Normalising brutality….. because of war

You have heard all of the comments defending Israeli government.

It is either the nonsensical self-defense argument, even though IDF clearly targets unarmed civilians and aid workers, or the belief that all Palestinians are animals who deserved to be wiped out from the face to earth. Yadda yadda yadda, they are disturbing as they are old and predictable.

On some occasions, people defend the brutality because they believe it is a wartime necessity, something which we won’t understand if we have never endured wars ourselves.

Now, for the sake of the argument, I am going to pretend there is no genocide and what is happening between Israel and Palestine is indeed a war, an armed conflict in which both sides are on an equal plane.

The argument still doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it makes zionists sound even more disturbed.

For mentally sound minds, the violent and dehumanising effects of armed conflicts genuinely terrify us; they compel us to avoid armed conflicts as much as possible, to not escalate already-existing conflicts.

But, not to those particular zionists. They think those tendencies should be justifiable in a wartime, as if they are already normal inside their heads.

They insinuate a wartime is a perfectly acceptable living condition, a living condition equals to peacetime. They insinuate hating on wars is the same as hating people for loving pineapple pizza. For them, it is just a matter of trivial differences.

No, I am not reaching with my observation.

Understanding why people behave the way they do is one thing. Supporting them is another.

If it is truly about understanding them, you would objectively enunciate the explanations, without trying to put a positive spin or argue for the moral necessity. You wouldn’t side with those bloodthirsty warmongers. You wouldn’t take offense when they get themselves rightfully condemned.

I shouldn’t be surprised by this. As a group, zionists – especially the non-Israeli ones – often overlap with neoconservatives. Ones I have interacted with are supportive of America’s violent and warmongering foreign policies.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What does the BDS movement reveal about Muslim-majority countries?

As I am not one of those Muslims who dream of becoming western establishments’ lapdogs, I don’t see it as a manifestation of anti-Semitism. And yes, I am also one of those people who don’t see anti-Zionism as inherently anti-Semitic. It is not whether you hate Israel or not, it is about why you hate Israel.

Of course, it is not to say the boycott movement is problem-free

I am from Indonesia. Even though it is a growing economy, we are still dependent on foreign corporations and it becomes more obvious when the movement started heating up.

Indonesia has definitely lots of foreign products; Wall’s ice cream, Dove and Sunsilk are among the examples. But, I am surprised there are also Indonesian products which are already acquired by foreign companies (Bango sweet soy sauce and Buavita fruit drinks are now owned by Unilever) and products which I mistakenly thought as Indonesian (I didn’t know Blueband margarine was Dutch and I didn’t realise Royco’s graphic design was the exact same as Knorr’s).

I don’t know about the rest of the Muslim world. But, I do know coke, western restaurant chains and luxury western car brands are also popular elsewhere.

As I am not one of those “might is right” weirdos, I don’t see the global dominance of pro-Israel western establishments as a proof of Israel’s moral rightness.

But, it is a sombre reminder of how Muslim-majority countries have some major weaknesses (you know, apart from the elephant in the room that is Islamic extremism): we are not as economically competitive as the west and we don’t take pride in consuming local products.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the solutions.

I don’t know how to make my fellow countrymen take more pride in local products. I don’t know how to make my country more economically competitive.

I certainly don’t how to be economically competitive and environmentally, culturally and socially sustainable* at the same time. Heck, I am not even sure they can go hand in hand.

Okay, I am overthinking it.

My point is the boycott movement should be a wake-up call for all of us.

If we want to be free from other countries’ control, we have to be economically independent** as well. No matter how collectively idealistic we are, no matter how hard it is to buy our minds and hearts, our economic independence means we still give profits to foreign entities, constantly fattening the wallets of pro-Israel western establishments.

.

.

*The more industrial an economy is, the more it emits C02 and consumes natural resources (even though it is not to say poorer countries are green). When I say social and cultural sustainability, I am referring to equality and commercialisation, respectively; is it possible for a highly-developed economy to maintain relatively low income inequality and commodification of cultures?

**When I say economically independent, I am not talking about banning imports and implementing restrictive protectionism. I am talking how our local products are so high quality, affordable and prestigious, we choose to consume them even when foreign options are readily available.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

LGBT rights AND economic stability

I am certain some of you have seen the video: a conservative content creator asked a random stranger whether he would choose LGBT rights or economic stability…. and not falling for the trap, the stranger answers both, much to the content creator’s frustration. It is so intellectually dishonest that even some fellow conservatives in his Youtube comment section called him out.

