Tagged: philosophy

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!”)

Jack White said, “Drop the Screens” nervously

Metallica’s 2009 Rock’n’roll induction ceremony was epic, and I am sure I could nitpick it. Since then, I have always enjoyed giving some attention to the ceremony. Jack White and Co. were inducted the other day. In his speech, he played it safe. This struck me as odd.

He encouraged the young artists to “drop the screens”.

Wow. Edgy.

Or not.

This causes me to wonder just what it is about some tier one Artists that they cannot recall that they were not handled with kid gloves, by life or other musicians?

If I had written Seven Nation Army, I would look around the room and say, “Thank you for being here. The honor is yours.

“Since Metallica’s induction in the HoF, the quality of inductee and their actual qualifications as ‘Rock’n’roll’ has only deteriorated. Disagree if you like. But you know I am right. You feel it in your bones. Rather, you don’t feel it in your bones. The younger generations are completely devoid of soul, totally out of touch with truth, and utterly unremarkable. They are dishonest, superficial, and technically deficient.”

(I could go on. And if I had written Seven Nation Army, I would slowly and gradually build the tempo and rhythm of the words into singsong.)

The point is, if I was being inducted after having truly “done it my way”, I would give a “my way” speech that would be worthy of study by white nationalist kids at Hillsdale and might, just might, inspire some kid somewhere to make rock’n’roll again.

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.

Everyone Who “Knew This Would Happen”…

…now owes the rest of people, those without the gift of foresight, what happens next.

Predicting moohammedans’ boom in America is now merely part of history. There is no rhetorical power in claiming, “I told you so.” The rhetorical power now in great demand is, “What happens next, Oh, Great, Divinely-Touched, and Accurate Doom-Foreteller?”

This isn’t a “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine” taunt.

My foresight says two, and only two, options remain available.

  1. Insufferable mediocrity until America is a caliphate.
  2. Actual religious war, which results in everyone losing, except “hope”.

How’s that for Negative Nancy, on this Happy Hump Day?

The Final Paragraph of 11th Edition Encyclopedia Britannica’s Entry “Gunpowder Plot”

(For purists, this is also the infamous 10th Edition’s entry; the 11th is the 10th with three extra volumes.)

Just now I was catching up on my CBS Psalms study from last week, where I date the Psalms as I read them—a new habit to illustrate to myself and others how much of the Bible is actually ever read—when I saw the date and mechanically uttered V for Vendetta’s, “Remember, remember the fifth of November.”

I then moved to teach my 3 yr old, J-, the poem. During this, my conscience showed its face and I thought, “What even was the big deal? And was it successful or not? And did V really like the plot?” Etc.

Here’s the aforementioned conclusion (keep in mind the “Brit” of “Britannica” were the victims of the plot).

So ended the strange and famous capital Gunpowder Plot. However, atrocious its conception and its aims, it is impossible not to feel, together with horror for the deed, some pity and admiration for the guilty persons who took part in it. “Theirs was a crime which it would never have entered into the heart of any man to commit who was not raised above the lowness of the ordinary criminal.” They sinned not against the light but in the dark. They erred from ignorance, from a perverted moral sense rather than from any mean or selfish motive, and exhibited extraordinary courage and self-sacrifice in the pursuit of what seemed to them the cause of God and of their country. Their punishment was terrible. Not only had they risked and lost all in the attempt and drawn upon themselves the frightful vengeance of the state, but they saw themselves the means of injuring irretrievably the cause for which they felt such devotion. Nothing could have been more disastrous to the cause of the Roman Catholics than their crime. The laws against them were immediately increased in severity, and the gradual advance towards religious toleration was put back for centuries. In addition a new, increased and long-enduring hostility was aroused in the country against the adherents of the old faith, not unnatural in the circumstances, but unjust and undiscriminating, because while some of the Jesuits were no doubt implicated, the secular priests and Roman Catholic laity as a whole had taken no part in the conspiracy. (Philip Chesney York, an Oxford man.)

****

A post-script for my dad who says he struggles to connect what I see as the “obvious” connection within my posts.

Beyond the bald facts (as presented here), the following questions remains, “What particular training did the Britannica author have which allowed him to make his claim? Was it secular? Or support of some branch of Christianity? And how does the Bible study I am engaged in influence me? Towards sinning ‘against the light” or “in the dark’? By what measure can that be answered?”

For me, the true “Christianity” prevails. “Nothing could have been more disastrous to the cause of the Roman Catholics than their crime,” being the key notion. Fighting may be part of the road to prevailing. But if the fighting causes Christianity to lose, the sin was designed in the dark.

“Low IQ”, Review of “House of Dynamite, by ZDT Chick

Who can forget Hurt Locker? And I have commented elsewhere that Zero Dark Thirty is genuinely remarkable. It’s not a secret that I generally despise movies made by streamers, but for these two portfolio-ck reasons, I held out hope that House of Dynamite would be excellent.

