Monday, 25 March 2019

An old man avoids the truth of TINA*

Read Kevin Grace's vision of the future below and his comments about the Catholic Church. He is Catholic, and he knows that there is no prospect of the Catholic Church - the world's most powerful church - regaining its moral authority within our lifetime, even if we were born yesterday.

A young man claiming to be seeking the objective truth is in fact avoiding it


It has been suggested and encouraged of me that I should begin writing more on my thoughts. I have spoken on the subject of Objectivity so I will attempt to explain my opinions on the matter.

Objectivity is an interesting concept but I have come to doubt if its possible for us to be objective. I believe that there is such a thing as objective truth, even it is for practical reasons and I say this because there was a time where I doubted the very existence of Truth. This was a dark time in my life and during that time I became very familiar with nihilism. Alas, here I am on the other side writing about how my ideas evolved. As I have said, I believe in objective truth for practical reasons; although can we know objective truth? That is my question. I’m not a scholar, I’m not an academic. I’m a layman that thinks he has something worth saying and so here I am.

I suppose I’ll start at the beginning. How do we come to know things? I say we learn through symbols. Language, picture, example; these are all types of symbols; a method of communication that simplifies a message for transportation from one mind to another. The idea, for example, that is in my mind is very easy for me to picture. I can explain my thoughts to myself with very little effort and very little time but to explain my thoughts to another requires me to write hundreds of words in a specific order and I can assure you, its taking much more effort and much more time. This is why I say that we communicate in symbols; even the very words I’m writing are symbols, painting images (hopefully) in your mind; and this is why I say that we cannot know objective truth.

For do images tell us objective truth? Does seeing a painting allow you to understand the emotion that the painter felt while painting as he felt them, or is it merely symbols of his emotion? If you’re honest, I think, you know the answer. You can feel something close perhaps, but certainly not the same. And this is what I’m trying to articulate. We can get close to objective truth but how close? It’s impossible for me to say. But there is such a thing as purposeful deception, therefore anything in the opposite direction to purposeful deception brings us closer to objective truth but when we reach this place we call objective truth, and we see or hear it with our senses; can we perceive it honestly, or are we still seeing symbols and silhouettes as our senses attempt to translate this truth into our minds? Furthermore, if we tried to communicate this truth to another, could we do it? Would they understand what we were trying to paint in their mind? Could we paint the truth in their mind as it was painted in ours? To understand a truth as you yourself understand it, would require someone to be you. You have given words their meanings, symbols mean something to you that is unique to you by the very act of being conscious, having memory, and living. How long would it take, how many words would you have to write or speak to get your message across? And even if you felt that you phrased or painted your message in the best way you could, even if you thought you did a perfect job, would that be sufficient? How many languages would you have to learn to be able to translate your message to every person in the world? Can everyone know objective truth? Is that a good thing?

My position is one I call Subjective Absolutism. I believe there are evils in this world and goods but I recognise that I can’t convince everyone on Earth of my opinions. Does that mean that I ignore my life experiences because I can’t prove it scientifically or if I can’t find someone who agrees with me? Emphatically no. To deny these truths would be akin to denying my very existence. So what is the best course of action? I hold many controversial beliefs, and some of my beliefs I would die for. Is it worth my time to convince someone to believe what I believe, and die for them also? Probably not. So what I do instead is move against the direction of purposeful deception. I don’t aim to convince people of truth, I just speak my truth (forgive the leftist language) and people agree or disagree.

I’m not interested in converting people to my views, neither am I interested in being converted. I weigh the truthfulness of a statement with my own knowledge and judge the statement accordingly, as does everyone else. I have done an insufficient job at trying to explain why its theoretically impossible and highly improbable for the human mind to comprehend objective truth although I have tried, and my aim wasn’t to convince you. I guess what I’m trying to do is say that objective truth is more-or-less irrelevant to our lives. I suppose I’m trying to make a case for Relativism that doesn’t throw away Objectivity because to say there is no such thing as objective truth is (not only saying that the Universe is nothing but lies) an oxymoron for that is a truth statement which goes against the tenets of Relativism. Not only is the mainstream caricature of Relativism self-contradictory, its also evil. This is why I feel the need to offer up an alternative and the best one I can come up with is Subjective Absolutism. Things are true for me without the need to prove them to you. I can only convince someone who is able to be convinced.