And I am certain some of you have encountered this false dilemma before. I certainly have multiple times.

I am also suspicious about virtue signalling. Do some of the people who push this so-called dilemma actually care about the economy? Or do they peddle it simply because they are staunchly opposed to LGBT rights and they want them to “look unimportant” in comparison?

People also have different ideas of what a good economy is. For me, a good economy is one where small businesses and labourers can also economically thrive.

I acknowledge some conservatives do share my idea of a good economy. But, I also know other conservatives (and, let’s face it, some liberals as well; no, I won’t let them off the hook) who measure the strength of an economy solely based on how well big businesses and their wealthy shareholders do.

Some people also believe a good economy is one where it is easy to be rich; they don’t care about some citizens left to rot in poverty, as long as the rest are loaded.

Those who peddle the “dilemma” argue everyone – including LGBT people – must prioritise the economy over equal rights because the former supposedly benefits all of us. But, the fact that inequality and corporate greed are not universal deal breakers, it is clear some people’s idea of a “good economy” is not about benefitting everyone.

It should also be noted that economic prosperity and LGBT rights intertwine with each other.

Let’s just say your country’s economy is booming right now, which also happens to lack legal protections for queer minorities. What happens if you are queer yourself?

Well, unless you are influential, have your own business and/or are self-employed, you are at the mercy of your employers. They can reject your job applications, deprive you of promotions and fire you solely because you are queer…. and because they are legally allowed to, there is nothing you can do about it.

What’s the point of living surrounded by prosperity when you are denied the right to enjoy it?

In fact, even in 2020’s America, queerness is still a contributing factor to one’s chance of being impoverished. While not the only factor, it is definitely still a factor.

It applies to all kinds of marginalised people whose rights are not guaranteed or worse, are intentionally restricted by the laws.

So yes, I am for both good economy and equal rights.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Zionists’ virtue signalling

I acknowledge there are anti-zionists who love to blame all Jews for the actions of Israeli government and who think Hitler was right. Their anti-semitism is very blatant, they never bother to be subtle about it.

And yet, zionists love to ignore them.

Every time they throw anti-semitism accusations, they never target those people. They prefer to target anti-zionists who chant things like ”Free Palestine”.

Now, I do believe we must be able to read between the lines. Sometimes, words do have extra or opposite meanings, depending on the contexts. But, those zionists have no ground to stand on.

If there is something to read between the lines, then you have to prove it exists; you have to prove those pro-Palestine chanters have also insinuated that all Jews are evil.

Obviously, that’s not the case here. They are called anti-semitic….. simply because they have the gall to condemn Israel and humanise Palestinians. In fact, the zionists even attack anti-zionist Jews, including Holocaust survivors and their children, for supposedly being self-hating Jews.

Those zionists can be infuriating with their slanders. But, the fact that they ignore actual bigots and choose to attack people who may or may not be bigoted…. it is bewildering.

Actually, no. I take my words back. There is nothing bewildering about it.

Those zionists never care about anti-semitism. They are virtue-signaling.

Those non-Jewish zionists don’t care about the well-being of their Jewish brothers and sisters, they only care about simping for their favourite foreign country. They are comparable to weeaboos and koreaboos who think Japan and Korea are the perfect countries that can do no wrong, respectively; the main difference is they are more blood-thirsty, more genocidal, than the other two.

As someone who is not Jewish, I understand why a Jewish person would have an emotional attachment Israel, the only country where they would not endure anti-semitic discrimination and violence.

But, at the same time, there is difference between empowerment and identity politics. The former does not require you to put others beneath you. The latter does require you to do that; you need to perceive your identities as the only ones worthy of protection, worthy fighting for.

Some of those zionists Jews embrace the latter. They don’t care about creating a safe haven for fellow Jews and even themselves, they want the power to be discriminatory and even violent against certain “others” (e.g. Arabs and/or Muslims)… and the existence of Israeli government gives them the catharsis.

Those particular zionists were also silent about the anti-semitism of the alt-right and Qanon movements….. and they also love Donald Trump, a pro-Israel political figure who literally got open endorsements from the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

With all of those facts combined, it is hard for me to not see them as psychotic virtue signalers who hide under the guise of Jewish empowerment and acceptance.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Minding our own businesses and the hypocrisy of zionists

Pro-Palestine people are often criticised for spending too much time minding other countries while ignoring problems within their own turfs. Unfortunately, there is truth in the criticism.

