Tagged: news

In Idea Form, Even As an Ideal, Communism is Not Good

This post is in response to “reality.” The sober reality being communism and Islam just won’t go away. On some level, by my thinking, either (a) people do not want them to go away or (b) people’s actions and efforts aren’t aligned with their desires. Put another way (b) could be stated as people who desire communism and Islam to go away aren’t actually fighting communism and Islam. It’s like there is some kind of terrific straw man that is terribly bruised, bloodied and down for the count after all the attacks, but, whatever is lying there lifeless, it ain’t communism and it ain’t Islam.

With Islam, the faithful reader knows my idea. To recap, Christian apologetics or Christians who desire to prove “there is a god” are, in fact, feeding Islam—because this “god exists” is Mooohamed’s coranic argument. In their well-intentioned act, they are not helping spread Christianity. So I say, “Good Christian Men, Stop! Stop defending ‘god’ and instead stick to the Gospel. Hone your speaking skills to mirror the NT writers as much as possible. Or be quiet. But either way, stop arguing for Mooohamed!”

My new realization or tactic regarding communism, the fatal flaw I see that leads to (b) above, is when we say, “Sure, it’s good in idea-” Stop! Stop right there! The mistake has appeared. It is early. No need to continue to “but it doesn’t work in practice.”

By giving the “idea” of communism the appellation “good”, all things considered, I think we are actually and unwittingly feeding the beast, as it were. If communism (or any idea) is really a good idea, then, by all means, let’s make it a reality, right? But communism is not a good idea. I mean this as literally as it can be meant. Communism is not a good idea.

Practice saying it with me.

“Communism is not a good idea.”

Good.

Now spend a moment to develop whatever you’re comfortable with using to defend our declaration, which need be our response to the subsequent, “You don’t think feeding the hungry and clothing the naked is a good idea?”

My own response will be, “Now we’re talking! See, I always imagined communists like yourself couldn’t make their ideas concrete. Like, I thought you guys were robots with great deficiencies, including the inability to get specific. As odd as it sounds, you just made my day. I am very happy to learn I was wrong. So communists are interested in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked? I don’t see why we can’t do it together right now. Let’s go! How much food, clothes, and money do we have between us?”

This illustrates the communist lacks integrity (is not good), because they don’t want to actually feed and clothe. (And if, on some off chance they are willing to pound the pavement, there literally are no negatives apart from daily risks which accompany life on earth.)

I concede that it is entirely possible that you or I will run into a more academically-minded communist. Upon hearing us declare or correct, “Communism is not a good idea,” they might not go concrete and instead they might stay idealogical and say, “You think planning is wrong?”

To them my response is, “By no means, sir! And what’s more, I am very glad to learn you and I agree that planning is a core, if not the core, tenant of communism. What a day this has turned out to be. There is no time to waste. Let’s get down to business. I say first up is, it should be small and reasonable, where to go for lunch. Oh, I should have asked, have you eaten? I am starving. What’ll it be. My favorite is Little Caesar’s. Of course they don’t have seating, but we can find some other place to sit.”

This illustrates the communist is selfish (is not good), because they will not agree to Little Caesar’s. (And if, on the off chance, they do agree to go, you just keep planning everything. How to get there. Who drives. Which side of the street to walk on. Who goes in first. Who orders. Who pays. How to split the bill. And on and on and on. The key is reading the room. You’re not trying to be an arse-hole. You’re trying to reveal that you and him/her are not the same person.)

Have fun with it, and feel free to comment below with your own post-“Communism is not a good idea”-declaration scenarios.

In any case, seriously, in the old sense, I beseech you, please stop saying “Communism is a good idea”. It isn’t.

Quick, But Essential, Note On Stopping Islam

Firstly, the best perspective to take on contemporary life is that Islam and the CooRahn need to be relegated to the “myth” section of bookstores and libraries—no different than Greek Mythology. This perspective stands in opposition to any others who would aim for something more, like “I will erase your name from history!! Muhahaha!!”

