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.

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.

Oppenheimer: not warmongering, but still feckless

I am not going to debate the veracity of the accounts. Therefore, I am going to treat the story and its characters as entirely fictional.

No, this film does not glorify wars. The titular character is frequently shown feeling guilty about his contributions to weapons of mass destruction. While he is not necessarily depicted as a hero (he can be a dick to everyone around him), he is depicted as a deeply flawed man with conscience.

In fact, instead of depicting Harry S. Truman – who coldly dismissed Oppenheimer’s concern about war victims – as a heroic figure, the film depicts as a callous monster who thinks having conscience makes you whiny.

But, at the same time, the film is also too cowardly with its anti-war sentiment.

While it does acknowledge the sufferings of the ordinary Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens, it refuses to visualise them. It refuses to show the survivors’ injuries in graphic visual details; the bodily horror is only meagerly described in a handful of dialogues.

If the film genuinely believes nuking civilians is immoral, having a character with constant moral musing is not enough; it needs to show why doing so is bad.

The depiction’s absence makes me difficult to take the conscientious dialogues seriously; for me, they end up sounding like moralistic rants of an attention-seeking virtue signaler who cannot stand their ground.

The reactions to the film are “interesting”. On one hand, people hate the film because they see it as pro-war. On the other, people love the film because they see it as pro-war. Both camps love and hate the film for the same reason.

And it is also obvious both are delusional; they see and hear what they want to see and hear. They think a film espouses a certain belief when it clearly espouses the exact opposite. But, I do wonder: what if the bodily horror is visually depicted?

I am certain the message would be even more unmistakable and people would have a harder time distorting it to further their agendas.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

We should hand it to warmongers

No, I am not being facetious.

A war is a conflict which not only results in destructions of human properties, but also the brutal, violent deaths of innocent human beings, physical and psychological trauma of the survivors and the possibility of long-term geo-political instability, which may lead to even more violence.

To describe it as hell on earth is an understatement.

And yet, despite what we know about wars, warmongers have successfully convinced the world that killing innocent human lives, physically and/or psychologically scarring the survivors and destabilising the entire region are a must. Why? Because the hypothetical liberation promised by the so-called freedom-loving invaders.

What I just described does not make any fucking sense. And yet, warmongers have successfully convinced people to embrace that nonsensical belief.

One may argue I am giving them too much credit. Some people are so gullible, it does not take much to persuade them. In some cases, that is definitely the case: all you need to do is to say things, no techniques needed. But, the more I interact with people, the more I see the complexity.

Not all of the people who fall for the warmongering are stupid. In fact, I have seen some whose intelligence is above average, who are capable to process complex thoughts with great ease.

It is infuriating how warmongers can convince even the most intelligent people to believe nonsensical bullshit, while war-opponents are unable to persuade even the most gullible people.

This is just another reminder that simply knowing the truths and having the morality isn’t enough. If we want to spread our values, we must have the skills to do so and we must be great at them.

Obviously, this judgement of mine has been clouded by cynicism. But, I cannot help noticing how the more immoral and/or reactionary people are, the more likely they are to be accomplished in organisational and communication skills.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Can we stop pretending that every person who helps Ukrainian refugees is moral?

If you help people regardless of backgrounds, then you do have kindness in your heart.

But, we can clearly see people – in this case, westerners and their governments – are picky.

Not long after Russia started invading Ukraine, Europeans were quick to aid the incoming Ukrainians on the borders. The governments were on it to, with high-ranking officials showing supports for the refugees; even the Polish government sent veterinarians to help anyone who brought their pets.

And it is not just Europeans. Other countries like US and Canada also flocked to help. Even their firefighters donated equipment to their Ukrainian counterparts!

And the public discourse – unless one includes Tankies and Putin’s cocksuckers in the picture – is entirely sympathetic to the plight of Ukrainian people. They are perceived as human beings undeserving of such dire situations. No one was making a fuss about the refugees’ age and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Overall, the humanitarianism was unconditional.

