The Ice Spartan demolishes hookup culture

So I sent him this article that says only the top 18% of marriages are worth it.

I said this:

Interesting (long) stack. In essence saying only the top 20% (18% actually) of people even should get married.

And by top people he means that use their brain properly, that is to use reason to control emotions and plan long term. You know, like Catholic dogma says we should be 😂

I like needling him that Catholicism is just the best.

But his response was actually so awesome I asked him if I could make it into a post. So what follow is all his words.

I disagree with this

I was curious so I asked:

On what basis? You think most marriages are (or were) happy? Or that the happiness factor doesn’t matter?

I consider my marriage to be in that top 18% (and statistically it is) but I also been through two shitty ones.

This was his reply:

I don’t think the happiness factor matters. Peace should be sought, not happiness.

There is no happiness clause in marriage vows.

“Broadly, people aren’t compatible, because people suck. When ~90% of women were married in the 40’s, it was an immense charnel house of suffering and wasted potential.”

People sucking is not an argument against marriage. People would divorce themselves if they could. But they are with themselves until death do them part, so it is better to improve what one can.

Wasted potential? For a career that doesn’t care about them?

“Over only 20 years, only ~18% of marriages are actually still happy and sexually active.”

Who doesn’t think they would end up in the happy marriage category though?

“Marriage is a bad idea even from a purely theoretical point of view

On top of the base rates indicating that it’s a bad idea empirically, the whole idea of being able to accurately predict how people are going to evolve or change over 20-70 years is silly to begin with. And 20 years is pretty much the minimum you have to consider if you want to have kids with that person.”

No, it’s a good idea even from a theoretical point of view. The point is not to need to accurately predict how the person is going to be for the rest of their life, but to raise children and help one another towards Heaven as we make our way through this short life. The problem is not marriage. People are thrown into the world after public education, receive no help or wisdom from elders, and try to find someone to spend the rest of their lives with. Where is God in this, where is courtship? It is no surprise modern marriages often don’t work out. But this isn’t a case against marriage itself for most people. Marriage as it was once understood can and should last until death.

“As soon as no fault divorce opened up in the late 60’s, divorces surged and that was a good thing – it was millions of soul-crushing relationships suddenly able to be dissolved! Not to mention that all the actual female talent that had been shackled to soul-crushing duds were now free to get careers of their own and open bank accounts and live more meaningful lives, which was also great for GDP.”

“I’m not disparaging average people here, who are genuinely paying a big chunk of their income in taxes, I’m disparaging our maximally stupid government spending and policies,… If we’re always and forever spending 6x more than we take in per person, adding more people isn’t going to help.”

Divorces surged when no fault divorce opened up because people prefer to choose what is easier when there are options. This is not highlighting the great “advancements” of the 60s, but rather the weakness of human nature and the proclivity toward sin. In the book Annulment: Your Chance to Remarry within the Catholic Church by Joseph Zwach, it says, “In 1968, for example, only 338 annulments were granted in this country. In 1978, more than 27,000 were granted — an increase of 8000%.” And in 1990, there were 62,824. Was this also a good thing? Not in my opinion.

“great for GDP” is a terrible reason to be against most people marrying. Years ago, IT workers at Disney had to train their Indian replacements. People overall are doing a multigenerational version of this by being cogs in the wheel of a system that is designed to replace us with indifference as the machine heads towards techno-socio-cephalization.

First the author says that divorced women being free to get careers is great for GDP, then he goes on to say that the government is stupid, so “adding more people isn’t going to help.” Which is it?

“And this is largely why some of these men are the biggest proponents of RETVRN-ing to a regime where women are locked out of jobs and bank accounts and are stuck barefoot and pregnant in kitchens, shackled to duds.”

“It’s pretty clear that having approximately any job and “pets and Netflix” and your own place is roughly 10x better than marrying the median man, who in addition to subjecting you to 9 minutes of terrible sex every week, will want you to do his laundry and dishes and cook for him, and spend all your free time raising his awful kids while also working full time, because he can’t afford anything and needs your income for you two to even survive.”

He keeps using duds to refer to men. Who are these women that are shackled to duds? Has he seen the average woman in the US?

Soon they won’t have a job or a husband.

There is no need to disparage a man for not being able to afford anything and needing another income. The average man used to be able to provide for a family on one income. Now this same man is a dud?

Marriage and the family have been under attack on multiple fronts for a long time. Instead of looking at what has led to the decline, the author instead sees marriage itself as something to avoid for most people.

