To be or not to be . . .

NAKAKAINIS na 'tong ginagawa ng China ha. Kaya tinawagan ko na ang International Maritime Organization gamit ang Oppo cellphone ko, tapos mamaya pupuntahan ko mga kasama ko sakay ng Geely ko, o ng Chery ko, para mag-organisa ng protest sa harap ng Chinese Embassy. Kaya lang tumaas daw ang heart rate ko, sabi ng aking Huawei smart watch, kaya baka magpalamig muna ako sa harap ng aking Midea air cooler. Baka mamaya puwede na. Subukan ko muna mag-jogging nang konti suot ang Anta Sports shoes ko. Fakyu, China!

DYSTOPIAS

ALL these environmentalist posts I made yesterday on Facebook, of the YouTube videos above profiling this year's non-partisan Goldman Environmental Prize awardees, could perhaps together have acted (qua posts/shares) as also my way of explaining to my Facebook friends why I cannot be for the Bongbong Marcoses and the Mar Roxases and the San Miguel Corporation-backed Grace Poes of this world, and why I cannot be a loyalist of any of them, unlike some of these Facebook friends of mine. And I said I'm sorry, even though I can't really be.
    Now, the non-partisan, anti-loyalist rationale behind those Facebook posts or shares is also what's behind my belief that says . . . the Duterte government's support for, on the one hand, environmentalist baby Gina Lopez and, on the other, mining baby Bongbong Marcos, is really nothing more than a fragment of Rodrigo Duterte's Big Tent ploy to get contending forces inside his government to fight it out on policies; he'll just watch who will finally come out the winner. And these contending forces will continue to fight it out from under that Big Tent while he, the President, dangles to all of them bits of promises to keep them all within his side of the fence and still in line, so he can do whatever he wants from that secret of a soul that he has, unimpeded by any real opposition, if ever there is going to be much of an opposition left in this everyone-promised landscape. It is my belief that this Big Tent ploy is certain to unravel in the end, although the pessimist in me senses that that unraveling will not likely be happening soon, despite recent changes in the Cabinet, which were minor. So, the Bongbong Marcoses and Gina Lopezes operating within such Big Tent governments as Duterte's will continue to fight it out from within their shared Big Tent matrix, with the Dutertes of Big Tent governance laughing all the way to the (seas') horizon to meet the oncoming realization of their public and private utopias.
    The current formation of impending utopias will shape the dystopias of our tomorrow. Our dystopias. Mine, and my Facebook friends', whichever side of the various loyalisms they now happily belong to. Our planet’s natural environment has its own big tent, and it is somewhat of a dictator itself: it asks us now whether we’re for it or against it. In the end, it doesn’t really care about us. [S / -I]

Duterte-phobic Notes of the Week

1. ONE basic thing you need to know about history deniers (historical negationists), fact deniers, fake news writers, and their ilk. They will name anything and anyone as a case to study and confront it/them so to avoid focus on themselves. Don't fall into this trap. They are the cases that you need to examine and confront! The focus ought not to be on anything or anyone other than them! They are the basic issue! Expose everything there is to know about them!!

2. Degrees of Corruption
    True, if you're a media or religious institution or persona fixing every now and then the function of your privilege in order to serve the interests of holding companies or specific corporations or of political factions, you deserve to be called corrupt by the President of the State.
    Then again, if you're a President of the State who has devoted himself to the facilitation of another state's natural resource and market interests in his state, you are not just displaying corruption of the third or second degree, but absolute treason, one being committed by no less than You as the leader of the government of this State. That is corruption of the supreme or highest universal degree.

3. Planning a Novel
    What if I explore this premise for a novel's plot?---
    The 21st century. China would only have to look at its history where, once upon a time, there was this British-instigated Opium War against it designed by Britain to get its silk, porcelain, and tea. In that looking back would be born enough inspiration for a now-rich China to plan a 21st-century fear-farming War on Drugs false flag on a neighboring state. They will have to do this through---or care of---a potential puppet in that state that they can sponsor and install as that state's new leader. Once installed, that leader can farm all the fear he wants through that new "Opium War", through which fear-farming war the leader can facilitate China's slow and smooth entry into the leader's state, not just to get this neighboring state's silk, porcelain and tea but resources more precious and ready for a hefty harvest. Does that sound like a good plot for a fiction novel to you? Or would I be plagiarizing life for a historical one?

4. In the Era of Simplified Psychometrics
    Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term "propaganda," viz., "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."
    Following that definition, it should be easy for us to see why government would be busying itself presently with the labeling of everyone in the divided opposition as "bobos" (stupid people), most especially the Vice-President, Leni Robredo, in recent days.
    Is the intent of this propaganda move to shape the manipulable public's perception that it is the critics of this government's policies who are bobo, in order to hide its own series of boo-boos?
    Is it to manipulate cognitions that everything that it is doing is the smart thing, if not the only smart thing, which process of manipulation may involve the hyping up of the truly smart it's done and hiding beneath the quilts all the stupid moves it had committed?
    Is it to direct behavior towards a derogation of critics and the celebration of this government's supposed revolutions?
    I think we're all intelligent enough to know when propaganda is twisting us or sucking us in. Or are we?
    And if we are, or suspect we are, being sucked into it, how do we fight it? Do we fight by throwing the same techniques it is using? Or do we fight it by exposing its lies? By exposing all the truths behind its lying?
    Do we expose the whole anatomy of processes in its propaganda that aims to "achieve a response that (will further) the desired intent of the propagandist"?
    What are those desires?
    Are we as a nation intelligent enough to in turn desire answers to these questions? Or are we truly bobos enough to desire nothing, simply wallowing in never-ending trust?

5. THE argument that says Duterte's spitting on due process ought to be thanked because the drug pusher and his addicts that used to be the kings in one's neighborhood are now all gone . . .
    is no different from the argument that says Hitler's regime should be thanked because it furthered the popularity of Wagner.
    Or don't you see the similarity? If you don't, well, . . . perhaps you never will.
    Perhaps you never will see that that legitimization of Hitler by one's deep love of Wagner is the same sort of legitimization that you are placing on Duterte's aggressive wariness towards all his critics, in this republic and outside, a legitimization motored by your understandable love of peace in one particular anecdotal neighborhood.

6. UNTIL that day comes when good people in a land start invoking violent resistance in order to protect rights, violent evil will continue to prosper in that land and in other lands. That is not inciting rebellion. That is a mere articulation of a historical truism operative among frightened peoples in repressive, suspect regimes.

7. ARE we afraid? My friends: government is excited about, and not wary of, creating a fearful people, for the fear-farming reasons we articulated above.
    But it, government, seems to be ignorant of the fact that courage is actually 100% fear. Let us rejoice, then. For as government makes progress in creating more frightened people, its hold on the people is not strengthened, it is lessened. