Tagged: politics
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. 😘
Western Civilization vs. Blacks
Steven Crowder, bless his heart, put out a two-part barbershop conversation with the topic “Black and White on the Grey Issues”. That was his first mistake. It’s not “Black and White”. It is “Black and Western Civilization”.
The reason I insist on this is because there are too many “white-looking” people who are not in Western Civilization and too many “black-looking” people who are not Black.
It is an ongoing conflict, and it is the conflict of our day.
Crowder learned, and demonstrated to all who want to see, the same feeling any of us members of Western Civilization have felt when around Blacks: the realization that “there is no common ground.” One soldier in my recent Vietnam War readings said it best when he described that they (Vietnamese people) are not from a different country, they are “from a different planet.”
It is at precisely this point that Crowder and others need to improve their game. Get over the shock. Quit being shocked. There is nothing in Western Civilization which came easily, came without tremendous work. Nothing in Western Civilization was or is “intuitive”. One of the distinguishing marks of Western Civilization, one of the reasons its foundation is so strong, and its power so lasting, is the sheer effort it took to build it. I want to be sure not to say “will” because I am not talking “will power”, I am talking actual work. Will power might help me lose weight, help me not get angry enough to hurt people, and might help me finish college. But will power is not “work”. And Western Civilization (which I would consider the actual and only ‘civilization’—the rest of people are in chaos, and the entire population, Western Civilization included, is therefore in chaotic need of leadership vis-à-vis civilization) is the result of work.
The above is ground-level fact. It is the given. It is the axiom from which anything that follows is derived. And what follows is not the axiom. What follows is opinion. And my opinion is that conversations which merely highlight the seemingly different planetary origins of Westerners and Blacks are not work. To use wordplay, the reason I believe this is in my experience (to include listening to converts) these conversations do not work.
Work, in the meaning I am attempting to promote here, is not merely illustration or illumination or revelation that the given is given. Work is not some ‘raising awareness’ to the fact that there is no common ground.
What is this work, then? Well, according to the great tradition of the men who bestowed Western Civilization upon the occupants of Earth, work is the creation of common ground.
By way of example, take Western Civilization’s conception of the Universe as heliocentric. It wasn’t always so. But even in the beginning, Western Civilization was working to prove the Earth was the center and likewise to prove the regularity and order of stars and the moon etc. Furthermore, you can read the work for yourself—it is readily available. And due to this work—inaccurate as it proved to be—other members of the West looked around and allowed themselves the freedom to think, “Hmm. But that isn’t what I see.” And then the shift in understanding began. This is until Newton thought, “I want to measure rainbows.” Do you know how much work is required in measuring rainbows? I know you know because neither you, nor nearly anyone else, has ever done the work! But Western Civilization’s premiere member Isaac Newton did. And here we are, being slung around the Sun (at least until someone who wants to work even harder comes along and re-orients us). I could go on.
And yet, admittedly, this is where my wisdom peaks. I do not know how to create common ground. I have some ideas how not to create it, though. I mean, if gently pressed, I could teach how to create division. For example, it is assuredly not creating common ground to have no interactions with Blacks. But it is also not creating common ground, as I said, to have interactions or relationship with Blacks which hinge on the fact that we’re different from each other.
Most of you know that my efforts lie in church world. But I can imagine other avenues. The main thing, of course, is that before you attempt this “create common ground” lifestyle, you need to know with certainty into which group you fit. And, for today, my provocative send off is, I can tell you confidently that if you fear losing the conflict, then you are not in Western Civilization. (Don’t read this to indicate that I believe living without fear is the only or even the sufficient requirement for membership in the West. It merely is required.)
I’m sure I’ll have more to say later. Exciting times.
“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.”
One Set of Lyrics to Newsies’ “Carrying the Banner”
“We need a good assassination
We need an earthquake or a war
How ’bout a crooked politician?
Hey stupid, that ain’t news no more”
****
The young kids were taking so long to eat dinner that I three on this oldie but goodie soundtrack from childhood in the hopes of keeping my sanity.
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.
One Macro-Scale Reason Charlie Kirk Was Killed
Check this paragraph out. It is from Robert Shaplen’s New Yorker article “Life in Saigon: Spring 1972 We Have Always Survived”, April 15, 1972.
There is no need to complete the paragraph. You get the point.
This was 1972. This was the behavior of the “good guys”. This was conducted in essentially a third world, war torn country, without computers.
I don’t know about you, but I am astounded by the (new to me) information therein.
So I want to ask you: What do you want, my fellow Americans? Do you want to continue to feign outrage at the Left and its lunatic adherents and make wild claims about a coming civil war? Do you want to teach each other that there must be a response, even if it is simply at the polls? Do you want to appear totally shocked by the fact that someone who wasn’t a threat to anyone was assassinated? Do you want to task Tan’s special police to find the next lunatics?
What do you want?
I’ll tell you what I want. I want to be left alone. I want to have a private life. I want my thoughts about, my opinions about, and mostly my actions while living life on this third rock from the materials fusion process we call “the sun” to be officially unknown to any government entity.
Will you give me what I want?