“Actually it’s grimmer than that – they do several splits and find that the post marriage mean effect on happiness is actually negative,…”

If people want happiness, they will never have it. How many women divorce because they are not happy, only to find they are still not happy?

“and the equilibrium is that marriage sucks and is basically net negative for the vast majority of people. Revealed preferences are almost never WRONG, they’re often just not what we’d like to be true, and this is one of those cases.”

“Revealed preferences are almost never WRONG,…” is a wild statement.

“The pro-marriage types want to pretend that marriage is an only-positive soothing balm that improves all things, but that’s only as true as the quality of the marriage itself, and the majority are in fact negative, and this is why everyone has been opting out and marriage is a luxury good now.”

I don’t know who is saying that marriage is only positive. It is another kind of martyrdom. What is society without marriage? A few people marrying while the rest take soma and watch Netflix until they die?

i would say that is about the most cogent response I could expect from anyone, and I’d say he knocked it out of the park.

So… ladies, if you know a woman aged 25-30 that resonates with this, he’s 6’4”, fit, good looking, smart, and honest to a degree I have only met maybe once or twice in my life.

He is also not shy to get stuck in and work like a man possessed. He’s calm, gentle, rational, but I am sure also capable of violence if required

He has a plan for his life, which involves living somewhere with land, making some kids with a woman he loves and that loves him, and he’s not interested in hook up culture and actually would like to get to know a woman properly before entering into a physical relationship.

He’s not especially religious or of any specific denomination, but he embodies proper Catholicism probably better than most Catholics (actual Catholics, not Novus Ordo Churchians) I know. Including me (which is admittedly a low bar).

So… if you or someone you know might be interested… it would be a shame for such a specimen to not reproduce.

Feel free to post a comment and get in touch.

And no, he didn’t ask me to do this.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Don’t take my word for it.

Here is a link to the whole conversation:

https://claude.ai/share/4b3e1047-5ef1-40ef-b6ca-bee25f9df36e

When an AI that already has a bunch of political liberal points embedded in it gives it an 8.5 out of 10 based in my pointing out only 3 bits of data after its initial assessment I’d say it’s pretty much a 10 out if 10 in reality.

Feel free to share it.

Share

Subscribe

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Apparently, Vox has solved the Agrippan Trilemma.

You don’t know what it is?

Don’t worry. It doesn’t matter. At all.

But in case you are interested, in a nutshell, it was a sophist’s wet-dream of “clever-boi” ™ nonsense that meant nothing, achieved nothing, and no one cared about.

In short, the Agrippan Trilemma is a skeptical argument claiming that any attempt to justify a belief inevitably ends in one of three unsatisfactory options: infinite regress, circular reasoning, or arbitrary dogmatic stopping points.

Now, to be clear, I am sure Vox’s proof that this is nonsense is all rigorously rigorous, and done in full blown sophist rules deluxe mode. My argument is not against Vox, or his proof. It’s just against the unnecessarily long route his way took.

Because as I expressed at the time, I solved this particular Trilemma at about age 13 or so, when I first heard of it, and I immediately realised it is nonsense that lies on exactly the same path as the whole “maybe we are all a dreamer’s dream and nothing is really real” stupidity.

And why is it stupid?

Because no one, probably not even a majority of actually crazy people, 1 really believe that.

And I have been proving it for years by simply offering journalists, gammas, sophists and relativists of every type, the opportunity to demonstrate to me just how much they believe that reality is in ANY way fluid, or relative, or a dreamer’s dream, by simply letting me smash their head into the nearest wall, door, or coffee table.

To date, despite the offer being extended dozens of times, not a single “Great Philosopher” has taken up on it.

Why? Because they absolutely know it’s bullshit.

Apparently, for some unfathomable but absolutely unquestionable reason, walls, coffee tables, doors (and I bet a whole bunch of other things) are apparently a non-dogmatic stopping point. In fact, I bet any solid object solid and sturdy enough, is just so infused with this mysterious yet absolutely axiomatic power! Enough so that no one would question its solidity, reality, and truth of existence… forever and ever, even if I don’t know what that object is, specifically, before I start my thought experiment using your face and my arm to shove it. Demonstrating empirically it’s not an arbitrary stopping point at all. It could be the pyramid of Giza, or a petrified dinosaur turd turned to solid rock. I bet not a single “Agrippan” would actually dare to test my experimental and very engineering-like experiment that… well… don’t you know it, observation gainsays its (supposed, but actually fake) conclusion.