To be sure, it passes the time. That’s the main requirement I have for movies these days. And it succeeds in passing the time divertingly. I’m actually surprised how late it got without me noticing.

But in the time that passed between when the project started to the time it was released, we have seen a tremendous shift in the decisiveness of American leadership at the top. So the whole movie feels less than excellent.

There is a fairly viral video of candidate Trump, and his team at the time, watching the DNC Harris speech together, wherein we got to see an intimate portrait of these people at work. If you haven’t watched it, here’s a link to one dude’s clip of it.

The overall point is, politics aside, the man running the show is decisive. Sure, TACO is a real criticism on some level, but it’s difficult to measure because it is reasonable that many TACO events are only TACO-narrative-feeders if the timeline is the incorrect length. Not to mention, TACO is more about matching talk to walk, not walk as opposed to stay still. Or “paralysis by analysis” as some pilots would say.

For this movie review’s point, which is inescapably a review of the concept of reacting to a nuclear attack on America, President Trump and his team—again, regardless of the politics—will be decisive and with a speed that impresses even “high functioning” people. This belief was actually comforting during the film.

In short, while Bigelow’s movie intends on illustrating that Earth truly is a house of dynamite—the description is not merely a metaphor—it fails. This is because the leaders—metaphorical fathers?—in the film are portrayed as “indecisive and low IQ”. (Except the interrogator guy from ZDT. He gets my vote for who should be in charge.)

Put another way, could someone please make a movie based on the exact same scenario, but show how it would play out when decisive leaders are in charge? That version would be far more interesting to see. And it would naturally offer an actual answer to the still-compelling question, “Do we live in a house of dynamite?”

“I Can Fly. I’m a Pilot” Movie Review of F1, Starring Not Tom Cruise

So Brad Pitt really wishes he was Tom Cruise? Is that what we’re to understand?

He explains that there are exceptional moments during a race, which in fact drive him to race beyond all barriers, when he “feels like he is flying”.

And apparently this is supposed to be confusing to everyone else in the racing business, who is only motivated by money.

Ridiculous.

And what’s more, I can happily report that flying feels nothing like what he describes—something he has no reason to not know, given he flies on planes all the time and has surely asked his pilots.

As I pilot, I can tell you the main two reasons “feels like flying” does not in fact feel like flying, are, “human vision isn’t bird-like,” and “there are others flying through the air too”.

Please indulge me as I re-write the script.

****

“Then why do you do it?” she asks.

“My dad was a mechanic. He gambled. He got me into racing. When I’m out there,” Pitt pauses, eyes impossibly seeing triply turn 4, the entire track, and the Redeemer God, Jesus, at once, “when I’m out there, on the track- it’s a controlled environment. There is no oncoming traffic, no intersections, no work, no family, no teachers, no law, no disease, no death, no surprises. Or at least that’s how it feels ehhhhhhvery once in a while. And ehhhhhvery once in a while, I am in complete control of this shitbox we call ‘life’. Those moments of life?” here, another perfect Pitt pause, his eyes being led by his soul over to her eyes where they stop, as it were, in victory lane before continuing, “They’re my favorite.”

Democrats Need A Hunger Strike

During these best and worst of times, I’ve been reading Life of George Washington by Washington Irving in Three Volumes, Vol. 1. I’m near the end, having just finished chapter XXXIV of XLII. Like any Gen X or older lay readers, I have most of the broad strokes down, but have been pleasantly surprised to learn more details about our nation’s founder and founding.

Of particular note in the last chapter were Washington’s new roles both within the American colonies and between the colonies and England. For example, in extant letters, we read that GW himself maintained the logic that there needn’t be more (second, third, fourth etc.) appeals for relief to the King, as “from our sovereign there can be but one appeal.” (Plain meaning: one monarchical rejection means war, assuming there exists the will to achieve the appeal’s purpose.)

Moreover, I found the following description of the colonists resolve concerning their boycott of British goods rather provocative, “The rich were growing poor, and the poor were without employ; yet the spirit of the people was unbroken.” Actually making sacrifices to achieve political ends seems confined to some romantic past, no?

Always a fan of the underdog (I truly believe people should declare what they want and work to obtain it), I can’t help but see in this observation of sacrifice a path forward for Democrats. The “given” of what I am here proposing is that Democrats are city-folk, and MAGA is rural. (Or at least that is what the map shows.) Furthermore, rural means food-producers, and city means food-consumers.

Do Democrats truly want to make a dent against MAGA as social meeja would have us believe? Then I say Democrats need a hunger strike. Bring rural MAGA and their orange-Jesus savior to their knees! Make MAGA’s grain silos reek with the odor of unwanted produce! Wrap MAGA in the stench that guns and bibles cannot release! Democrats, now is your time! The path is proven! The choice is clear! Hunger Strike! Hunger Strike! Hunger Strike!

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. 😘