This may seem like more of the same from the Cultural Marxists, Moral Relatives etc. But I think I’ve formulated a coherent framework to understanding truth and in fact I think that being able to discard the belief that anyone has the ability to spread the gospel of Objectivity actually empowers people. You can fight for what you know to be true without having to justify it. You can act on your instincts and manifest the world according to your own Will to Power. You don’t have to live under anyone else’s myths. Form your own and seek the truth.

And with that, I’ll leave you.



1.  On what matter do you wish to know "the objective truth"?

2.  What made you doubt "the very existence of truth"?

3.  What was the attraction of nihilism when you became "very famliiar" with it?

4.  What is "the other side" of nihilism?

5.  Why are you obsessed with "the objective truth"?

6.  You ask if images tell "an objective truth". Can you give an example of an image whose objective truth you wish to know?

7.  You ask: "Does seeing a painting allow you to understand the emotion that the painter felt while painting as he felt them, or is it merely symbols of his emotion?"  Which painting by which painter do you have in mind when you ask this question and why do you want to know his emotions? If he is already an important painter, there will be a range of scholarly interpretations of this painting and that should satisfy you.

8.  Is your search for truth an affection and if so, what is the purpose of this affectation?

You ask: " ... if we tried to communicate this truth to another, could we do it?" It is always possible communicate the truth of our opinion ie that "X believes Y" even if this belief is arrant nonsense.

9.  You ask: "Would they understand what we were trying to paint in their mind?" You must know that it is impossible paint any truth in anyone's mind. Therefore you speak in metaphors and then confuse yourself by taking your metaphor literally. What you may mean to ask is "Is it possible to make oneself understood?" and bear in mind that it is impossible to explain or understand nonsense. The best thing to do when faced with people talking nonsense is to question their mental health and ask what motivates them to talk nonsense eg affectation through wanting to come across as deep, romantic, troubled, passionate etc.

10.  You ask: "How long would it take, how many words would you have to write or speak to get your message across?" It depends on how good you are at expressing yourself and your command of the language you are using.

11.  You ask: "And even if you felt that you phrased or painted your message in the best way you could, even if you thought you did a perfect job, would that be sufficient?" Sufficient for what? Persuade your listener to agree with you? You and I already know the answer. Many people are not respectful of truth, logic or morality and consider their egos to be more important than submitting to the truth, the exercise of logic and obeying the rules of morality. Are you perhaps one of them?

12.  You ask: "How many languages would you have to learn to be able to translate your message to every person in the world?" Why would anyone want to do that unless they had an important message? What makes you think your message, whatever it is, is that important? If your message were sufficiently important, you would already have been able to articulate it in your own language to persuade your own countrymen of its importance. If they also thought it was important enough, they would make it known to the world.

13.  You ask: "Can everyone know objective truth?"  The objective truth of what?

14.  You ask: " Is that a good thing?" Can you think of an example of it being a bad thing for someone to know "objective truth"?

15. You ask: "Does that mean that I ignore my life experiences because I can’t prove it scientifically or if I can’t find someone who agrees with me?" Who is asking you to ignore your life experiences? Which idea of yours do you believe to be so important or useful that you so earnestly desire it to be validated by others?

16.  Which beliefs of yours are you prepared to die for?

17.  When you speak of moving "against the direction of purposeful deception", are you talking about government propaganda?

18.  What is your truth?

19.  When you say: "I’m not interested in converting people to my views, neither am I interested in being converted," are you saying that your ideas are not up for debate and you are not prepared to debate other people's ideas? If that is the case, then you are expecting people to agree with you without understanding the basis of your beliefs or theirs. You seem to be asking for unconditional love. What makes you think you deserve this?

20.  You say: "I guess what I’m trying to do is say that objective truth is more-or-less irrelevant to our lives." If what you are trying to say is that the objective truth is irrelevant to our lives, then why are you wasting time and energy agonising and obsessing about it?

21.  "Things are true for me without the need to prove them to you." On the one hand, the truth (about what?) is so important that you have been agonising and obsessing about it for years, on the other, you say it is only your subjective opinion about some unimportant matter that it is not worthwhile to discuss. Which is it?

22.  You say: " You can fight for what you know to be true without having to justify it." What do you know to be true? What is the truth that you cannot justify? Why would you fight for something that you dare not articulate and have so far failed to explain?