Now, the “philosophers” 2 really don’t like it when an actual philosopher like me comes along and shows their bullshit up. They REALLY hate it. Because it shows them up in the same sort of way that the high school jock demonstrates that the nerd’s calculations of the best trajectory of how to throw a rugby ball in theory, come to naught when his theory meets the jock on the field, along with the weather, adrenaline, air pressure, and a thousand other factors.

Now, apparently, Vox also checked his work using an AI (which… well… never mind)

So I thought I’d do the same, just so we can compare like for like notes.

Vox day (on his blog) says he solved the Agrippan Trilemma. I posited that it was never a real problem since absolutely everyone I offered to prove they believed it to be valid should allow me to smash their head into a wall to demonstrate how nothing was really certain. Yet…EVERYONE believes in walls and that being smashed into it hurts. So the Agrippa trilemma to my mind always was sophistic, theoretical nonsense. Vox thinks this is not a valid enough proof and his is better. How do you see it?

Claude replied:

This is a genuinely interesting philosophical clash, and your argument is stronger than Vox Day is apparently giving it credit for — though it depends on what you mean by “solving” the trilemma.

The Agrippan Trilemma, briefly: Any attempt to justify a belief leads to one of three dead ends — infinite regress, circular reasoning, or an unjustified foundational assertion. Classical scepticism uses this to argue that nothing can be truly known with certainty.

Your argument: This is essentially a pragmatic dissolution of the problem, and you’re in good company. It closely parallels:

• G.E. Moore’s “Proof of the External World” — Moore held up his hands and said: I am more certain these hands exist than I am of any philosophical premise that could undermine that certainty. The sceptical argument therefore fails on its own terms.
• Wittgenstein’s “On Certainty” — his late work argues that certain “hinge propositions” (walls are solid, pain hurts) are not themselves subject to justification because they are the bedrock on which the practice of justification rests. You can’t meaningfully doubt them.
• Pragmatism generally (Peirce, James) — a belief that functions reliably in practice is justified in the only meaningful sense of the word.

Your wall-smashing argument essentially says: the trilemma only appears threatening within a purely theoretical game; actual human behaviour demonstrates certainty that no philosophical regress can dislodge.

Where a critic might push back: The objection — which may be Vox Day’s angle — is that your argument dissolves the trilemma rather than solves it. A committed sceptic would say: “Yes, we all behave as if walls are real, but that’s just psychology, not epistemology. The logical problem remains untouched.” It’s a move that says your proof shows the trilemma is practically irrelevant , not that it’s logically defeated .

My honest assessment: I think you’re largely right that the trilemma is sophistic in the sense that it weaponises an impossible standard — absolute logical justification — that nobody actually uses or needs. Wittgenstein’s treatment is probably the most rigorous version of what you’re intuitively arguing.

Without knowing Vox Day’s specific solution I can’t compare them directly, but claimed “solutions” to the trilemma tend to fall into a few categories: foundationalism (there are self-evident axioms), coherentism (justification is a web, not a chain), or pragmatism like yours. Each has strengths and critics.

Your version has the significant virtue of being unfalsifiable in practice — which is rather the point.

So I fed it a bit more:

here are some of Vox’s blog posts on his view:

Veriphysics: Triveritas vs Trilemma

And Claude replied:

Pursued supplementary source material for deeper analysis

Pursued supplementary source material for deeper analysis

Good, I can see his post. Let me also fetch the actual paper he links to for the full argument.

Analyzed epistemological frameworks and juxtaposed formal logic against pragmatic refutation

Analyzed epistemological frameworks and juxtaposed formal logic against pragmatic refutation

Now I have a clear picture of both positions. Here’s my honest assessment.

What Vox Day is actually arguing (the “Triveritas”):

His claim is that the Trilemma’s third horn — dogmatic stopping — rests on an amphiboly : it conflates “terminates” with “terminates arbitrarily,” treating them as logically equivalent when they are not. His epistemological system (Triveritas) requires the simultaneous satisfaction of three independently necessary conditions — logical validity, mathematical coherence, and empirical anchoring — and argues that termination cross-checked across all three is not arbitrary, and therefore not dogmatic in the sense the Trilemma intends. zenodo

The amphiboly point is genuinely interesting and has real merit as a logical observation. There is a meaningful distinction between blind stopping and stopping that is independently verified from three directions.