Secondly, as faithful readers know, my initial realization that something was grossly wrong with the world occurred while at an Evangelical Christian Seminary after I thought I saw something odd and subsequently discovered that the sentence, “We (Christians) need to stop doing (one nuanced type of apologetic), while simultaneously start doing everything we can think of to relegate Islam to the the myth section of bookstores and libraries,” and then observed that it DID NOT RECEIVE IMMEDIATE AND TOTAL AGREEMENT from other students and professors.

This leads to the point of this post.

Thirdly, mark today as the day that you will work with me to stop Islam by implementing the following rule: Accept any and all ideas put forward by those who likewise wish to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries.

In other words, I do not believe this effort can succeed, this effect can occur if the typical hypercritical (and usually useful) methods of group dynamics are applied.

Here are some test questions to ask yourself which will demonstrate whether you understand this post and my “ask”.

  1. Should there be any limit to membership into the group who wants to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  2. Is it possible for someone to come up with a bad idea in the effort to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  3. Is it possible for someone to have a better idea than others in the effort to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  4. Should I be dismayed if I am the only one who sees my idea regarding how best to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  5. Should I be jealous that everyone is using someone else’s idea, which I cannot imagine working, to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  6. In the situation described by point 5, should I stop trying my idea about how to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  7. In the situation described by point 5, should I try to stop or work against those who are applying someone else’s idea regarding how to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?

(The answer to all of these is resoundingly “NO!”)

On Measuring the “Speed” of “Not-Space”

If you think that anyone whose profession is anything actually to do with astrophysics is eye-balling “not-space” out there in outer space, you’re foolish and not to be trusted.

I haven’t kept up with the the improvements in monitoring “not-space” (by which I mean to capture everything that is literally not empty space, like rocks and “processes” such as stars), but here is a short history, followed by a picture from a popular science book from the early 1900s on the topic.

Can you picture holding a small prism in such a way to cast a rainbow on the wall or floor? Good. Now please do the same with a second prism. Thank you. Now measure the difference between the two rainbows, as intricately and completely as possible. That is how “scientists” actually determine what the “not-space” is, how fast it is moving, and how far it is from us etc.

Here’s the example from a real astrophysicist.

This is from Sir James Jeans’ The Universe Around Us.

To be sure, no one is watching bright spots with their naked eye, videos of bright spots with their naked eye, looking through telescopes for a long time, or anything like that when determining anything about “not-space” in outer space.

Using Nebraska-Corn-Fed Boobies in 2025 and Beyond

This is mostly intended to entertain international readers who find themselves daily longing for Americana. But the wisdom herein is universal just the same.

I grew up in the suburbs of Kansas City, KS. Picture an endless, rolling sea of clothesline-less backyards in neighborhoods of single-family homes. Try and imagine that the size of the houses and yards grows proportionately to their distance from the city. Got it? Good. That should give you some idea of it.

Our perspective on girls was probably exactly that of any group of boys anywhere on earth. There were hot ones, “doable” ones, and ugly ones. Also similar to any group of boys, these designations were perfectly harmless as no boy was actually going to approach a girl, no matter her place on our assessment.

After highschool came college. I chose to go to a small, private college in a small town of the neighboring state of Missouri. This was the first time I heard the description “townie” as applied to the citizens of that small town. These townies were, as expected, totally different than us college kids. It was fascinating to me. Also fascinating was how the girl situation suddenly changed and its vocabulary too. It was here that kids from all the across the midwest and bread-belt of America gathered, mostly on-scholarship, and it was here that I first noticed, what I quickly learned were colloquially known to rural boys as, “Nebraska-corn-fed boobies”.

The concept at once made me chuckle. My mind was flooded with questions. Was such a thing really possible? If so, why did Nebraska’s corn, in particular, produce big boobs? Why had I not heard this before? How many other people knew? Why wasn’t Nebraska’s population booming? Was Nebraska’s population booming? What else about our world do I not know?!

Okay, hook over—expect a return of concept. But here comes the wisdom.

About two years ago, as I discussed the merits of homeschooling with my brother and his wife, I noticed something that I hadn’t before noticed. They continually shot down every benefit of homeschooling, while also agreeing that the weaknesses of public school I identified were real. Finally, and proudly, I said what I thought was the fairest thing I could, being, “Here’s the thing. You’re sniping everything I say, but you haven’t made one positive claim. I know what you’re against, now I want to hear what you are for.”