23. You say: "You don’t have to live under anyone else’s myths." What myths are you referring to?

24.  You say: "Form your own and seek the truth." What myths are you forming? What truth are you seeking?

25.  Are you confusing fact with opinion?

26.  What is the truth you are avoiding?

27.  Are you seeking a definite answer to whether there is an afterlife and whether God exists?

28.  Do you lack the maturity to accept uncertainty as well as submit to truth, logic and morality?

29.  Has it occurred to you that if you find uncertainty distressing, you could choose to believe in God?

30.  If you want to worship the Abrahamic God as a gentile, only Islam remains now that you know Christianity has been idolatrous for 2000 years. You may remember from the Ten Commandments that God has forbidden idolatry and should expect Him to punish it, especially after 2000 years of its practice.

Sunday, 24 March 2019

Meta-analysis of the alt-right and the Christchurch mosque attacks

58:00  Propertarianism, Periodic Tablism, Secular Koranism
What if David Beckham converted to Islam? I am in fact trying to sell Secular Koranism to the elites.  Is the government trying to get us to convert to Islam?

Jacinda Ardern would be treated as a sex offender under

Everyone - left, right and centre - wants a one party state

1:15:00   I don't know which Muslim country is most compliant with the laws of the Koran.
1:16:00   Jenn says ISIS.
1:18:00   I rail against people who don't follow their own rules.
1:20:00   Jenn's poison recipe
1:27:00   Religion and politics, morality and telling the truth, keeping one's promises
1:29:00   Our impulse to cheat and breaking our own rules
1:30:00   Checks and balances, the balance of power, the judiciary and their legal decisions are subject to an adversarial system, and also to appeal
1:33:00  We have a moral duty to use the best available system or use the least worst system.
1:34:00  The US constitution is being flouted daily.
1:34:30  The patriarchy must be restored for there to be leadership from above to do the right thing. Currently, the US is a matriarchy, which means even POTUS will be too afraid to criticise unmarried mothers. In a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the unmarried mother.
1:35:00  The welfare state is  a sacred cow.
1:36:00  The statelemate and sclerosis of the West can only be overcome by a one party state.
1:37:00  Greg Johnson says he would be prepared to accept the bribe of universal basic income being offered by Andrew Yang.
1:41:00  The intellectual elite
1:42:00  Trickle down knowledge
1:43:00  The natural elite
1:48:00  I invite Jenn to publish her manifesto.
1:49:00  The persecution of Falun Gong
1:59:00  Truth, Justice and Integrity
2:01:00  The pursuit of justice should replace the pursuit of happiness in the US constitution.
2:02:00  The supreme virtue is Wisdom.


"I don't think Luke actually knows any white people in real life. If he does it would be fewer than five.

Frame Game  is [the alt-right's] imaginary Jewish friend. You actually don't have a Jewish friend.

Brundle is the alt-right's imaginary white friend.

Luke is a despised reporter generally despised by white people.

Church of Entropy is the lone white woman. There is a pack of hounds looking for a lone white woman ... "

3:03:00  Why Dooooovid preaches multiculturalism
Is esoteric Doooovidism the future?
Most of Doooovid's enemies are Jews who classify themselves as white.

3:04:00  "Claire is scared that Doooovid's going to get white people to turn against minorities and the Jews ..."

Philip Daniel in the chat:
​"Some of my fellow Jews just provide great fodder for antisemites and Judeophobes ... and yet they think they're doing a great service to the Jewish people through their efforts!"

I agree with Philip. I think I probably regard Doooovid and Luke through Jewish eyes, which is why I cringe at the hubris of Jewish triumphalism and supremacy Doooovid seems to be constantly provoking.

3:05:00  "Two camps in the Luke Community"

I don't think what matters is not so much what people feel but what solutions they support.

My view is that is that Brundle enjoys conflict and his videos are more about generating conflict and  getting people expressing hatred against each other as a form of entertainment rather than focusing on solutions. This is what Luke does too to attract more subscribers. They are more into bread and circuses AKA bloodsports rather than focused political debate. 

In this regard Doooovid and Kyle are hate figures wheeled out to generate hatred. I have described Doooovid as an Aunt Sally Jew guaranteed to attract people who want to hate-watch him and Brundle who is like a boxing promoter agrees with this description.


3:09:00  "Luke Ford and Brundle is basically trying to make money."

"Luke wants to marry a female version of Kyle."

"A female version of Kyle is not going to think like Brundle, she is going to think like Kyle."