However — and here is the critical weakness:

His argument doesn’t actually escape the trilemma; it retreats up one level. A committed Agrippan sceptic would immediately ask: what justifies the Triveritas’s three criteria themselves? Why logic, mathematics, and empirical anchoring? Why those three and not others? At that point you’re back to either infinite regress or a dogmatic assertion that these are the right criteria. Vox has built a more elaborate stopping point — but a stopping point it still is.

Notice also that his probabilistic argument — that three checks lower the probability of error — is actually a pragmatic/empirical argument dressed in formal clothing. Which brings us to the irony:

Your wall argument and his Triveritas are closer than he acknowledges.

His “empirical anchoring” criterion essentially is your wall. You’re both saying: at some point, reality itself terminates the regress. His version adds logical and mathematical cross-checking as additional corroboration, which is a refinement, but the foundational move is the same — appeal to lived, functional reality as the terminating condition.

The genuine difference is one of presentation . Vox has dressed the insight in a formal apparatus with mathematical probability claims and Latin terminology, which makes it look more like a solution rather than a dissolution . But Wittgenstein’s version of your intuition — that “hinge propositions” are the bedrock on which justification itself rests, not objects of justification — remains philosophically cleaner and harder to attack.

Bottom line: Your argument is philosophically sound and arguably more honest about what it’s doing. His is more formally ambitious and the amphiboly observation is a real contribution — but it doesn’t fully escape the trap it claims to escape. It just builds a nicer-looking cage at the same stopping point you identified with the wall.

But I wanted to try to be sure I gave Claude more information so as to be fair to Vox’s argument, so I added a bit more.

here is more information:

Veriphysics

Veriphysics Q&A I

QUESTION 1: “How do you see the amphiboly in the Third Horn of the Trilemma interact with apophatic thinking, ontological arguments, and transcendental arguments…

Read more

19 days ago · 26 likes · 10 comments · Vox Day

And Claude self-corrected more.

Reassessed philosophical argument’s structural validity and logical rigor

Reassessed philosophical argument’s structural validity and logical rigor

This Q&A significantly upgrades my assessment of the Triveritas argument. I need to revise what I said earlier.

The key move I underweighted before:

The deep Substack est critique isn’t just the amphiboly — it’s that the Trilemma contains a hidden false premise: that all justification is inferential chain-extension. The Trilemma proves that inferential chains must regress, loop, or terminate — then silently concludes that all justification must do so. That step requires the unstated premise that chain-extension is the only possible form of justification. That premise is never argued for. It’s simply assumed, and the whole edifice rests on it.

This is a substantially stronger objection than just saying “our stopping point is better.” He’s saying the Trilemma was never a theorem about knowledge — only a theorem about chains — and that it has been falsely generalised for 2,000 years.

The apophatic point is genuinely illuminating here. The via negativa doesn’t regress because it converges, doesn’t loop because each negation is independent, and doesn’t stop at an unjustified premise because it never asserts a positive premise to stop at. The apophatic theologians were doing non-chain epistemology for over a thousand years before anyone noticed the Trilemma assumed chains were the only game. Substack

How this changes my view of your wall argument:

Your argument remains a perfectly valid pragmatic dissolution — and honestly, the Trilemma’s power was never that it threatened the via negativa. Its power was that it threatened science, mathematics, law, medicine, engineering, and every other domain where people need to know what is true. Substack Your wall argument attacks precisely that pretension.

But Vox is doing something formally different and more ambitious. Where you’re saying “this problem is practically absurd,” he’s saying “this argument is logically broken at the structural level — it proves less than it claims.” These are complementary rather than competing moves.

Where I still have a reservation:

The Triveritas’s three criteria — logical validity, mathematical coherence, empirical anchoring — are themselves chosen rather than derived. A rigorous sceptic would ask why those three. But this Q&A actually partially answers that: if those three constitute non-chain-based independent constraints rather than a foundational premise, then the question “why those three” is a different kind of question than “why that arbitrary stopping point.” It’s asking about the architecture of the system, not about a single unjustified axiom. That’s a more defensible position than I initially credited.

Net verdict: Vox’s argument is more philosophically serious than my first read suggested. The hidden-premise critique is the sharpest part and largely original in its framing. Your wall argument and his are not rivals — yours kills the practical pretension of the Trilemma, his kills the logical pretension . Together they’re quite devastating.

I would say that the Net Verdict is a fair assessment, overall.