That was the last line and last conversation on the matter. I still have no idea what they would do with their kids, which, as should be expected, is moot because they don’t want kids anyhow.

The other day, Scott Jennings was doing his thing, the topic being the No Kings events. He said the exact same thing to his co-panelist. “Okay. But what are you for?”

This is very sad to me. It is sad because I believe we, those in the right, should be able to make a dent during conversations. If we can’t make a dent, then the new question and problem is, “Why even try?”

So when I listen to the current, only critical mind-set of the Left, I would say that it can be fairly summarized in some relevant sense by, “DJT is the source of all my problems.”

In my most empathetic attempt at understanding them, I say to myself, “Just give them this as a fact”. So I do.

I concede, not just for argument’s sake, that it is gospel truth that Donald J. Trump is the source of all their problems.

There.

I said it.

Truth be told, it wasn’t as hard as I expected.

Okay. What happens next?

Because while Trump is the source of all your problems, Donald J. Trump is not the source of all my problems.

And this is where “Nebraska-corn-fed boobies” re-enter the picture.

Like Archimedes, Newton, and Gauss before us, we have two sides of an equation in apparent inequality. Who among us can find the missing variable?

Symbolically, we can write [DJT➡️p] ~ [DJT,p] = 1.

Spelled out, “IF -Trump-THEN-I-have-problems is relationally equivalent to Trump-unrelated-to-problems EQUALS UNITY”.

Put plainly, how can one person, one man, simultaneously be and not be the source of problems?

I submit to you that the variable is Nebraska-corn.

Now, you might be tempted to generalize and say, “I think I see. You’re saying, Pete, that the variable is ‘internal’ to the person—nurture, though, not nature. Something like ‘the way someone is raised inescapably equips them for life, and these people for whom Trump is the source of their problems weren’t raised right’, correct?”

No, I mean Nebraska-corn. 😘

It’s Pilot vs. System, and I Hope Pilot

I try to make things simple for my mom (not because of anything other than her desire to cut through the crap) after any aircraft crashes—especially if they are of the kind of aircraft or type of flying that I do. As most of you would know, this simplified rationale was again needed due to some recent crashes out west.

My effort was, “As dark as it sounds, if you want to know my thoughts, I hope we learn that ‘pilot error’ was the cause. That’s far easier to live with than the idea that one day the helicopter is just going to kill me.” The reader can see in this dichotomy the split that every pilot learns from the start of pilot training. Crashes are either pilot error or mechanical. And 80% of crashes are pilot error according to the data. It also makes sense. And it also keeps aviation functioning. Why would anyone want to hop into or fly an aircraft that cannot perform its function reliably?

After chatting with a couple mechanics recently, I was reminded that they bear the heavy cross of “I sure hope it wasn’t mechanical”. This coheres with other offhand comments aircraft mechanics have uttered over my career, being, “That’s what I lose sleep over.” These mechanics do not want to find that some unfinished or inept work of theirs got people killed.

There is a sense which the pilot and mechanic can be said to be “of a kind” on crashes then. They (we) both want flawless aircraft and flawed (if only very infrequently) pilots. But this is not what I meant when I simplified things to my mom.

The reason for the post, the complex version of my thoughts on the matter, is as follows. It isn’t simply man vs. machine. Or even man and machine. It is man and system. Or man vs. system. I mean to draw out that if the aircraft had a mechanical problem which the pilot was unable to handle, the “problem” that now needs to be addressed is enormous and multi-tiered. It’s a question of quality of engineers, quality of materials, quality of parts, quality of QC, quality of maintenance program, quality of individual mechanic who performed the work, and quality of pilot who preflighted (which also includes his or her training and all of the people and processes involved there). Depending on the mechanical failure, there is also a possible new data set regarding deficient training for the pilot regarding Emergency Procedures. A, “I didn’t know what to do because we never saw that fail before.” So all that is what I mean by “system” in my “pilot vs. system” framing. This is to say, no, it’s not just “mechanical”. It’s actually a ding against the whole aviation system.

On the other hand, if the pilot caused the crash, then there is just one pilot who didn’t perform his simple task of perform the same number of landings as takeoffs. And that can happen to any pilot for a variety of reasons—though, being the best pilot ever (best of the best to be more clear), it naturally won’t happen to me.

