You need to be consistent with the so-called “The Great Replacement”

You believe in the conspiracy “theory” in which there is an attempt to replace all white people AKA anyone of full European descents with non-white people, particularly non-white Muslims. You even dub it the white genocide.

No, white people are not on the brink extinction. Not only they are still the majority in Europe, their ancestral homeland, they are still very much present in other parts of the world. Australia, New Zealand and much of the Americas, especially North America. In fact, they still dominate the establishments in Australia, New Zealand and much of the Americas.

Unless there are evidences of white people all over the world being systematically massacred, displaced from their homelands, having their heritage sites regularly demolished and having their babies taken away from them and given to non-white families, there is no genocide. Your only evidence of the “white genocide” is the fact that non-white people are allowed to live and thrive in the west.

No, you are not concerned about being a victim of genocide. You are concerned about how whiteness is no longer seen as a strength and virtuous by default, how European-rooted cultures are no longer seen as the epitome of civilisations.

And that matters to you because you have spent your entire life believing your white European lineage – something which you have no control over – makes you an inherently superior being, because being white and European is your entire personality, because you are unable to see your non-white and/or non-European fellow human beings as fellow human beings.

It also shows how insecure you are. You love boasting about how mighty your western heritage is, how it is objectively the best in the entire history of mankind…. and yet, you also believe the mere existence of non-western cultures in the west is enough to threaten its existence.

So, which one is it, then? Is western heritage mighty or feeble? If it is mighty, then why can it be easily threatened by other heritages? Where is the mightiness you love hyping about it? I will come back to this later.

I also wonder, what’s wrong with being a minority, anyway? Surely, you don’t fear discrimination and bigotry considering you keep saying they don’t exist.

And that segues to what the title of this blogpost is referring to.

One thing I notice about some of you is your rejection of the racism accusation.

You insist you are not a proponent of white supremacy and your judgements of non-whites are not driven by hatred or any emotions; you believe you are just stating the objective facts.

….which is ridiculous in itself. If you are truly reasonable, you wouldn’t claim your judgment are 100% guaranteed objective, data-driven and not emotionally-driven, you wouldn’t claim you embody the perfect human. Because you try too hard to paint yourself as “rational”, you end up sounding the exact opposite.

And that so-called “rationality” of yours also extends to the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas and Australia, which you consider perfectly acceptable.

You claim it is not because you hate non-whites, but because it is just a matter of “survival of the fittest”. If the indigenous people lost their lands and heritage, then you believe they deserved it. You believe anyone deserve to be annihilated for being weak and what racial categories we belong to are irrelevant.

If that’s the case, then why are you opposed to the so-called white genocide?

Following your so-called “logic”, if the mere presence of non-whites in the west is more than enough to threaten the existence of white people, it proves that they fail they survival of the fittest test and it means they deserve to be “exterminated”.

Following your so-called “logic”, shouldn’t you accept that all genocides – including the ones against people like you – are a good thing? Why can’t you be consistent about this?

Rhetorical questions, obviously. You are just racist cunts.

I feel gross for typing those previous paragraphs because I don’t believe what I typed. I did so because I wanted to make a point.

Meanwhile, if you type the exact same words about certain “others”, you wouldn’t feel grossed out. In fact, I am certain it will excite you.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How social sciences and humanities make me appreciate STEM

For some time, I grew up loving STEM. I loved reading encyclopedias and I loved watching the documentaries. It felt like they were expanding my horizon, my imagination.

Then, I started hating STEM classes when I was about ten or eleven. I was put off by the rigid pedagogy. They were all about rote learning, memorising facts and formulas; they didn’t expand my imagination and certainly not my horizon.

They didn’t entirely put me off any STEM interests, as I still watched science documentaries, albeit with less passion. But, they did make me despise formal STEM education and changed my focus towards social sciences.

I enjoyed my sociology classes in high school because not only they didn’t have rigid pedagogy (relatively speaking), they also compelled me to read between the lines. I did major in sociology briefly in University of Indonesia before dropping out, because I hated the social environment.

Then, I chose to major in media and communication at Deakins University in Melbourne…. and my mind was blown.

The curriculum was quite all over the place; I learned not only the social aspects of the topics, but also the cultural, ethical and even metaphysical ones. It mixed both social sciences and humanities.

Unlike social sciences, which study observable human behaviours, humanities focus on the the abstract and non-biological things that underlie those behaviours. Because humanities are dependent on interpretations, they are very subjective.

But, just because they are subjective, that does not mean we can say anything we want. We still have to provide evidences.

If you believe a novelist is a bigot, you have to point out parts of their novels which depict women and/or minorities in dehumanising manners. Your feelings are not evidences. If the depictions are much more complicated than you previously thought, then you have to acknowledge the complexity as well.

I actually argue that because of the subjectivity, humanities are very challenging to learn. Unlike social sciences where quantitative evidences are an option, humanities have to rely entirely on qualitative ones. You have to convince people the intangible and immeasurable things you talk about actually exist and affect their lives.

Now, about the title…

Even back when I loved STEM education, I used to believe the disciplines were full of clear-cut knowledge. I notice many people also felt the same. Such belief was perpetuated even further by media headlines about the latest scientific discoveries.

Then, one day, those people and I started reading the research papers.

They found out the results were either inconclusive, impossible to dumb down, contradictory to each other or eventually deemed incorrect. Feeling like they had been duped for years, they started railing against “mainstream” STEM for its impotence in finding the truth… or worse, for being a tool of the elite to keep the masses “misinformed”.

On the other hand, I ended up appreciating STEM even more.

Despite being entirely driven by quantitative data (which many people believe to be clear cut), they are able to grasp the intricate greyness of life; they remind us that even our physically tangible universe is too complicated to be put in dumbed down explanations.

Most importantly, they always add corrections and more nuances to the existing knowledge, if the latest peer-reviewed data demand them to; changelessness is not an option.

And I have no issues comprehending that because of what social sciences and humanities taught me: the way to understand life is to not see it as a collection of black-and-white and static boxes, but to acknowledge and appreciate its grey, arbitrary and abstract nature.

I can easily transfer such mindset to STEM… minus the abstract part.

I don’t know how many people out there share this experience of mine.

Maybe they are more common than I am aware of. Maybe they are so rare, they barely exist.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

BS people believe about urbanists: an extension

This is not a continuation of the previous blog. This is an attempt to extend two of my points.

I want to extend one of them because of the recent fifteen minutes city controversy. As I have debunked it in another blogpost, I am not going to detail it here; I will focus on the projection instead.

.

.

Fourth, fifth and sixth projection part B: Propaganda and/or social engineering

You believe urbanists are nothing but victims of either propaganda or social engineering (I have heard people use either term). You genuinely believe we cannot form our urbanist beliefs on our own.

False.

Most, if not all, urbanists grew up in car-centric (sub)urban sprawls and some of us still live in such places. They are the reasons why we become staunch urbanists, because we end up craving places that are the exact opposites.

Yes, those urbanist content creators may not use impartial languages. But, they still provide citations for their arguments; they are not just mere pundits.

Now, how about you?

Most, if not all, of you grew up in car-centric urban sprawls and still live in them. Without ever living in a walkable, bike-friendly and transit-oriented city, you dismiss the possibility that you may enjoy living in one.

In fact, you believe dense urban environments are innately anti-humans and humans are biologically wired to seek lives in those North American-style suburbs…

… Despite the fact that, as a concept, city is as old as civilisations and is an inevitable byproduct of human advancements… while those North American-style suburbs are results of deliberate 21st century policy-making. If your claim has any factual basis, it would have been the other way around.

Don’t forget your reactions towards urban planning in general.

You are dismissive of what urbanist content creators have to say even though, as snarky as they can be, they are equipped with actual data… while you are only equipped with anecdotes and feelings.

It is so blatant who are the victims of propaganda and social engineering here.

Seventh projection part B: imprisonment

You believe fifteen minutes city is a project to turn cities into prison complexes where residents are prohibited from leaving their neighbourhoods without special permits and we urbanists are the complicit idiots.

False.

There are no evidences of any governments proposing such policies, especially in the name of urban planning. Literally none. Even North Korea doesn’t do that.

What places like Oxford are proposing include restriction of car movements and increasing walkability. What’s so prison-like about improving mobility for people who cannot drive?

And no, a policy that only targets car movements won’t lead to totalitarianism; slippery slope fallacy AKA your personal feeling is not an evidence.

But, do you know what is a prison? A car-centric city.

In such a place, it is next to impossible to go anywhere without cars. If you are too young and too old to drive or you have disability, your mobility is at the mercy of other people who drive. If none of them is available, you cannot go anywhere.

Cars are also expensive. If you are too poor to buy one, you are at the mercy of public transit; in a car-centric place, public transit is – more of than not – unreliable because the vehicles get stuck in traffic, the frequency is very infrequent and the routes are very limited and non-sensical.

If you are neither poor nor rich, you can own a car. But, the maintenance cost is still pricy and, considering the instability of oil prices, it may gets even pricier. Unless you genuinely love driving and don’t feel coerced to own one, the expenses would feel smothering.

Oh and don’t forget the traffic.

Believe it or not, cars cause congestions. The more roads have cars, the more congested they become. Building wider roads does not satisfy the demands, it actually induces them, as it compels even more people to drive.

Just take a look at any highways in the world. Virtually every single one of them has regular congestion issues. The 26-lane Katy Freeway is the widest in the world and yet, it still manages to be the most congested in the big ass state of Texas.

Car-centric urban design is also hostile to drivers by trapping them in regular traffic jams congestions. More walkable, transit-oriented and bike-friendly one, which provides alternatives to cars, actually liberates them by having lesser congestions, if at all.

Extremely limited mobility, the lack of options, financial burden, perpetual congestions. While they are not literal prisons, they are still problems that shackle us from living our lives more freely, caused by government-implemented car-centrism, provoked by lobbyists of the automotive industry.

Deep down, you know you are complicit by helping the spread of pro-car propaganda. That’s why you try to avert the negative attention from yourselves to urbanists, by accusing them of the things you are guilty of.

Either that or you are just virtue signaling.

You don’t actually care about any forms of oppressiveness. But, you do care about looking good or feeling good about yourself.

Hence why, instead of condemning actual cases of oppression (no matter how figurative and “mild” they are) with actual people denied of higher living standards….

You choose to speak out on a non-existent one, supported by nothing but probability fallacy, slippery slope fallacy and the words of pundits.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The fifteen minutes city conspiracy “theory” (and why you believe in it)

Fifteen minutes city is one in which every basic amenity is reachable by foot and/or bikes from your house within fifteen minutes. Cars optional.

While urbanist Carlos Moreno coined the term in 2016, the concept itself is as old as mankind.

Every city that was built prior the automobiles and -paraphrasing Jason from Not Just Bikes- didn’t get bulldozed for them is a fifteen minutes city. Even though they do suffer some level of car-dependency, many cities in Europe and East Asia still easily fall to this category. Basically, if you have lived in those regions, you almost definitely have lived in one.

Now, let’s talk about the conspiracy. Supposedly, it started because of what is happening in Oxford.

Apart from embracing a fifteen minutes vision, the city council also plans to heftily fine any drivers who drive into certain zones too many times. I don’t know if the fifteen minutes vision and drivers’ fine were intended as one package. But, I do know the controversy about the latter is overblown.

The fine is actually an extreme form of road congestion pricing and, like fifteen minutes city, it is also not a new concept. Singapore created it in 1975 and London has been implementing it since 2003; in fact, London’s charge zone is one of the biggest in the world.

Personally, I am not a fan of congestion pricing. If you want to tackle congestion, you need to prevent it from happening in the first place. You have to design the city in a way that most residents prefer walking, cycling and mass transit commuting over driving; you have to minimise the presence of cars. Prevention is better than cure.

But, tyrannical?

Congestion pricing only targets drivers. Non-drivers AKA pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit commuters can easily go to other neighbourhoods as many times as they desire without getting fined. Besides, you still can drive to any places you want, albeit with a higher price; literally no one and I mean NO ONE is forcing you to stay in your neighbourhoods forever.

To be honest, as infuriating as it is, I am not surprised by the blooming popularity of this conspiracy “theory”. Some people – including you – have misguided ideas of freedom, including one involving transportation.

You believe any kinds of restrictions – even the most reasonable and minor ones – are tyrannical. You are such absolutists with their idea of freedom, you think even constructive criticisms are censorship attempts.

When you have such extreme worldview regarding freedom, you believe in the slippery slope fallacy that every restriction leads to totalitarianism. In this case, you believe cars represent freedom of movement and any restrictions against them is the same as calculated efforts to imprison you within your own neighbourhoods.

Your extremeness also closes your minds.

Every time you watch urban planning Youtube videos, you are always dismissive of the content despite the cited studies showing the harms of car-dependency and the benefits of dense, walkable and transit-oriented urban developments.

You love twisting other people’s words. Even though most urbanists never propose a complete ban of cars on cities, you insist that they always do. Even though there are no evidences the Oxford city council want to confine people to their neighbourhoods, you insist that has always been the intention.

When I try dispelling misconceptions about fifteen minutes city, you insist your definition is the right one and the one I provide is wrong, even though a simple google search would show my definition (Carlos Moreno’s, to be exact) has existed for far longer than yours.

You – a gullible fuck who falls for an unproven conspiracy “theory” – also has the gall to call me a sheep, simply because I refuse to humour you.

You are extreme because you want the world to revolve around the needs of people like you, consequentially making your so-called championing of freedom hypocritical.

In the North American context, you support local governments mandating the existence of (sub)urban sprawls where cars are the only viable mode of transports… because you believe there is nothing freer than being forced to own and drive cars and being trapped in daily traffic jams and endless financial burdens.

In a more global context, you celebrate with glee every time a cyclist is killed on the roads; you believe anyone who dare to use roads other than for driving deserve to be executed. Freedom is only for those who surrender themselves to cars.

No, I am not being unfairly judgemental here. I have had my share of interacting with the likes of you. You are literally guilty of those things.

I want to assume nuances from your arguments. But, I always end up disappointed. The more I interact with you, the more I see how close-minded you are.

You are far worse than I expected.

It is just as frustrating as talking about religions.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What are you trying to achieve, conspiracy “theorists”?

Let’s not talk about your inability to provide evidences, your convenient excuses for it and your misuse of the word “theory” (even though I acknowledge that most people misuse it as well).

Let’s talk about how you try to paint yourselves not only as bearers of truth, but also the only beacon of morality. But, no one other than gullible people and your fellow “theorists” fall for it. We know damn well you never care about morality.

I’ll show you some examples.

You talk about chemtrails because you claim to be against the establishments poisoning the masses. But, you never said anything about factories and mines polluting the air, water and soil… and you never said about governments putting a blind eye and loosening environmental regulations.

You are against vaccines because you claim to be against greedy people pushing questionable or unproven medical products. But, you never said anything about the Sackler family – who caused the opioid crisis in America – and the snake oil salesmen.

You are a proud of supporter of Qanon because you claim to be against child sexual abuses, especially ones allegedly perpetrated by the so-called satanic liberal leftists. But, you never said anything about the cases involving clergymen and you ignore the fact that parents or anyone close to the children can also be sexual abusers.

You embrace conspiracy “theories” because you claim to be against the injustice and the establishments’ whitewashed narratives. But, you never said about the discriminations faced by women and minorities and schools feeding young children whitewashed history lessons.

My point is if you truly care about those causes, you would have done so long before you hear about those “theories”. You embrace them because you want everyone to see you standing on the highest pedestal, because you want to feel better than everyone else.

If you truly care about morality, your image, how good you feel about yourselves and winning the moral competition should be the last things on your mind. You should be concerned about how you actually treat your fellow human beings.

You may have successfully fooled gullible people, fellow conspiracy “theorists” and even yourselves.

But, some of us are able to see through your virtue signalling.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Dealing with conspiracy “theorists” is hard

Of course, it is! Everyone knows how exhausting it is to drag them back to earth. When I say “hard”, I am referring to something else.

Studies show we can change their minds by being empathetic. While I don’t have the means to question their validity, my own anecdotes have said something similar: even if you fail to change minds, your diplomacy can encourage people to consider your viewpoints and reconsider their own.

If the “theorists” simply believe in wacky beliefs, then I am willing to be kind towards them. I would not pander to their irrationality. But, I would try to not be a dick.

If the “theorists” believe in debunked medical misinformation and extremely bigoted conspiracies about the “others”, then I have a problem.

Those people are dangerous not because of their beliefs, but because they feel obliged to do something about them. They don’t see themselves as dangerous, they see themselves as truth-exposing heroes. Worse, they believe it is our moral obligations to incite violent against our fellow human beings and let them infected with preventable diseases because suffering from permanent bodily damages is better than being vaccinated.

And you expect us to believe we owe them compassion?

Until they have proven themselves to be decent human beings, the only thing they are worthy of is to be put in their places. Considering how horrible of human beings they are, I believe it is acceptable if the scolding turns verbally abusive. If ugliness is the only thing you can offer, then ugliness is the only thing you deserve.

Yes, I am willing to accept that niceness is the most effective way to go. But, its proponents should realise it is fucking easier said than done.

Oh, and I used to be one of those conspiracy “theorists”. While I certainly was not on a Qanon level, I was also on my way to religious zealotry, a destination which I never arrived at. If I did, I would definitely be on that level.

If I have the chance to go back in time, I would beat the shit out of my past self for many reasons and believing conspiracies is one. I would not empathise with him. It is humiliating to even reminisce that aspect of my past.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to deal with bigots and conspiracists

And anyone similar.

It is simple: shame the fuck out of them.

Once they have proven themselves to be impossible to reason with, then there is nothing we can do but to shame them.

Shame them to the point where they refuse to pass their values down to their children! Shame them to the point where they keep everything to themselves! Shame them to the point where they truly hate their own selves!

Never ever let them feel good about themselves!

No, this does not take away your freedom of speech; it does not mean we are entitled to freedom from consequences. If anything, if you truly believe in freedom of speech, you have to acknowledge that I have the right to shame anyone! It is what we called being consistent!

If you can tolerate incitement and falsehood, then there is no reason for you to not tolerate shaming, which is arguably way less harmful.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The real American power…

… Is actually soft.

I am referring to the concept of “soft power”, by the way. And no, I am not sorry for that shitty introduction.

I keep seeing and hearing comments made by zealously patriotic Americans about how their beloved country is respected by the world because of its hard power.

It is true to a certain extent. If you are one of those non-Americans who easily fall for American exceptionalism and who love jerking off to images of real life violence which America is responsible for while simultaneously getting unprotected, rough butt sex from America, you would drool over its hard power.

But, most non-Americans aren’t like that. When their governments do bow down to the US, they do so out of not wanting to get screwed on the world stage and NOT out of genuine respect.

Basically, projections of hard power, more of than not, are a form of bullying. Bullying with dire global consequences.

But, do you know what people all over the world love? American culture.

Experts of international relations have been arguing how affinity to foreign cultures will lead us to have more positive views of their countries of origin.

And because of my own life experiences (which I have to assert as entirely mine), this is something I am not surprised about.

Despite their constant criticism (bashing) of the USA, many of my fellow non-Americans (in this case, they are mostly Indonesians) can’t get themselves to wish literal death upon the country.

And they all have one thing in common: they openly enjoy American culture.

Apart from buying foods from American fast food restaurants and cafes, they go to cinemas mostly for Hollywood flicks, pay for cable TV to Hollywood TV shows and pay to attend concerts of American musicians.

How about the propaganda present in Hollywood films?

From what I notice, even some of the most dimwitted folks I know can easily acknowledge the propagandistic content of their sources of entertainment.

They know that they don’t easily fall for the infamously shameless American propaganda and they also feel Americans can entertain the world like no others. That’s why they are relatively unperturbed about it.

Me personally? A bulk of my favourite entertainers and artists are Americans; without them, I would have nothing but contempt for the United States of America.

Oh, and I should say ordinary Americans also contribute to their country’s positive image.

The last time I was surrounded by Americans, it was almost two decades ago when I visited the US as a young boy. I don’t remember interacting much with the locals.

But, if one sees the anecdotes posted by many non-Americans online, they frequently perceive the Americans as friendly, easy-going, open-minded, educated and charitable people and often seen as the antitheses of the US government (somewhat debatable).

The more negative anecdotes are often the results of interacting with the stereotypically jingoistic, war-mongering, fear-mongering, bubble-dwelling and proudly anti-intellectual Americans.

You know, Americans like Donald “Make America Great Again” Trump.

Americans who think their Godawful, alpha-wannabe attitudes will gain them genuine respect from the world.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Different types of Hasan Minhaj haters

Yes, I am going to talk about his haters before I talk about him because of two simple reasons: 1. I am not done analysing him; 2. His haters are annoyingly hilarious to behold.

Now, where do I start?

Well, so far, I can place them into three separate boxes: Pro-Duterte Filipinos, pro-Modi and anti-Modi Indians and anti-Zionists, some of whom may be Muslims.

Those Filipinos accuse him of trying to make their country look bad and India looks good in comparison. They also accuse him of trivialising the deaths caused by drug dealers and gang members.

Those Indians accuse him of being a Pakistani agent and an Islamic extremist apologist. The Modi detractors among them think he makes the BJP even more powerful.

Those anti-Zionists accuse him of not making an episode on Israel simply because he fears the pro-Israel US government.

Some of the anti-Zionists also think he hates his fellow Muslims because he has shat too many times on his fellow Muslims.

If you actually know him, you would know how stupid those accusations sound.

Those particular Filipinos probably think his Indian lineage proves his anti-Filipino and pro-India biases.

Not only it is racist, they also willfully ignore that he has talked more about India in his show than he has about the Philippines.

I also don’t know how they think “tarnishing” their country’s international image instantly makes India’s looks good. Unless you have lived in both countries, you would NEVER instinctively compare the two with each other. They neither share the same roots nor they are physically side by side. And they certainly are not major rivals.

He also has made episodes (plural) about sleazy pharmaceutical companies and the acts of violence committed around the world. He would be the last person to be apathetic about violent drug dealers.

Pro-Modi Indians consider the combination of his anti-Hindutva stances and his Islamic background as a sign of his tolerance of Islamic extremism… even though his very first episode is about Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter of Islamic extremism.

Anti-Modi Indians blame him for boosting BJP’s popularity right before the election… instead of actually blaming it on the Indians who are either supportive of the party or silent of the problems it poses. Blame the turds, NOT the ones who want to flush them away.

Some Indians (I don’t know if they are pro or anti-Modi) also accuse him of being a Pakistani agent…. and their only “solid” evidence is his green and white hoodie he wore in the Indian cricket episode.

That evidence is so ridiculous, I pray it is just a joke instead of an expression of sincere idiocy. Knowing humans, there is a high chance of it being sincere.

Anti-Zionists think his silence on Israel is a sign of his cowardly submission to the US government… ignoring that the US government is the government he condemns the most; even his Saudi Arabia episode includes condemnation of the US government.

It has been clear to me some of them are Muslims; they hate how he condemns his fellow Muslims a bit too often. Yes, he does shit on his fellow Muslims.

But, he condemns those who commit religious extremism, which is a fucking good thing to do and you have to be an asshole to believe otherwise. He is unlike those so-called “reformers” who willingly throw their fellow believers under the bus just for the sake of being “palatable” to western reactionaries.

If anything, he is all about empowerment as he often talks about American Muslims (and minorities in general) overcoming societal discriminations; his Netflix special heavily focused on this matter.

—-

Obviously, my categories are grossly simplistic and inadequate. If I even bother to scroll down the comment sections more, I would have more well-thought-out categorisation.

But still, I am surprised about the dearth of American right-wingers and Pro-Bolsonaro Brazilians on his videos’ comment sections.

It is surprising because he often condemns the policies proposed and enacted by the GOP (even though the Dems are not spared from his condemnation) and he has made a video about the Brazilian Amazonian people, who loath Bolsonaro; many anti-Bolsonaro videos on Youtube, including John Oliver’s, suffer from unfavourable like-dislike ratio.

This is not my first time witnessing a public figure’s detractors spewing accusations that are baseless and at odds with each other. But, this is the first time I am mindful of how pronounced the contradictions are.

The fallacies are more frequently used while the prejudice and the ideological zealotry are more shamelessly naked. His haters are followers of the global trend.

Even though I am not done with my “analysis” of him, I can confidently say one thing:

The fact that he has ruffled the feathers of many parties and causing them to react irrationally shows he has done a really great job.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to ‘feel’ powerful?

*puts on a mask*

Yes, I said ‘feel’. Let’s face it, you know you are not powerful and will never be so! You will always be a pathetic bottom dweller that the upper dwellers will feast on! That’s a sad fact you have to accept!

But, that doesn’t mean you cannot ‘feel’ powerful. You can induce the feeling by fooling others and yourself about your make-believe power. Of course, I am talking about being a bully.

Before becoming one, you have to choose your victims. It always depend on where you are.

When at schools, you can pick on students who are poor, physically unfit or just plain different. When you see yourself as a member of society at large, you can pick on the ones who belong to marginalised groups like women, the poor, racial minorities, religious minorities, gender and sexual minorities and refugees. Basically, choose ones who most likely will not be protected by the authorities.

After you have determined your potential victims, you can start bullying them. Immediately, you will feel like a much more powerful! And trust me, you would not be the only one who senses your actually-non-existing power.

Indifferent bystanders, bullying apologists and even your victims will acknowledge its existence. In fact, the more your victims’ powerlessness intensifies, the more they will acknowledge it!

Oh, and apologists are your best friends! Not only they will defend your right to bully because they don’t see anything wrong with the bullying, they will also condemn or even punish your victims for having the dignity to fight back! Trust me, those apologists tend to be influential wherever they are. Their words are often taken for granted.

But, even if you don’t have apologists to back you up, rhetoric can be your weapon. You can defend yourself by slandering your victims.

Tell everyone that the weird kids in school will grow up as serial killers!

Tell everyone that the gender and sexual minorities are perverts who want to molest our children and/ recruit them to their perverted lifestyles!

Tell everyone that the poor are the ones who hold the economies down because they are greedy animals who oppress the rich!

Tell everyone that empowering women and members of the minorities will lead to men and members of the majority becoming second-class citizens!

Tell everyone that refugees are nothing but a bunch of cowardly rapists and ISIS, MS13 Trojan horses!

Tell everyone that your victims, NOT you, are the ones who commit atrocious acts of inhumanity against their fellow human beings!

Trust me, there will be people who take your words for granted.

And yes, it is that easy to feel powerful.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.