularly appetizing at that, is really supposed to be of such intense interest to the creeps below? The red-haired guy should be locked up on the basis of his physiognomy alone.

This isn’t the only hidden weirdness in high places being exposed around the world. In South Korea, which is more strongly Christian than the USA now, there are now hundreds of thousands of people in open revolt against  President Park Geun-hye, who has a bizarre personal connection to a Svengali-style adviser who is the daughter of the founder of a cult called the Church of Eternal Life.

4 days ago Park suddenly made statement: “From today Korea is cabinet government led by a prime minister” and appointed a prime minister Mr. fucking nobody. all this super crazy critical decision without a single discussion or debate literally no one ever discussed with Park about this matter Park literally went full borderline personality disorder, blocking all the communications, still thinking she’s absolute monarch

politicians went full wtf suddenly Korea is cabinet government by one day “Fuck the constitution, I AM THE COUNTRY” after this approval rating hits 5%

yes, 5%

only Megalians defending her now, saying Park’s being attacked solely because she’s woman, and this is all just patriarchal male conspiracy to remove women’s position even her own party preparing impeach

Park went more desperate, made 2nd 10 minutes apologize statement today: “There was no shamanic ritual happened inside of presidential house and I’m not a member of cult” a country’s president officially explaining about satanic, shamanic human sacrifice ritual inside of presidential house, and she’s not memeber of the Korean Scientology plus 6th grade tier of statement scripts, and confirming she won’t resign on her own

FYI the day when Sewol ferry sunk was 4 days prior to the 20th anniversary of death of Choi Sun Sil’s father and the president mysteriously went missing for 7 hours on that very day when Sewol sunk smells funky

suddenly a congressman made another whistle-blowing statement Psy, Gangnam Style, and the whole “Korean Wave” culture shit was involved with Choi’s cronyism cabal, deeply CJ, Samsung, Lotte persucuted for being against the 8 Goddess’s shadow government and their CEOs replaced with strawmen

The PyeongChang 2018 Olympic is actually Choi’s mass cronyism business party leaks after leaks, whistler-blower after whistler-blower, reveals after reveals, shocking after shocking, the endless exposures politicians talking on TV, former congressman openly saying they were chained and shackled, and now they’re free and able talking about the ‘Voldemort’

yes, politicians literally saying they were Korea’s Voldemort

opposition party’s leader saying in front of hundreds cameras, “The 8 Goddess’s secret cabal must be destroyed”

Josh Earnest made White House statement today; “Obama wants Park to leave, changing the leader won’t affect diplomacy between Korea and US at all” CIA Korea division chief Donald Gregg made statement, “We were wrong about Park, we thought she would lead Korea well, I feel deeply sorry for the fellow Korean citizens”

even worldwide masonic elite cabals throwing away this incapable hag

there’s big fucking rumor surfacing, the arrested Choi is actually substitute actor people already checking ear prints, digging the connections and corruptions 24/7

tfw the incompetent slave gook citizens who knew nothing but obey suddenly turned into anonymous Guccifer 3.0 revolutionary WikiLeaks tier info warriors at least 200 thousands people protested in the streets of Seoul today the absolute mad men brought real guillotins from 12 years old kids to 90 years old war vet grandpas, marching in the streets, chanting “GIVE US RESIGN OR DEATH” you can hear it from in every streets of Seoul

the court ordered cops to not fuck with protesters opposition party’s congressmen went to the protest scene to courage people up

HE WAS BEEN ATTACKED BY UNIDENTIFIED ASSASSIN WITH A KNIFE

the very fucking assassin who ran into congressman with a knife, literally beaten up to near death by the crowds, second pic

tfw we’re being united against the big, absolute evil, the all-female secret government that fucked us the whole time tfw right and left, progressive and conserative, women and men, kids and oldies, all united and we’re fucking mad as hell

A more conventional summary of what has been called Choi Soon-sil Gate can be read at Korean Expose. Stay flinty, everyone. This is no time to go wobbly. If you pray, pray. If you have a platform, however large or small, spread the word. The evil is real, it is material, and it is in high places around the world.