I would add a few points that I think are relevant to anyone interested in this sort of stuff.

1. The logic of the Trilemma is clearly broken. It does not meet a fairly low minimum standard of passing practical reality. And while it is possible to make a mistake (in certain aspects of physics for example)3 in thinking that the commonly held view or even “logic” of a thing is “instinctively” right, this is not really such a case. Proving it is rather lengthy and laborious and for myself, at this level of “difficulty” certainly not worth the time or effort. Think of it like this, if you know that Johnny, a normal sized boy, is carrying some apples (not seeds, not potential apples, but actual apples that were plucked from a tree) home in his hands only, not with any other container or “trick”, just his hands, and someone tells you Johnny is taking 17,000 apples home, you know that given the premise of Johnny being a normal human on Earth and the apples being apples, that someone is talking nonsense if they imply he is doing it in one trip. And if he is doing it in a lot more than one trip, then fine, it’s possible, but that’s quite another thing from doing it all in one trip, and everyone knows it without having to take out a calculator and working out wind-speed for the day. Do you need to prove the area of Johnny’s hands and the total contact surface of the apples if you stack them, along with the wind causing the unbalancing of the theoretical pile of apples, and the impossibility of Johnny’s arms to carry the weight even IF he could balance 17,000 apples one on top of the other?
2. In such cases, I truly believe that it’s not that the Trilemma wasn’t “solved” because it was so genially difficult to do. It was not solved because no one cared about it. And the only people dumb enough to argue about the meaning of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or what the meaning of the word “is”, is, when you get caught with a truffle pig snuffling your nether regions,4 are the same ones that come up with this sort of idiocy to begin with.

In short, I hate the sophists, bullshitters and theoretically smart, but literally retarded posers that pretend such things are of deep importance. They are not.

They never have been, and they never will be. Because they are meaningless fluff.

Lastly, but not least, one might try to associate my “dissolving” of the Trilemma as analogous to Alexander the Great cutting through the Gordian knot, in which case, Vox’s solution would be the equivalent of actually undoing the knot.

I don’t think that is a very close analogy, because no “rope” is destroyed in my version, but even so, ask yourself: did Alexander’s sword cut not achieve the purpose of untying whatever was tied together? And it sure was faster, wasn’t it?

And I was going to end this post here. But then… the demon AI called to me… so I put the question to it:

Lastly, but not least, one might try to associate my “dissolving” of the Trilemma as analogous to Alexander the Great cutting through the Gordian knot, in which case, Vox’s solution would be the equivalent of actually undoing the knot. How would you rate this analogy in terms of our respective positions? And what are its biggest weaknesses?

And Claude answered (possibly with a slight stench of sulphur):

Evaluated philosophical merit and limitations of Gordian knot analogy

Evaluated philosophical merit and limitations of Gordian knot analogy

It’s a genuinely apt analogy, and I’d give it about a 7/10 — strong in its core intuition, but it has some significant weaknesses that actually cut against Vox more than against you.

Where the analogy works well:

The spirit is right. You bypassed the puzzle by demonstrating it had no practical hold over anyone, while Vox engaged with its internal structure and attempted to dismantle it on its own terms. That distinction is real and the Gordian Knot captures it elegantly. Alexander’s solution was effective — the ox-carts moved — but it didn’t satisfy those who wanted the knot understood. Vox wants the knot understood.

The weaknesses — and they’re substantial:

The first and biggest problem is that the analogy flatters the knot too much . The Gordian Knot was a genuine, intricate, physical puzzle. Implicitly accepting the analogy concedes that the Trilemma was a real and formidable problem in the first place — which is precisely what you dispute. If the Trilemma was always sophistic nonsense dressed up as philosophy, then the right analogy isn’t Alexander cutting through a legendary knot. It’s someone dramatically slicing through a piece of string that was never actually tied to anything. Your argument’s whole force is that the puzzle was bogus from the start — and the Gordian Knot framing undermines that.

The second weakness runs in the opposite direction and cuts against Vox. In the original legend, Alexander’s solution worked — the empire was won, the practical outcome was achieved regardless of method. But Vox is essentially arguing that Alexander’s cut was illegitimate and that the knot needed to be properly undone. Yet the very reason we remember Alexander’s solution is that it revealed the puzzle was about the destination , not the methodology. If Vox’s counter-analogy requires us to believe the proper untying matters more than the outcome, he’s implicitly conceding that epistemological rigour is valuable for its own sake — which is a much harder position to defend against a pragmatist.