Because of my desire for privacy, I am not particularly concerned about the Left and their lunatic adherents. Because of my desire for privacy, I am not particularly interested in pontificating about the meaning of assassinations. And I am not particularly surprised that harmless people are murdered.
In place of these concerns, I am particularly concerned that my kids grow up understanding that while there might be a way of life which tries to prevent assassinations (or keep the peace in general), that way will never be the way to live life. Practically, then, this means that I spend time preparing to teach them the history of the Vietnam War. Will you join me?
The Infrequently Discussed, But True (If Mean-Sounding), Reason For Some Blacks’ Inability to Understand the Context of Kirk’s “[Black Women] Do Not Have the Brain Processing Power” Claim
Faithful readers know (and should be able to predict) what this post is going to assert. To them, I say, “Thank you for paying attention.”
To the rest of you, please pay close attention.
We’re all watching with amazement as Black preachers lead the way in calling Charlie Kirk a racist. The particular phrase these men use to defend their claim is in my title.
Now, every good little literate “whitey” knows how to call up the full conversation/debate from which the phrase came and determine for themselves the context within which Kirk uttered his assessment. That’s step 1.
Step 2 for those of us who were pretty sure Kirk was not a racist, but have been wrong before and so wanted to check for ourselves, is felt utter confusion (not me, mind you) at how even our “black friends” are siding with these ignorant preachers instead of the plain meaning of the English language.
Here’s what is going on. There is no need to be confused.
Bluntly: Some Blacks (maybe most) still believe in incantation. Incantation, recall, is context free.
To flesh this out a bit, let’s review what incantation is all about. In short, the phrase “abra cadabra” (that we all know from some Disney movie we all watched years ago) is a phrase that we, as children, used to magically turn objects into other objects. Or the like. For us, it was a game. We usually had a wand or our finger cocked in a special way as we said it. “Abra cadabra, and POOF!, you’re unfrozen.” Sometimes it was in finding oneself holding what appeared as a wand which caused our utterance of the phrase. Like we’re in a gift shop, see a stick with a star at one end and suddenly are inspired to grab it and tap our unwitting friend on the head and say, “Abra Cadabra, you pay for Starbucks after we’re done here.”
What were we doing? We were playfully using what people in antiquity seriously used, that is, we were incanting. Even as children we knew it wasn’t merely the phrase but the specific sounds, the way we said the phrase, that mattered. In fact, this feature of incantation often explained why the change didn’t happen. “You didn’t say it right!” we would explain. Again, as children, we knew that you couldn’t achieve the intended result by an all business-like or all medical-assessment-like utterance of the phrase. No. It had to be said a certain way. Plainly, it had to be uttered intoned with belief.
The point here is that we (the confused, literate whites) don’t believe incantation works now that we’re adults.
But many Blacks, of all ages, do.
And that is how even your “black friends” do not budge when they are shown the full context of Kirk’s remarks.
For many Blacks, there is a distinct evil associated with such a phrase (“black women do not have the brain processing power”). The context doesn’t matter any more than it does for abra cadabra.
By way of another example, Shakespeare’s “Double, Double Toil and Trouble” comes to mind as something similar in Western culture. Did the witches’ prophecy actually cause MacBeth’s troubles? No. Now, it’s true that there was a coincidence, but this is merely a cerebrally fun feature of great storytelling. On the whole, though, while we servants of the West would never think twice about saying, “Double, Double, Toil and Trouble”, our Black neighbors (keep in mind they also don’t know Shakespeare—and this is not coincidence) believe there are certain things you just don’t say. Again, this is not because of the meaning’s of the words, it is because of an exceedingly old school (Old Testament and older) belief in how human speech works vis-à-vis the invisible world.
Please don’t let the NSFW part of my claim cause you to miss the actual significance of my claim. You are now no longer confused why many Blacks don’t care about context. But this clarity does not reveal the solution to the larger problem that still remains: Many Blacks don’t care about context.
What can be done?
I have no idea.
Let’s Chat About Power
X is filled with conspiracy theory lunatics. I didn’t realize how bad it (X) was until I recently got an account. The feeling I have while surfing it has been odd. I tell myself, “I just want to see what people are saying,” as if I was a social researcher. But I am not conducting research, there are no projects, no boundaries, and no method. It’s the complete opposite of social research—gossip.
Anyhow, one of the threads which I hate to share, but feel compelled to for illustrative purposes, is the claim that Israel somehow had a hand in the assassination. The clip often accompanying this claim is one where Kirk is on PBD podcast and uses the phrase “ethnic cleansing” to describe Israel’s goal in Gaza.
Does everyone remember the scene in Dark Knight where Morgan Freeman recounts the blackmail proposal to the accountant? Yeah, same thing here.
So let me get this straight. People want me to think that Podcaster/Conversant/“You Should Vote”-advocate extraordinaire Kirk has some opinion about how Israel’s government—the real one, not podcasters—has a plan to kill millions of people and yet this government is afraid of one person? By my thinking, if Kirk’s analysis was correct, then Israel’s government isn’t afraid of anyone or anything, including their own god.
In short, the sobering truth is Kirk (and his claims) threatened no one.
Captain’s Log 