3:10:00  Doooovid on those who want Luke to renege on his conversion and return to Christianity

Status-seeking Luke only converted to Judaism to gain a higher status so he is not going to return to despised Christianity and lose the protection of his Jewishness when accused of antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism because of his association with the alt-right. If becoming Muslim offered him a higher status, he would convert to Islam, and I think he would not hesitate to do so if he knew this was guaranteed. Luke has actually very few fixed beliefs but, for as long as he wants to stream, he will remain Jewish or even convert to Islam if he thinks it would give him more subscribers, but he will never ever return to failed, despised and idolatrous Christianity because he has seen what happened to his father over obscure Christological debates that I doubt Luke even understands or cares about now.

3:11:00  and 3:16:00  The natural disposition of a Jew is to disagree with other Jews. That was the one sentence answer to that question I would have made  if I had been Doooovid giving a one sentence answer. Impossible, I know!

Should we conflate Jews with Judaism?

Should we conflate a set of correct directions with lost travellers who failed to follow them properly?

3:19:00  According to Doooovid's independent and scholarly interpretation of YouTube's Community Rules, "Patrick Little is more advocating policy whereas Brundle is more borderline advocating violence."

"Patrick Little is the model antisemite."

3:26:00  I am a barnacle on the ship of Jenn!

3:31:00  I confuse Brundle's stream that attracted the strike in which Doooovid did not appear with other streams in which Doooovid did appear where he did repeatedly say that violence was inevitable.

3:44:00  Durgadas and me
3:45:00  Christchurch mosque attacks
3:46:00  The compulsory hijab
3:48:00  BBC Woman's Hour on Jacinda Arderne's leadership qualities
3:49:00  Grandstanding at a tragedy
3:50:00  Erdogan received strong international criticism for playing the footage at campaign rallies and for saying Australians and New Zealanders would be sent home in coffins if they came to Turkey with ill-intent towards Islam.
3:53:00  VIP treatment for Brenton Tarrant?
3:56:00  Do immigrants in New Zealand also complain about immigration?
3:57:00  The manifesto
3:59:00  Looking at the optics of the Day of Mourning after the massacre through the lens of the White Nationalist
4:03:00  Racism in New Zealand
4:06:00  If I were PM of NZ I would have a quite different kind of ceremony, perhaps, and consulted Muslims on the kind of ceremony they would prefer. I bet they would not have asked for the kind of spectacle that was on display.
4:07:00  It is now an offence in New Zealand to view the video online.
4:08:00  The optics of the Day of Mourning was more provocative than the video of the massacre, IMHO.
4:11:00  Local gun shops would sell semi-automatic weapons
4:15:00  Dunedin
4:18:00  Tarrant technically an immigrant.
4:19:00  The plebeian Brenton Tarrant
4:20:00  How Christchurch terrorist Brenton Tarrant went from smiling tot to white supremacist maniac who murdered 49 after trips to North Korea and Pakistan
Pakeeza Rasheed, a Muslim community leader, says she’s had her hijab ripped off, eggs thrown at her and has had someone spit in her face.

4:26:00  Crocodile tears
4:28:00  Gordon riots
4:29:00  The New Zealand character is more docile than the fiery Australian.
4:30:00  Singapore
4:31:00  The availability of social care in different Western countries and how the grass is always greener
4:33:00  The elephant in the room that is immigration
4:34:00  Why Tarrant did what he did
4:35:00  The undifferentiating racism of the typical racist.
4:39:00  Feminine displays of masochism and racial humiliation
4:40:00  Badges displaying our gender fluidity
4:41:00  Yoga groups and  Yoga Movements in the West
4:45:00  Justin Trudeau
4:46:00  Jacinda Ardern's government is a coalition
4:47:00  New Zealand First and the National Party
4:48:00  Helen Clark
4:49:00  UN job or Nobel Peace Prize for Jacinda Ardern?
4:50:00  The Cultural Appropriation of Yoga by White Western Women
5:07:00  Supersessionism
5:09:00  "Free speech is now non-existent in the South Pacific unless you are a minority."
5:09:15  Pauline Hanson
5:14:00  Christchurch

Saturday, 23 March 2019

The state of the alt-right

Millennial Woes:

I don't think paganism is feasible as a solution because I don't think enough people believe in it or and I don't see it spreading fast enough.  Christianity has had the stuffing knocked out of it to say the least over the last century so I don't know if it can recover or if it can recover in time. The other option is atheism which just is where we are just now anyway and then the fourth option is Islam and there are people who think that we're just going to inevitably become Islamic and that has various implications. Would we be assimilated into the Muslim immigrants' demographic group in which case it would be their version of Islam that ruled Europe or would it be that we adopted Islam and modified it as we did with with Christianity? Would it be our version of Islam? I might get some flack for saying this stuff or even for entertaining this. I'm just sort of putting it over there, just speculating on how are we going to resist Islam and what are we gaining by resisting Islam. Are we gaining nihilism and just more vapid consumerism or are we regaining strength and vitality somehow? Again, these are all questions that other people need to address and I can only put the question out there but I do think that it's something that we we can't afford to just ignore. I remember at the TBG in December there was a guy who really got very irate with me for suggesting that maybe Islam will be the only way out of the nihilism, out of globohomo, and if it will be so then the choice is "Do you want Islam or do you want globohomo?" so not a fucking nice choice but if you want to avoid that then you have to find a way to resist Islam and resist globohomo, and as I say, I don't see what that would be at this point. Maybe something will materialise.

Friday, 22 March 2019

The corrupt bargain of the Church making Christians practice idolatry while denying it will soon end when the West awakens Muslim

When the West regains its senses, it will awaken Muslim

I fail to get Church of Entropy to explain her theory of reincarnation

1:00  Jenn thinks reincarnation became an idea 20,000 years ago.
1:45   The changing of calendars after revolutions and the acceptance of different religions makes time notation difficult.
4:30   Jenn says we started being civilised about 200,000 years ago
8:00   The human capacity for abstract thought, worship and marriage
10:00  Rat  behaviour
13:00 Archetypes The 4 Major Jungian Archetypes​
17:00  Jenn on hatred
20:00  Process and physics based archetypes
20:30  Doshas
27:00 Jenn on thinking perfectly
28:00 How I allegedly harassed Andrew on Twitter
He did not say he was your follower, only your friend.

28:30  Jenn on how she solved the Universal Field Theory even though no one has actually acknowledged her contribution, which she says has been validated.

29:30  My Deductionist View of Religion
When the West regains its senses, will it wake up Muslim?

36:00  The Menace of HIndu Imperialism

37:00  Everyone owes everything to India, according to Jenn

41:00  The Abrahamic faiths are "African", according to Jenn

45:00 Ultra Orthodox Jews believe in reincarnation. from 42:00

48:00  Do all races originate from Africa? Jenn is ambiguous and perhaps confused.
50:00 Universal and eternal laws that benefits all of humanity to follow ie Noahide laws
53:00  The Abrahamic faiths are superior to Hinduism and Buddhism because they have more empire.
56:00  The replacement for failed Christianity is one size fits all slut-shaming Secular Koranism which will restore the patriarchy.

57:00  Jenn is vague about the rules of Hinduism and says varna is not the caste system.

I defend the British against Jenn's ridiculous accusation that they created the caste system.

What is India's caste system?
The system which divides Hindus into rigid hierarchical groups based on their karma (work) and dharma (the Hindi word for religion, but here it means duty) is generally accepted to be more than 3,000 years old.
1:01:00 Imposter syndrome
1:02:00  State education in the West
The great academy schools scandal
They were hailed as education’s great leap forward. But across England, the trusts that run them are failing

Oklahoma teachers: 'Our education system has failed'

1:05:00  The problem of character in the West. Jenn says Europeans were more honourable before they were Christianised.

1:10:00  Jenn says Jews caused Christianity
1:11:00  The consequences of Christianity ie the European Wars of Religion, two World Wars caused atheism
1:13:00  Judge a religion by its scripture. The Jetsons are mentioned.
1:16:00  All problems have available solutions. The malaise afflicting humanity is caused by people not following their own rules. My intention is to shame them into acknowledging that their rules exist and that they exist for a reason: to be followed.
1:17:00 My survival strategy of truth, logic and morality
1:19:00  I correct Jenn on her conception of idolatry.
1:20:00 Jenn says, inexplicably, that God's laws cannot be broken.
1:21:00  Pogroms against Jews are gentiles killing people smarter than they are.

1:25:00 My mini-lecture on reincarnation
9 Signs That You May Have Had Past Lives

An old man avoids the truth of TINA*

We don't share the same vision — Kevin Michael Grace🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇮🇪⚜🇳🇴 (@KMGVictoria) March 25, 2019 ...