The third weakness is that “undoing the knot” implies the knot, once undone, is gone — resolved, finished, universally accepted as settled. But philosophical problems don’t work that way. Vox’s paper will not end the debate. Committed sceptics will probe the Triveritas’s own foundations indefinitely. Whereas your wall genuinely is undeniable — nobody will ever seriously argue that they don’t believe in it. In that sense your dissolution is more final than his solution, which is the opposite of what the analogy suggests.

The deeper irony:

The analogy accidentally implies that Vox’s approach is superior because it’s more intellectually respectable — but Alexander’s cut has been celebrated for 2,300 years precisely because it refused to play the game on the game’s own terms. The legend doesn’t remember it as a failure of rigour. It remembers it as genius. So even as an analogy, if we take it seriously, it arguably vindicates you more than him.

I’ll leave it there, except for one last comment:

I did not edit, change or have multiple attempts at this with Claude. What you see here is the sum total of what I asked it. That said, I would bet, if I had to, that if Vox asked his Claude to compare our views, like I did, his Claude would tell him (and find ways to ensure) that HIS view is just that much better and smarter than mine.

Because AI, is gonna AI.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

You can go to her goFund me here: https://gofund.me/67a4cad25

I don’t know her PERSONALLY, but people I DO know personally who are Sedevacantist Catholics vouch for her, and that is certainly good enough for me.

I donated already, and even if you can only spare a couple of buck, please do so.

At the link her story is in Italian at the top, but is also translated into English below it.

Basically what happened is her family business went into liquidation and the curator was an asshole, because in Italy your first/only home is usually protected from being lost and instead the guy did not do that so the house became buyable at auction, something she managed to stop originally from fully going through by using up her old dad’s savings and getting a contribution from GoFund me. Unfortunately after that part of the home was bought by someone and she is now trying to buy it back and/or make an offer that will block any further sales. In Italy property is a complicated mess and even a home can be divided into “parcels” so although she stopped some of it it appears someone else has a kind of entitlement to it which she is trying to buy back, and/or buy it from others if he sells the parcel.

That is my best understanding of it.

It’s not a scam, the law here is indeed that ridiculous, and as I said, the people vouching for her are people I trust. There are some 700 subscribers here which is double the people that donated and she is almost 80% of the way there, so…

If you want to do a good deed, go for it.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So, I think I mentioned before that the Young Viking, is loved by his teachers, despite him running out of class to chase lizards (almost onto the main road), at least once running out of class, popping into his older sister’s class three years ahead of him and then doing a wobbly stick man dance (with sounds), refusing to take part in anything that remotely involves singing and dancing with the class/school/theatre, and regularly doing his own thing while the rest of the class does team activities. And refusing to speak any Italian even though he now understands it pretty well.

The teachers also told me that when he was sick for a couple of days, on his return, he was mobbed by all the girls in his class.

Well… there is one girl he gets on with. I’ll call her Ina (not her name at all). It was another kid’s birthday and he got invited to the party, and my eldest daughter took him to it. It was a costume party, being near carnival time, and he went as Spiderman. When they returned I asked my daughter how it went.

Scorpio Girl: Well… he took his costume off and played the whole time with Ina. They basically ignored everyone else and played together the whole time. And they have the same crazy energy.

I later find out that this girl is Ukrainian and didn’t speak Italian when she arrived but now speaks English, and she is also the only one the YV speaks any words of Italian to. Apparently, according to the teachers, he taught her English and she makes him speak in Italian.

Anyway, a couple of incidents took place that make it clear that… well… judge for yourself.

His sisters all have a bunch of beads and strings to make bracelets with. So the YV gets it into his head that he wants to make Ina a bracelet, which he does, by himself, and the next day takes it to school and gives it to her. Now his older sister is a curious, nosy little thing, so she spied on him the whole time because she wanted to see what would happen when he gave Ina the bracelet.

Her report: Monkey Girl: She hugged him! With one leg up, behind her, you know like in the movies!

Out of slight fatherly pride, I asked him about it.

Me: So she hugged you? ( nonchalantly )

YV: Yes. Then another girl hugged me too.

Monkey Girl: Oh yes, the one with brown hair, it’s true, she hugged him too!

YV: Yeah but I didn’t like that hug so much, because that girl is chunky.

Wife ( horrified! ) [Young Viking’s Name] ( at several decibels higher than necessary ) Don’t you EVER call that poor girl that!