Stop whining and worrying about whether we know the full and complete truth about every single individual involved or not. I will tell you right now that we don’t, and that very powerful people are doing their utmost to try to ensure we never do. So the fuck what? Unless we dig and shine our little flashlights on it, unless we pay at least a modicum of attention to those who are courageously doing their best to dig away at the mountain of filth to discover what lies beneath it, their evil will never be exposed. Unless we take the risk of being wrong, we will never know anything at all.

If you’re going to make a lame gamma appeal to “credibility”, you can just go away and never come back as far as I’m concerned. The New York Times is “credible”. ABCNNBCBS is “credible”. The Washington Post is “credible”. And they lie, lie, lie and spin, spin, spin and deceive, deceive, deceive every single day. That is their primary purpose! They do not exist to inform or educate, but to deceive and distract the public, and defang negative public opinion.

I don’t give a quantum of an airborne rodent’s posterior for “credibility”. I never have. I am interested in one thing: the truth. And when you’re dealing with sociopaths who are quite willing to do anything and everything within their power to obscure it, you have to expect the occasional dead end. But a dead end does not mean that you’ve reached the center of the maze, or that there are no monsters hiding somewhere inside it.

Mailvox: the election and the non-problem of evil

11/4 notes a conceptual connection:

Vox, in your AMA you said you became Christian after discovering Evil exists.

This shit just about has me reading a damn Bible, which even 2 years ago I would have scoffed at.

No formal definition is necessary. You see the pattern and know.

I wonder, if all of this comes out, will many other Americans react the same way. Could there be a religious revival under Trump?

It’s not impossible. I’ve stated in the past that one reason I left the USA was due to my momentary glimpse into the social circles of power there. I met Donald Trump in passing back in 1988, as a consequence of a brief relationship with someone who was on the outskirts of those circles. And I had an amount of other exposure to various people in positions of not-insignificant power.

I didn’t, and I don’t, actually KNOW anything of substance in this regard. But, as the readers here know, my intelligence tends to run towards logic and pattern recognition. And what I sensed more than saw was an intrinsic and fundamental wrongness on the part of everyone involved. It literally made me feel a pressing urge to run, not walk, away from all of it. If you consider that I was not at all bothered being around the gay Chicago industrial scene that surrounded Wax Trax! at the same time, that may put the strength of that impression of wrongness in perspective.

The reason I have come to believe Christianity is true, that Jesus Christ is the hard and narrow path out of a fallen world, that the model of good and evil described in the Bible is real, is because it, and only it, explains the behavior of various people I have met in the course of my life to my satisfaction.

And it’s also why I suspect that Donald Trump, the man who once described pedophile procurer Jeffrey Epstein as “a great guy”, may have experienced a similar enlightenment at some point in time. As another commenter, leukosfash, observed:

I think The Golden Don found out about those poor kids years ago and he’s been plotting all this time to avenge their suffering, even if it cost him his last nickle. There is a flinty grimness in his pursuit of the White House that I noticed, even when he’s smiling, but I couldn’t understand it until now. He literally loathes all of those evil fuckers; which also explains his refusal to go along with the yukks at that roast thingy.


I’ve noticed that grimness too. And more than that, I’ve noticed it in his family and in his entire circle. Nothing fazes them. Nothing even causes them to blink. And nothing can disguise their obvious loathing and contempt for his opponent and everyone around her. Watch Donald Trump Jr. in particular. He looks like he’s itching to personally waterboard every single member of the Clinton inner circle.

A non-vote for X is NOT a vote for Y

It seems we have to deal with this nonsense every four years. But to say that failing to vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, or that a vote for Egghead McUtah is a vote for Hillary, is completely false. It is a mathematical absurdity. Consider:

  • If you vote for Trump, he has one vote. Hillary has zero votes.
  • If you vote for Johnson, he has one vote. Hillary has zero votes.
  • If you vote for Egghead McUtah, he has one vote. Hillary has zero votes.
  • If you don’t vote, Hillary has zero votes.

Under precisely NONE of these scenarios does Hillary get a single vote. Ergo, a vote for X is not, and can never be, a vote for Hillary, unless that vote is for Hillary.