In the end, the result is the same. I believe in the aviation system. And I believe that I should be the pilot which demonstrates how the system is truly remarkable. This is why, when considering pilot’s who crash have families and are possibly injuring passengers who have families etc, I can admit that it would *feel* good to attribute the crash to, essentially, “fate” or anyone else’s fault, the simple fact is and will always be that part of the motivation to be a pilot is the consequential nature of the job. If I didn’t believe in the system and my ability to lead it, I wouldn’t strap the aircraft on time and time again.

PS – Even the Huntington Beach one which YouTube seems to show was a pure part failure (‘system’ according to my point) can’t yet be chalked up to “system”. We do not yet know if the system failed or the pilot didn’t perform an adequate preflight and forms review etc.

“Thanks for Nothing, Idiots!” The Iowa Superintendent Headlines Have Some Super Embarrassing Conclusions That Aren’t Being Discussed

Charlie Kirk said college was a scam. This fraud in the great state of “Idiots-Out-Walking-Around” proves Kirk correct, at least among these derecho-blown-cornfield-surrounded morons, for two main reasons. Firstly, if a formally uneducated man can fake being educated—TO FORMALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE—then wtf are we even talking about? Formal education is a scam. In other words, I believe people could fake being a pilot to non-pilots, but people could not fake it amongst actual pilots. Even newbie student pilots who think the world of themselves are easily distinguishable from the real deal, to the real deal. Secondly, if formally educated people are willing to outsource their brainpower and pay others for things such as education level background checks, then wtf are we even talking about? Formal education is a scam. In other words, I believe in outsourcing tasks/work (this is fundamentally “division of labor” and absolutely essential to civilization). But there is a point at which, say, paying a surgeon to perform a surgery on me, only to learn that he merely pays another surgeon to perform said surgery on me, is disingenuous, if not stupid.

With me?

But wait! There’s more.

Now, thanks to the “I-Owe-the-World-an Apology” citizen-educators, every BIPOC employee has verifiable good reason to fear what they have always feared and what they have been told will always be the true nature of things: They are not respected by Whites. They are being handled with kid gloves by Whites. Whites are two-faced. They (back to BIPOC) are viewed as inferior by Whites. They are unequal—window dressing at best—in a White world.”

Truly, this situation’s tragedy is far greater than ICE or lawsuits can reveal. And all parties, especially those who immediately rallied around the fraud/criminal/illegal alien, should be ashamed of themselves and shamed by us to the degree it takes to right the orbit of the earth around the sun.

“Right Under Their Nose Rings”: LOL! Let’s Hope Bill Maher Just Became the Savior of Muslim Women.

Here’s the monologue, if interested.

In sum, Maher argues that the youth of the nation would spend their natural energy better if they called for the end of what he calls “Gender Apartheid”, but really is “Sex Apartheid”, that is, “Islam”.

Before he accomplishes this—and I cannot be more sincere in my hope that he does—he needs to address a simple fact which he did not mention in that monologue: Muslim women, en masse, are satisfied with their shitty lives.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not mean that all burqa’d women love life. I do not mean that I believe the majority would say that they are living their best life or some other Western, constant-self-evaluation BS. I mean that, like the poor, like the ignorant masses of humanity, especially considering access to the internet and books, these fully covered women have “outs” but do not seem to have the motivation or work ethic to take advantage of them. Again, I am not “blaming the victim.” Instead I am declaring that unlike racial apartheid, the so-called victims of sex apartheid haven’t indicated on any meaningful scale awareness that they are victims. In other words, I am leery of another Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan attempt at helping people who don’t know they need help.

In the end, if I could say one thing to Bill it would be this: “I wish you luck. More than luck, I want to record here that I thank you for your bravery and wish you safety and wisdom.”

Two, No, Three Claims I See As Inconsistent in This Moment

Firstly, the Left’s incessant claim than the Right are Nazi’s. On one (completely unrealistic) level, I can see the similarities. But even on that (totally irredeemable) level, what exactly is there to fear? We beat the Nazi’s. The Nazi’s lost. To my thinking it would be like claiming the Right were slaves-as-slaves, or the Indians, or Communists, or polygamists, or any other of the innumerable losers of history. But let’s run with it. Say, for argument, they are Nazi’s. What is there to fear? What has changed? Why will they “win” this time?