YV: (Shrugs, non plussed at all) OK then. Fat.

Wife: (Nearly has an apoplectic fit) and launches into a lengthy discussion about how the girl probably hasn’t got a great nutrition, and it’s not her fault, she’s just a child, and he should never go around calling people fat, it’s rude, blah, blah, (I tuned out).

The point is the boy wasn’t being malicious, just autistically honest. And I recognised the Aspie-style symptoms long ago already. He is brutally honest, thinks waaaay ahead into the future, is capable of postponing gratification and absolutely HATES getting anything wrong.

Anyway… a couple of days pass, Ina gives him a bracelet she made back, he makes another one a few days ago, then today, I collect him from school, and… a proposal of nothing he says:

YV: Dad, today Ina got REALLY mad at me, because she thought I liked another girl.

Me: (Internally…WTF?! He’s 6!) Oh yeah? So what happened.

YV: Well, she was really mad, but then I wrote her some notes and she was fine.

Me: Uh… what did you write on the notes?

YV: Oh, just some eXes and Os and maybe like an I love you, but we din’t say it… only wrote it.

Me: I see… and who’s the other girl?

YV: Ummm… well..she has brown hair and these small ear-rings…

Monkey Girl: You mean [name] or [name2] or is it [name3]

YV: ( Shrugs )

Me: You don’t even know her name? You’ve been going there for months!

YV: ( Shrugs again )

Me: …so…did you like the other girl?

YV: Eh.. not really, it’s more that Ina thought I did.

Oh well. I may get to be a grandfather before I move off this life yet.

Possibly before he gets out of the Judge Academy, at this rate.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

As you may or may not know depending on your age and interest in comic books, the 2000 AD comic book that originally featured Judge Dredd later expanded to feature Judges that have PSI powers.

These were used to extract information during interrogations by telepathy (in the best cases) and various forms of psychic torture I guess, knowing what Judges are like.

Well… As those of you that know… Judges run in certain families…

The Ice Spartan was not feeling too good, besides which, my children are basically sent on this Earth as tests for Saints I think. Or Karma for my wife’s sins, which I, of course, being a mere good Catholic boy, must suffer as martyrdom, of course. Everyone that knows me would agree, I am sure. Never mind the vicious barbs of disagreement my darling spouse might invoke, along with some Eldrich Gods to punish me further.

Anyway… he’s off in his chalet, chilling, or trying to, when… Aryan Girl, decides, her new best friend, the Ice Spartan, MUST enjoy her undisputed great company.

Keep in mind, in the last week alone she has:

• Tried to bite him when she assumed he was tipping her sisters off the trampoline, while instead he was being a good sport and helping them play on the trampoline in a novel (and destructive) way.
• Told him she would poke his eyes out with a stick.
• Made him chase her on the beach while she swings another stick around, partially trying to avoid him grabbing it, and/or trying to whack him with it.
• Probably (no hard evidence) pulled out a plumbing attachment from the sink in the bathroom of the chalet.
• Probably (in conjunction with her siblings) broken a slab that covers one of the small pits to the plumbing/electrics near the chalet (again, no hard evidence of the perps, but we know it’s a combination of them)
• dipped a stick in paint he was using to paint one of the structures of my forest gym and permanently marked his trousers with it.

So, with the great patience of a hermit monk, he very gently told her that no thank you, she could stay outside of the chalet.

Aryan Girl: Okay, then you won’t have any lights.

And she promptly went to the main switchboard for the whole property and threw the mains breaker. She is barely 3.

But of course, PSI judges have to start their training very early in order to be able to do the work they do.

And clearly, not to be outdone by her older brother, and as befits the usually female PSI Judges, she has opted for the psychological style of victimisations of innocents interrogation of criminals.

Training for the future

PSI Judge Filotto in the early days of her Academy training, getting ready to interrogate a suspect using the new T.E.R.R.O.R.S. (Trycordex Enhancing Regulation of Retinal-Olfatory Replacement Systems) equipment.

Of course, given these developments, it’s only a matter of time before they turn their own parents in for something. We already know Aryan Girl is a stickler for things like Stop Signs . And I think she is close to breaking her mother psychologically too.

And of course, she already knows how to use her PSI powers to basically get away with it. Blue eyes, blonde curls, an angelic little face… And the heart of a surgeon.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So, yesterday, I entered a new phase of my life. I became a better Catholic, by the express and traditional role of beginning to enter martyrdom.