Compare that when brown, non-western refugees were involved.

I acknowledege that many people did welcome them with open arms. But, there were also as many as people who greeted them with dehumanising hostility.

They constantly suffered violence on the hands of border patrols of the so-called civilised European countries. Many still live in refugee camps. Countries like Australia and the US think asylum-seeking is a crime comparable to murder. Denmark wanted to take refugees’ possessions as “payments”. Far-right ideologies became even more popular.

And the discourses are just as bad.

There were so many dangerous misinformation about the refugees. When certain refugees committed atrocities, the rest had to endure guilt by association. People genuinely believed the refugees had to stay in their own countries and risked their lives fixing the problems, especially if they were young men (because, even in dire situations, arbitrary gender roles must stay upheld). People would lose their shit when they saw refugees with mobile phones, laptops and expensive watches (because we all know those protect us from violence).

Some people suddenly argued we should focus on more important issues like women’s rights, children’s welfare, homelessness, LGBT+ rights, religious extremism and veterans’ welfare, even though none of them couldn’t give less fuck about those issues prior the brown refugee crisis (and they didn’t seem to mind having white Christians as religious extremists). They tried hiding their lack of humanity by putting on pragmatic or moral masks….. and fucking morons fell for it.

I almost forgot to mention how joyful people were when refugees got killed, almost killed or tortured. A Syrian family lost of their children to a house fire? Less Muslims to worry about. Refugees almost drowned? Funniest shit ever. Refugee children traumatised after getting caged? Womp womp.

I don’t know why I have to compare it to the Middle Eastern refugee crisis. Even the Ukrainian one has bigotry issues.

Non-white people in Ukraine – foreign or not – were prohibited to leave. There were even cases in which black, foreign men were given guns and told to fight for Ukraine. How the fuck is it okay to force foreigners – some of whom never planned to stay in Ukraine permanently – to fight for a country that is not even theirs and yet you allow the white citizens of said country to fucking flee for their lives? One white dead body is too many, any number of brown and black dead bodies is acceptable.

My point is I wish people are honest with themselves. If you hate your fellow human beings simply for being different from you, just say it!

The selectiveness of your empathy, your support or excuses for far-right ideologies, your penchant to fall for misinformation about non-white refugees, it is so obvious you have biases against certain races, cultures and religions. So, why bother putting up that translucent facade of yours?

And no, you don’t need to fear.

If governments implement anti-brown-refugee policies and mainstream media spreads anti-brown-refugee rhetorics, shouldn’t you feel at home in the mainstream society? I mean, it sure sounds you are one of the “normal” ones.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Russian invasion of Ukraine: why do you support or oppose it?

There will be lots of rhetorical questions here.

Support

Do you support it because you believe a country has the right to self-defense? If you do, why would you side with one that has revived its past imperialistic tendency by not only spewing imperialistic rhetoric and planting spies all over Europe, but also being the aggressor in many conflicts it is involved in?

If attacking another country is a legitimate form of self-defense, does that mean you also support America’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Why not? I mean, both are thematically comparable.

Both involves a huge, powerful country attacking a smaller, less powerful country(ies) that never attack them in the first place. How is one thematically different from the other? Is it because one is not the US?

Do you support the invasion because it is a middle finger to the US hegemony? If you do, why would you oppose it by supporting another country’s hegemony? Do you hate the USA because it is an imperial power? Or do you hate the USA simply because it is the USA?

Do you support the invasion because you are smitten by Putin? What’s so attractive about him? Do you fall for his conservative politics? Do you fall for his supposed toughness? Do you love how liberals and (non-Tankie) leftists hate him? If the answer is yes for either one, do you believe ideological label similarity, tough image and pissing on your opponents are worth the human rights violations?

If you think the invasion is justified because Ukraine has Russian-speaking minority, does that mean you are okay with America invading countries with English-speaking minorities instead?

Oppose

Do you oppose it because you believe in human rights and respect of every country’s sovereignty? If you do, do you support the US invasion of Iraq in the early 2000’s?