Secondly, everyone keeps saying that Charlie believed “that when the conversation stops, violence starts”. (Or similar.) But I haven’t heard anyone mention that this is, unfortunately, demonstrably untrue. I’m not asserting anything about Charlie’s overall character or positions, but I am saying that I won’t be repeating that claim as if it is founded upon reality.

Thirdly, for my entire life people have loved to talk about civil war. But no war is some unforecast meteorological event. By definition, the actual government will begin overtly planning an actual war. Until this overt government action begins (with real, illegal actions—not just “he’s not allowed to do that!” bad interpretations by paid hypster-pundits), I think it is more than safe to say, “Calm down, folks. It’s just life. It is probably time to take a break from screens for a week or so to cool down.” I, for one, am tired of this atmosphere of people star-gazing to find the next civil war. America is fine. The future is fine.

Finally Figured Out The Kirk Memorial

Like a mathematician, it finally hit me when I stopped thinking about it.

There’s a scene at the end of many sci-fi movies, Logan comes to mind as a standout, where we are shown a kind of intended-to-be-provocative indication that pre-pubescent children are willingly going to take on all the responsibilities classically assigned to adults.

These scenes always compel me to respond with, “It’s gonna be far more difficult and deadly than the hopefulness the Hollywood director betrays, buuuut I wouldn’t bet against life.”

This is exactly how I feel after sitting through that nearly six hour memorial service.

Wow. There were a lot of young speakers. That was remarkable to me. (Obviously.)

Three other thoughts (and one conclusion) I had include:

1. I couldn’t help but watch with an international perspective, especially the government speakers. I wouldn’t claim to have my finger on the pulse of Europe or Tommy Robinson etc, but I have to believe it would be difficult for any of the remaining Westerners in Europe to find a single fault in the entire proceeding. And if I was them, I would be thinking—right now—“America is with us. Now is the time to push ahead.”

2. I also couldn’t help but put on my “I’m a devout mohammedan” hat and try to decipher what these beautiful people were going off about. In that vein, the promotion of monogamy and the idea of responsible young men is where I would have been most bothered and intrigued. I mean, seriously, that I think, whatever the intentions of the various speakers (and whatever Kirk himself would have intended), I am a sucker for the idea that some challenges (“be a better/real man; it’s worth it”) cross all barriers and cause contemplation on the matter. What would a polygamist mohammedan have in retort? “Naw, dawg. Starting with our mommy, god gives his people many women to take care of us savages and the kids so we can play the oppressed victim and destroy beauty.”

Nope. They have no response because their Old Testament ways are barbaric and have been superseded for millennia.

So, I say, perhaps with too much hope, that some of them, obviously second generation that have lived among us for their entire heathen lives, were genuinely challenged and intrigued by the monogamy part of the speeches.

3. I also tried to watch with an “I’m Black and constantly affronted by every whitey who doesn’t say the words I want to hear (‘Free Kobe’ ‘Hands up, Don’t Shoot’ ‘Black Lives Matter’ etc)” hat. From this perspective, I thought the stage had too much red—definitely Neo-Nazi. The entire event was too white—this means it was a White Christian Nationalist rally (aka Lucifer in the flesh). “Of course they use Ben Carson”. And “sumpin’ ‘rong wid her eyez” while Erika spoke. In short, I would not have been impressed by any of it and I would not have felt welcomed by any of it. And I would not have been moved by any of it, even if Rubio, Kennedy, Hegsdeth, and Vance did share the same Gospel (in the same words) that my pastor has used on me.

****

My concluding thought is, “I felt it on 9/11. I felt it as I participated in OIF. I felt it years later at an evangelical seminary when the apologetics 501 class introduced me to the ‘kalam cosmological argument’, even admitting it was developed by mohammedan theologians. And I felt it while living up in Somalia/Minnesota. The singular and definitive conflict of our generation is Western Civilization vs Islam.”

F@&$ Iraq. F@&$ Afghanistan. F@&$ getting Bin Laden.

This memorial service was the first counterpunch.