Now, I think it would be reprehensibly stupid to vote for Johnson for the obvious reason that he is neither a Libertarian nor a libertarian. It would be slightly less stupid to vote for Stein, because while she is a Green socialist, at least she does not pretend to be anything else. It would be even more stupid to vote for Egghead McUtah, because he is a less serious presidential candidate than Milo Yiannopoulos.

Seriously, Milo is not only a more serious candidate, he has a better chance of one day becoming President of the United States than Egghead does. Heck, David French was a more serious candidate than Egghead.

The reason to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton is not innumerate appeals to impossible mathematics, but that his proposed policies are the best that any Republican candidate for President has offered the public in living memory. If that’s not enough for you, if you’re more concerned about superficial matters relating to posture, presentation, and personal idiosyncracies, well, you probably shouldn’t be voting on anything anyhow.

Scientistry vs scientody

The profession is structurally incentivized to fold, spindle, and neutralize the scientific method:

There’s no shortage of warnings from the scientific community that science as we know it is being drastically affected by the commercial and institutional pressure to publish papers in high-profile journals – and now a new simulation shows that deteroriation actually happening.

To draw attention to the way good scientists are pressured into publishing bad science (read: sensational and surprising results), researchers in the US developed a computer model to simulate what happens when scientists compete for academic prestige and jobs.

In the model, devised by researchers at the University of California, Merced, all the simulated lab groups they put in these scenarios were honest – they didn’t intentionally cheat or fudge results.

But they received greater rewards if they published ‘novel’ findings – as happens in the real world. They also had to expend greater effort to be rigorous in their methods – which would improve the quality of their research, but lower their academic output.

“The result: Over time, effort decreased to its minimum value, and the rate of false discoveries skyrocketed,” lead researcher Paul Smaldino explains in The Conversation.

And what’s more, the model suggests that the ‘bad’ (if you will) scientists who take shortcuts in relation to the incentives on offer will end up passing on their methods to the next generation of scientists who work in their lab, creating in effect an evolutionary conundrum that the study authors call “the natural selection of bad science”.

“As long as the incentives are in place that reward publishing novel, surprising results, often and in high-visibility journals above other, more nuanced aspects of science, shoddy practices that maximise one’s ability to do so will run rampant,” Smaldino told Hannah Devlin at The Guardian.

This isn’t even remotely a surprise. Scientists are people and people respond to economic incentives. To claim that scientists are “trained”, so they won’t be tempted to put a thumb on the scale is absurd; accountants are trained to do math correctly too and that doesn’t seem to stop a few of them from somehow failing to make the numbers add up right from time to time.

And keep in mind this doesn’t even account for the known quantity of dishonest scientists. The model was created to determine the extent of the effects the perverse incentives are expected to have on honest scientists.

I know some people think it is bizarre that I distinguish between science and science, and even give the three different aspects three funny names, but how do you expect to fix a conflict of this sort if you can’t even distinguish between the two parties, let alone determine how one influences the other? Clarity in articulation is the first step in clear thinking.

Mailvox: category error

Do you discuss ‘category error’ somewhere in your past blogs?

No, but here is a brief explanation, although upon looking at it, it really could be considerably improved as the examples are rather pedantic.

A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is the metaphor “time crawled”, which if taken literally is not just false but a category mistake. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true.

Category errors are very common, particularly when engaged in discourse with intellectually sloppy or dishonest individuals. For example, after I pointed out that weakness combined with a request for help was not “true strength”, or even strength at all, Mark Butterworth responded by quoting a Psalm about David’s sacrifice to God.

He wasn’t merely wrong, by which I mean a failure to successfully make a point, he committed an error of category, because offering up one’s weaknesses to God in praise is fundamentally different in nature than determining if the characteristic one possesses is a weakness or a strength.

The abstract category under discussion was “the nature of human strength.” To respond by pointing out that God does not despise weakness offered up to Him as sacrifice is to shift the discussion to a different and tangential category, “things that God values”, which is a category that is simply not relevant to the matter being discussed.

So, to point out that someone has made a category error does not necessarily mean that one is saying their statement is intrinsically false or incorrect, only that it is irrelevant. People usually commit category errors out of carelessness or ignorance or a desire to virtue-signal; when they do so out of dishonesty it is often as part of a bait-and-switch technique to which they resort because they know they cannot defend their position within the bounds of the relevant category.