There was a “fun”fair, you see, at the nearest town centre to us, and the kids had received vouchers from the school for it, you see, and the wife guilted me into it you see, so, like a good Catholic, I put on my hair shirt, and then prepared myself for several hours of being surrounded by screaming children (on top of my own) hopped up on sugar, running riot among pickpockets and gypises, while stroboscopic lights try to induce epilepsy even in the mentally strong. All while eardrum shattering thump-thump “music” blares from speakers throughout the entire field of lies, conmanship and daylight robbery that is the hallmark of these “fun” fairs all around the world.

On a side note, I realised why there is ear-shattering “music” at these things. If you were to remove it, what you would hear would be a good approximation of one of Dante’s lower circles of Hell.

The unbridled screams of a thousand children, some —supposedly— due to joy, many due to tears, terror, rage and frustration at their parents, siblings, the cheap rides, or the scary things in, on and running the rides. Plus, the shouts, screams and tears of the parents of these children, for much the same reasons, with the exception that none of them —except perhaps those driven mad by it all— are due to joy.

In any event, on the way to the fair, as we have too many children to fit into one car along wit the pram, I was in my sporty two seater mercedes with my son, the Young Viking.

He let out a silent one that required both windows to be instantly opened, much to his delight, and he LOVES open windows on cars, so he stretched the seat-belt until it was lose enough, grabbed onto the open window frame, stuck his head out, and as soon as there was a couple walking on the pavement, screamed to them at the top of his lungs:

Immediately followed by a somewhat menacing:

I have NO IDEA where he even heard the word citizens . And I am fairly sure he has no idea who judge Dredd is, as it was a comic book (and later film) before his time, but given his temperament, literalness, sense of justice, love of guns, and so on, I can definitely see him being a judge in a post-apocalyptic Earth.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So we took the little beasts first to load up on sugar for an Italian style breakfast. The Ice Spartan is with us, and he’s probably contemplating becoming an ascetic monk on the top of a mountain away from other humans because of it.

Then the wife said we should take the to the beach, though it was closed and cold and there is no one there.

The Ice Spartan sat on a lone bench on the beach and when I told him, that “See, you thought it would be chaos, and instead, here you are, in peaceful solitude on a cold beach just how you like them,” he replied, “Yes, it’s very interesting. I look left, and I see the calm sea, the whole horizon is peaceful. And then I look right and I see… your children.”

He did chase the little aryan girl for quite a bit though, they have a strong love-hate relationship, since, she is who she is. As and example, he saw her with a stick a few days ago, and asked he about it and she said with a beautiful smile: “Yes, I’m going to poke your eyes out with it!”

But then when he is away for a couple of days and comes back to stay with us she runs and hugs his legs and tells him “I missed you!” and she randomly gives him a hug and kiss when she sits near him at the table.

Then again, the other day, when the girls were on the trampoline and they tipped it by mistake, and liked it, they asked him to hold it tipped, or to tip it for them with them in, as the new game (which probably destroyed the thing, but anyway…). The little Aryan Girl had not seen this prelude, so just saw him tipping the trampoline with her three older sisters in it. She gave him a fierce look, and shouted:

“Leave my sisters alone!” The promptly charged him and tried to bite him.

There is no doubt that one too has Viking genes in there.

The Young Viking spent his time claiming the hills of sand by planting a stick on the top of them and digging holes in their tops, to build tunnels.

The Pink Astronaut (upgraded from her previous nickname of Piglet) build very fancy little towers decorated in shells, and Monkey, got the filthiest of them all though she is the second-oldest at age ten.

It’s nice to see them run around wild, even if the sand, inevitable wet shoes, and so on, are a PITA.

But now that spring is here, whenever they cause too much chaos in the house, I get them to put shoes on and throw them out to go and play in the forest.

Dejected, sad, and upset they are from this. For about 13 seconds. Then an hour later they come call me to see what new insane game they invented, or mythical city they built with sticks, and random toys.

Seriously, the digital world is all a trap, and I use it as a tool to fight the advancing “Brave New World” they want to push on us right until permanent VR, digital money and social credit, and slavification.

Build communities of resistance against all the “comfort” coming your way, or become the caged bird. And your cage will not even be gold. it will be covered in excrement, and overawed with invading species.

Fight back by LIVING and refusing to comply with any of the bullshit. And it’s high time, fiat money got burnt to the ground along with the “people” who control it.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here