If you do, why do you condemn Russia for violating another country’s sovereignty while you have no problem about USA doing the same thing? What’s so special about the USA that makes it morally exempted?

Have you ever considered that you are actually okay with human rights violations, as long as the perpetrators do not threaten US hegemony? Have you considered that you never care about morality in the first place?

Have you ever had any negative feelings towards all Russians and the invasion worsens them? If that’s the case, do you realise that such generalisation makes you a hateful bigoted asshole?

Do you realise Russia is ruled by an authoritarian government and therefore, its decisions rarely represent the people, if ever? Do you realise there are actual anti-war protests happening in Russia right now?

While I acknowledge that anti-war voices of dissent did exist in America, did you forget that the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were popular among Americans? Did you forget that George W. Bush was reelected? Do you realise that even to this day, some Americans still make excuses for those invasions?

If all Russians are bloodthirsty warmongers despite the unpopularity of wars, wouldn’t that Americans even bigger bloodthirsty warmongers consider they were and still are more approving of wars?

Do you oppose the war because Ukraine is western and therefore, more “civilised” than Iraq and Afghanistan which you perceive as “barbarically” middle eastern (even though the latter is not even in the middle east)? Did you even realise that you made the “they-don’t-deserve-it-because-they are-civilised” argument?

In conclusion

If you feel personally attacked, then good. They are meant to personally attack people like you.

If you are offended, then why don’t you comfort yourself by resting your face on your mom’s cunt?

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How NOT to praise Baby Boomers

 

Praise them for boosting the prosperity

Obviously, this has been brought up many times before and it only applies to modern countries which economic booms happened almost right after the second world war.

If you want to credit anyone who created the booms, credit the Boomers’ parents and grandparents. They were the ones in charge.

In my home country Indonesia, I would not say they ruined the economy. They did improve it. But, our country has yet to become an economic powerhouse with extremely low poverty rate and high rate of ease of doing business. The improvement is meagre and unimpressive.

If anything, many joined forces with Soeharto in making the country a more sectarian, more anti-intellectual and more brutal place to live. Many were already adults in the early years of his regime; therefore, they had the option to not get brainwashed. I am sure those who participated in the still-glorified anti-Communist purge were also Boomers.

Praise them for having great taste

Well, admittedly, Boomers do have a great taste in music. But, I cannot fully praise them for having so.

Why? Because their taste was mainstream. Therefore, they were not special. That’s like praising someone who was raised among English speakers for being fluent in the language.

I prefer to credit the pre-war generations for influencing the Boomers’ musical taste. I mean, they were the recording studio bosses! They were the ones who decided what kind of music the youngsters at the time should listen to!

Oh, and don’t forget that Boomers are also among the current music producers who churn out craps, sacrificing artistic integrity for profit’s sake.

If I want to go further with American Boomers, not many of them had a good taste in cinema as well.

The Hollywood Renaissance, which was marked by directorial independence and respect of artistry, would not exist without the university-educated young Americans who loved watching the more aesthetic European and Japanese cinemas and formed the majority of moviegoers in the 1960’s America.

That’s a very specific demographic. Unless a boomer was among the moviegoers studio executives tried to pander to, we cannot credit him/her for a having a good taste in films.

Praise them for their great personalities

Some Boomers are known for overplaying their greatness and accusing Millennials and Gen Z for being entitled snowflakes, even though they themselves were raised in a significantly more prosperous era (again, in some countries), demand absolute respect just because they are old and get offended by OK Boomer, one of the mildest memes ever.

When they do admit their roles in wrecking the prosperity (which they enjoyed immensely), they shamelessly and openly wash their hands of their sins and act like old age and near-death are to be regarded as absolution.

To sum things up, they are conceited, delusional, fragile, hypocritical and irresponsible. Only donkeys think any of those traits are wonderful in any ways.

Oh, and even if I am willing to pretend military enlistment makes one an inherently heroic and courageous person (it inherently does not), you cannot use the American war in Vietnam to make the Boomers look heroic and courageous.

Why? Because conscription.

Able-bodied young men were obligated to enlist, whether they wanted to or not. If they were indeed heroic and courageous, they would have enlisted voluntarily without being forced to. They would have to enlist simply because they loved the idea of serving their countries (or, to be more accurate, their countries’ political establishments).

We can also use this argument to debunk the myth of the ‘heroic’ and ‘courageous’ generations of both world wars.

Praise them for their progressiveness

Some Boomers claim they are the bastion of progressiveness, supposedly due to many of them being Hippies in the olden days. So, let’s just pretend the Hippie movement was indeed all about peace and freedom (sceptical about it).

I may acknowledge that Boomers did lead a sexual revolution in the west. But, that’s the extent of their progressiveness.

Even the resulting sexual liberty was still very heteronormative. The west started to become widely pro-LGBT rights just mere two decades ago; even as late as the 90’s, gay Hollywood actors were forced to stay closeted.

If anything, many Boomers in the US and UK ended up voting for conservative governments in the 1980’s. And you cannot convince me there are none of them in the reactionary and war-mongering establishments.

War-mongering…

Never mind the Afghan and Iraq wars. How can one defend a generation for being peace-loving while at the same time lauding them for participating in a war?

“You are a hateful, ageist Millennial!”

No, I am not.

My words are expressions of frustrations against the ageist Boomers who try to convince everyone about their generation’s absolute supremacy. If I am a hateful ageist, wouldn’t I use their old age as an argument of how pieces of shit they are?

Obviously, if you really want to defend the Boomers, you would need facts and refrain from dramatising them. In order to do so, you need to be a reasonable and truth-loving person.

If you are a Boomer who believe in your generation’s divine greatness or a younger person who believes we must always respect ALL older people regardless of their actual respectability, then you are neither reasonable nor truth-loving.

If you belong to either category, then I can easily dismiss your argument. You cannot prove anyone wrong by using falsehoods and overstatements.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

 

 

 

Two steps to recognise ‘fake news’

*puts on a mask*

Step 1: You have to be a member of a cult.

This step will be easy to overcome if one is either a deeply-bigoted individual who is desperate to find a leader to worship OR a deeply-impressionable individual who will easily fall for the rhetorics of dishonest and manipulative public figures. If you are both, it would be even easier for you!

If you are neither extremely prejudiced nor excessively impressionable, you will never be a cult member and you will never be enlightened enough to go to the next step.

Step 2: Just simply find, read and watch the news.

Once you have become a cult member, your mind will do the work for you.

Any news reports that intertwine with your and your cult leader’s beliefs will elicit strong emotions. If they bring you joy, the stories are real. If they bring you anger, they are false!

Yes, I believe the only way to determine a story’s accuracy is how positive or negative our emotions are!

Facts aren’t real because you cannot feel them. But, do you what is real? Emotions! Why? Because you can feel them! Determining what is real and what isn’t through the act feeling is common sense!

Don’t let those intellectuals poison your innocent minds with facts! Only privileged, ivory tower retards think facts are the truths! Humans who live in the real world know damn well emotions are the truths! They know emotions are their Gods!

Okay, I did say that you have to finish step one if you want to go to step two. Well, it is not entirely true.

Being bigoted and/or impressionable is enough to make you worship emotions. Obviously, you don’t need to be a cult member to accomplish step two. But, being one sure helps.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The unwholesomeness of ‘goodness’

Everyone who has watched The Incredibles (and pay attention to its dialogues) know one thing about the film: it denounces the elitism of superheroism.

Well, the villain does that. In the film, every single superhero character was born with their power. It us undeniable that elitism based on something biologically innate is unfair. Those superheroes obtain an unjustly earned special status. They are almost treated as Gods. The villain has a point.

Of course, you may argue the superheroes have actual contributions to the societies they live in. Without them, who is going to protect the citizens from the bad guys? Who is going to bring the collective sense of security?

Well, The Incredibles 2 answers the question: the ‘ordinary’ citizens should be the ones who have help themselves!

The villain equates superheroes-worshipping with consumerism. Superheroes are extremely handy products the ordinary citizens become too dependent on and the dependency discourages them from doing anything to improve the societies they live in.

Improve the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies, make use of the armed forces for domestic purposes (instead of constantly sending them overseas), enquire into why the crimes exist in the first place. The ordinary citizens should have done those. But, as those require self-introspection and acknowledgement of unflattering truths, they prefer to do the easy thing: sticking to the status quo. Once again, the villain has a point… and one of the good guys is naive.

As heroes-worshipping is liken to consumerism, heroism in the sequel does not parallel to heroism in real life. For me, it is more of a commentary about our misguided approach regarding making the world a better place; it reminds me how some people still think social media can bridge the gaps between different human beings, still unaware the problem lies on humans’ sectarian tendencies, not on technological limitation.

In the first film, on the other hand, heroism is liken to undeserved elitism. That has a direct parallel in real life… which can be extremely contentious to point out, even in very liberal societies. I am thinking about soldiers.

I am proud to say I was never guilty of the ‘all-soldiers-are-heroes’ mentality. Not only it feels like worshipping conceitedly unprogressive institutions, it also does not make sense. Somehow, simply joining a formal and rigidly-structured collective instantaneously make you worthy of any honourable titles associated with it. Your labels determine your worth.

Yeah, no.

Many soldiers in some parts of the world are conscripts; in countries without alternative services, the citizens only have two options: enlistment or jail. Soldiers have the right to benefits which are reserved exclusively for them; poverty is enough to motivate people to enlist. It is also no secret that soldiers have committed countless human rights violations; it is either they become desensitised by violence or they were already suffering from bloodlust in the first place. Not to mention that even in relatively small countries, soldiers are huge collectives of distinct individuals. Believing heroism exists in every single one of them betrays facts and reason.

Of course, as it is the case with unreasonable creatures, those military worshippers also suffer from cognitive dissonances. My mom is a big admirer of the military; she was a military brat who was born merely a few years after Indonesia’s independence, who was a teen when the Indonesian-Malaysia Konfrontasi occurred, who thinks Indonesia was absolutely way better under the authoritarian rule of General Soeharto, who thinks soldiers only care about doing service for their countries.

She also wants me to enlist for the financial benefits, manliness and social status. No explanation needed for the first two. With the third, it is both baffling and frustrating. Baffling because she somehow thinks that I, her disappointingly rebellious and underachieving son, will easily climb up the ranks. Frustrating because it is a reflection of her irrationality and classist tendency. Not once she expresses a desire for me to be a patriot; she only cares about the so-called perks of military life. In the US, however, there is a cognitive dissonance worse than this one.

Being loud and obnoxious about their so-called love of soldiers also means ridiculing PTSD-suffering and/or homeless veterans, supporting budget cut for VA, dodging conscription during the Vietnam War era and worshipping those dodgers. When they say ‘support the troops’, they refer to the dead ones… and any pro-military ‘patriots’ who never enlisted and will never have the desire to.

The older I get, the more I realise how ‘goodness’ and any can related concepts damaging; in many cases, ‘goodness’ is meaningless. I believe it is rooted in our debilitating upbringing. At least, that’s the case if we use my anecdote.

Since I was young, I have been bombarded with guilt-tripping rhetorics about the greatness of virtue and the sin of not falling for those guilt-tripping rhetorics. That’s one of the many ideals I was indoctrinated to. For many years, I fell for it. The indoctrination climaxed when I became an internet addict. Not long after I reached adulthood, I started to realise how questionable this mindset is.

Instead of encouraging genuine altruism and social consciousness, it champions self-righteousness, reward-seeking open-handedness, the unfounded belief that artistic preferences and our level of ‘wokeness’ are inherently correlated and the mindlessness that makes us exploitable enough to fall for meaningless articulation. It also puts off cynical humans from seeing the beauty of benevolence and earthly cognisance; eventually, their cynicism intensifies, not subsides.

To exacerbate the nauseous feeling even more, those loud and self-praising zombies have the gut to direct the heroic light on themselves! Unfortunately unsurprisingly, they see themselves as the enlightenment the unkind world needs and does not deserve. They are literally one of those humans who unknowingly make living parodies out of themselves! Instead of invigorating the world they supposedly love, they only give it more burdens to bear!

This is why I love entertainment where morality is depicted a grey entity. This is why I have a strong inclination to admire aloof, crass, cynical and/or sarcastic public figures.

It is lovely when popular entertainment subtly encourages the audience to rethink their stances regarding good and evil, when it cunningly reminds us of our own ill-defined reality. The two The Incredibles films are great examples.

Those unpleasant individuals may not be unpleasant as we think they are; even though it is not always the case, we may be able to identify courtesy, down-to-earth intellect or even heartfelt virtue once they uncover their true colours… or once we actually pay attention. Felix Kjellberg, the most subscribed Youtuber and the media’s favourite Youtube punchbag, is probably one of the best examples.

So, to sum everything up: characters, NOT labels, should be the basis of our judgement of fellow human beings! Of course, like everything in life, it is easier said than done. But, I have some inadequate, anecdotal and scientifically unproven tips that may or may not improve your perceptiveness.

When a film you just watched seems to have extremely kind protagonists and a perfectly happy ending, be suspicious. Re-watch it, pay attention to the characters, dialogues, settings and plot.

Once you notice the small details, you will realise how our beloved main characters are shrouded in unexpressed sinfulness, the ending only serve them and the villains may not as bad as they seem. This can be a result of deep OR shallow thinking on the filmmakers’ behalf. The subtext betrays the film’s true nature.

Yes, a scripted film involves fictional characters. But, that can prepare you to be more observant and critical when assessing the facade of your surroundings. Obviously, using real humans as our ‘subjects’ is a lot better.

When a public figure attracts your attention, try not to let his/her public image clouds your judgement. Instead, try to enquire about him/her yourself.

If he/she is known for his/her obnoxious and unsavoury personality, watch and listen to his/her interviews; if he/she acts surprisingly nice and polite, it is possible you just encounter his/her real personality.

If he/she is known for being open-handed and moral, investigate him/her; research about the charity he/she has supposedly accomplished, find out if any of his/her claims have factual and scientific validity, break down the soundness of his/her philosophies and find out if he/she practices what he/she preaches. More of than not, such public figure habours unmistakable yet ignored ungodly qualities.

While both individuals intentionally manufacture their public images, they are driven by different objectives. One believes in the ‘bad-publicity-is-good-publicity’ mantra while the other wants to build a strong, highly-devoted following and a pristine, almost saint-like persona, disfiguring the wholesomeness of ‘goodness’.

Guess which individual is more menacing.

I am such a hopeful person, am I not?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to win the Nobel Peace Prize

*puts on a mask*

It is simple: all you have to do is to advocate how peace is the best solution for our earthly problems. Just be a famous pacifist!

But, if you are a westerner, there is another path to this accolade: be a war-monger!

Not just any war-monger, but one who justifies his/her violent actions and beliefs in the name of defeating barbarians! When I meant by barbarians, I meant every non-westerner who refuses to suck westerners’ dicks.

Peace is one of the organic values of the western civilisation. I know because the propaganda tells me so; as we all know, indoctrination is always truthful and only brainwashed imbeciles think otherwise. Therefore, every person who defies the west is a violent, peace-hating barbarian and every true-blue westerner must support the violent destruction of those monsters in order to uphold peace!

The innocent casualt….. I meant, the collateral damages are actually a good thing. The more we kill every single individual who shares the identities of those monsters, the better. It advances our journey towards peace even further. It is their fault for being born associated with those barbarians! It is a common knowledge that we can choose which vaginas we are born from.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.