Yes, some of us – especially my fellow Muslims – are like that. We care too much about issues happening in faraway lands involving people we have never met while ignoring issues in our own homelands. It is also hypocritical how many Muslims love condemning Israel while staying silent about atrocities committed by fellow believers.

But, at the same time, the criticism can also be dishonest.

When expressed by people who are apathetic about international issues, I am fine with it. But, when expressed by non-Israeli zionists, it is just laughably hypocritical.

It doesn’t matter if you see Israel – a place you didn’t grow up in – as an extension of your home country, it is still a foreign country! Yes, your talk about supporting Israel shows you are guilty of the same thing you criticise pro-Palestine people for!

To make it more laughably hypocritical, you have spent many years “playing warriors” about problems happening overseas. You were the ones who advocated the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, at the expense of destabilising the already-unstable region even further. You couldn’t care less about helping the ordinary citizens, you only care about the delusion of playing heroes.

To make it even more laughably hypocritical, you get extremely defensive every time foreigners – especially non-western ones – dare to point out your countries’ weaknesses. Instead of correcting the inaccuracies or adding some nuances, you – without any sense of self-awareness – tell them to mind their own countries’ businesses.

Your fellow zionists may fawn over your so-called “definitive rebuttal” against pro-Palestine sentiment. But, everyone else can see through it.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“They live rent-free in your heads!”

There are times when supporters of certain politicians love to mock the detractors as obsessive haters who let those politicians living rent-free in their heads. It is interesting they choose such mockery because it doesn’t discredit us, the haters, it only discredit them, the supporters.

It shows how they know nothing about how life works.

Here’s the thing about the life: it is all about interconnectedness and nothing lives in a vacuum. You influence other people’s lives and they influence yours; depending on your statuses, there may be power imbalances.

If you are a public figure, whether it is intentional or not, you will always exert influences to the masses. Being one means there will always be people who look up to you as sources of inspirations.

If you are a politician, you exert even more influences. Not only you can establish the unwritten rules, you can also establish the written ones.

Unlike the unwritten ones, the written rules are official and the existence of the alternatives are strictly prohibited; unless you are wealthy, powerful and/or well-connected, you can never evade them.

Basically, not only “letting politicians live-rent free in our heads” is very much reasonable, using that insult is an admission of what kind person you are: a personality so childish, you still think politics is just a harmless and fun game.

If that is not the case, you insinuate your idols’ ability to exert influences is almost non-existent, to the point where they are just as influential as Z-list celebrities, if not less.

You insinuate they are nobodies, too irrelevant to have “haters”.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

People who love hardship

I am thinking two specific types of people: those who think everyone should suffer as they did and those who romanticise hardship.

Let’s start with the former.

From what I observe on a global context, this kind of people include older people who complain about how the younger ones having easier lives in some aspects. If you are familiar with America’s domestic affairs, these people also include opponents of student debt relief; they argue it is unfair for people who gained their higher education through inhumanely long work hours and military enlistment.

And it is obvious they are driven by malice.

I mean, if you are truly a decent human being, you would never wish the pain upon anyone and, instead of gleefully passing it down to the future generations, you would actually try your best to prevent it from occurring ever again.

‘Interestingly’, their outrage is also very selective. Those particular older people never complain about other older people who are ‘spoiled’ and have never endured hardship in their lives. The debt relief opponents only target student debt and they are deafeningly silent about corporate subsidies and billionaires’ tax breaks. They only punch down, which makes them sound even more malicious.

They are basically a bunch of cunts. Either that or they are just too cowardly to punch up or sideways.

Now, about the second type of people.

They believe hardship is inherently good as it supposedly can gives us valuable life lessons. I agree to an extent.

Yes, hardship can compel us to be more appreciative of the little things in life and more resilient in facing adversity. But, believe it or not, you can also achieve appreciativeness and resilience without it.

You can be more appreciative by remembering how fortunate you are compared to some people. You can be resilient by regularly challenging yourself and not spoiling yourself 24/7.

Even then, we should also be careful with how we perceive both things.

It is one thing to be appreciative of the little things, it is another to be a doormat. Demanding humane and dignified treatment is different from being a whiny little bitch.

There is also a difference between resilience, numbness and repression. Resilience is – to put it very VERY simplistically – our ability to acknowledge our negative emotions without letting them taking over our lives.

Numbness is a condition in which we don’t experience any emotions when faced with adversities; it is a bad thing because those things have become normalised to us, even though they shouldn’t be.

Being emotionally repressed means you bottle your emotions instead of acknowledging their existence; if you keep bottling them, they will explode.

Don’t forget that hardship can also causes trauma. A trauma – again, to put it VERY simplistically – involves abnormal surges of negative emotions when we encounter/remember certain things and/or abnormal aversion to certain things.

But, even if I dismiss what I just said above and unquestioningly believe in the benefits, then what?

Yes, you now have greater sense of appreciation and resilience. But, they won’t improve your access to quality education and healthcare, they won’t improve your working conditions and socioeconomic backgrounds and they certainly won’t erase the discriminations you face. Hard work doesn’t always pay off: you still need luck, which includes being born to privileges and the system being supportive of you.

As important as those two traits are, they won’t improve your quality of life.

Infuriatingly, the people who romanticise hardship are either those who have never experienced it OR those who have and are clouded by survivorship bias. They reject the belief that their successes involve factors beyond their control, that luck is involved; for them, the acknowledgement invalidates their hard work.

While rare, I also notice people who genuinely believe hardship is the meaning of life. They believe humans’ innate goal is to make our lives as uncomfortable and inconvenient as possible. For them, hardship is a value, a personality trait.

Slightly tangential:

In my personal life, I know a few people who romanticise poverty. They genuinely believe impoverished people are always joyful; one person even confidently claimed – with no evidences – that they never experience horrible diseases like cancer.

And I do wonder if they overlap between them and the aforementioned people.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The (possible) existential and spiritual dread of flag-wavers

I haven’t watched any of the Top Gun films and I have no interest to. Before the Oscars, I kept encountering netizens who slobbered over the latest installment. Unsurprisingly, some of them genuinely thought it was a cinematic masterpiece and others loved it because it embodies American pride.

Among the latter, one of them said Americans cannot afford to not be patriotic and nationalistic…. because they only have one country.

I have been frustrated by patriotic and nationalistic rhetoric, regardless of the countries. But, this is the first time I was truly taken aback by it.

Obviously, “only having one country” is BS.

You may be born to an international couple and/or grew up in multiple countries. Considering the upbringing, you may inevitably have emotional attachments to more than one countries (despite only having one citizenship on paper). With the latter specifically (excluding military brats), it is very likely you may not be emotionally attached to any countries; you don’t know how it feels to truly have a “home country”.

You may also end up relocating to other another country either as an economic migrant, a refugee or someone who just wants to explore the world. You may end up living there for good and even becoming a citizen; depending on the politics, you either become a dual citizen or renunciate your old citizenship.

Yes, what I just described are not experienced by the majority of mankind. But, they are still actual experiences that scores of actual humans have lived through. While your possibility of experiencing them is low, it is never zero percent.

I was taken aback by that particular rhetoric because even other flag-wavers I have met never sound that narrow-minded. I am not sure if I should take that person’s words figuratively or literally; life experiences tell me I should never underestimate the limit of human stupidity and ignorance.

But, even if it is meant to be figurative, it still reeks existential and spiritual dread.

In a way, you see your country as mankind’s default. Other countries? They are not real. They are devil’s tools to lure you from loving yours.

You believe loving your country – yours only – is the universal meaning of life. For you, not doing so is not only against human nature, it also threatens the entirety of our existence, as if a divine entity will smite us for it.

You believe those traitors do not simply betray your beloved country, they betray mankind.

Obviously, I may be reading too much into it; that person’s remark may be hyperbolic. But, I still cannot help feeling bewildered by it.

And I am certain a handful of you share my sentiment.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Opposing books’ rewriting for the right reasons

Yes, there is a wrong reason to oppose it.

If you oppose it because you can only be entertained by dehumanising stereotypes and depictions of problematic behaviours, your opposition is definitely for the wrong reason and you need to grow the fuck up.

I do believe there are good reasons to oppose it. Four to be exact.

Obviously, the first reason is free speech. As long as the speeches do not contain explicit incitement, then they shouldn’t be restricted. Banning opinions simply for being offensive can lead to a dangerous slippery slope; it can be used to silence any kinds of dissents, as one can argue they are inherently offensive.

The second reason is related to the first. Another good thing about bigots expressing themselves is they make themselves identifiable; we don’t have to worry about wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The third reason is media literacy. You can use this opportunity to instill imperviousness into the minds of young children. Teach them that they shouldn’t thoughtlessly imitate behaviours simply because their favourite characters do them.

And the fourth reason is…. well…. some people may consider very “woke”: not rewriting books means we still have evidences of bigotry’s existence.

We know those people: the kind who think bigotry no longer exists or never exists in the first place. Nothing can convince them otherwise, not even the Neo-Nazis who openly and proudly expressing themselves on the streets.

Now imagine if all of those books are being re-written. Never mind those aforementioned rose-tinted glasses wearers, even more reasonable people won’t be convinced.

Obviously, we can learn from proper history education. But, not everyone has access to it and you cannot force people to have interest in history. So, for many, the media – including classic novels – is their main and probably only connection with the past.

If the readers are truly open-minded and morally upright, they would consume those books and get scandalised by the fact that bigotry was far more accepted and espoused in the past. If they are cerebral enough, they would realise our present is influenced by the past, acknowledging that we may be surrounded by the “invisible” remnants of its bigotry.

How can we achieve those goals when the re-writing wipes out all of the evidences?

If anything, it actually benefits the “anti-woke” crowd the most. I mean, they hate talking about bigotry and they hate being reminded of its existence. They would be exhilarated by evidence tampering.

Yes, those particular readers do not represent the majority. But, the less we have socially and historically conscious people, the more the”anti-woke brigade” rejoice.

In fact, I have a conspiracy “theory”: the re-writing was never intended to appease to the so-called “woke mob”. It was consciously intended to benefit the “anti-woke” in the long run.

Maybe it is just me. But, its implication on social justice has been obvious from the very beginning. In fact, I would be surprised if I am the only one with this realisation.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Misguidedly criticising others

If you have read Buzzfeed articles or anything by media outlets which are dependent on audience participations, you may have encountered ones about what Americans miss while living abroad.

You will notice some patterns.

One major criticism they have of non-Americans is our weak ambitions. I do think it is a legitimate one.

While simply having strong ambitions won’t instantly improve our lives, it certainly compels us to not get too content with the downsides, which compels us to do something about them. America wouldn’t be this developed if it wasn’t for its people’s ungodly strong drives.

But, the other criticisms are just…. bizarre: they also complain that other countries suffer from “high quality fast food” scarcity and their supermarkets offer little product varieties. For them, those downsides are a big deal.

Let me break them down and explain why they are stupid.

When I think of prosperity, I am thinking of our ability to afford our basic needs and ones of high quality. As long as well-balanced diets are affordable, does it really matter if our stores don’t have Oreos with million different flavours? Those are inessentials. Believe it or not, we can live without them.

And fast food? Seriously?

I understand if you miss the taste. But, how is its scarcity a huge negative point? If anything, considering the health effects, shouldn’t it be the exact opposite? Not to mention you have a chance to widen your tastebuds, especially if you live somewhere outside the west. The culinary world is more than just cheeseburgers, fried chicken and fries.

Oh and that criticism about ambition? Again, in general, it is a valid criticism. But, depending on the individuals who express it, I should add an asterisk: some of them also criticise the lack of hustle culture. Again, it is stupid.

If you are in dire needs of cash, you are in a strict deadline or there is a workplace emergency, working laboriously long hours is certainly warranted. But, if you are in neither situation, why the fuck should you work overtime everyday?

Is the extra cash (assuming you receive it) really worth the death of your personal lives (God forbids if you are married with kids) ? Is it really worth sacrificing your physical and mental health? If you are not one of those brainwashed cretins who believe working is the meaning of life, you would answer no to either one.

What’s my point here?

It seems some Americans have very misguided priorities. In this particular case, their idea of good living entails the ability to consume products excessively – especially fast food – and declaring working as life’s main – if not only – goal. They are parroting what the sordid corporate world has been propagating for many years.

I have to emphasise some Americans.

While some have the intelligence of a rock, there are also many genuinely thoughtful ones; they use their experiences living abroad and/or interacting with foreigners to contemplate about life in their home country, scrutinising it in entirely new light.

Even better, they also believe their country – currently the world’s only superpower – should learn from other countries. Not only they recognise its own weaknesses (some of which stick out like sore thumbs on the world stage), they also condemn their fellow countrymen for romanticising and whitewashing the dark side.

In this particular case, they understand life is more than just about working and consuming.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.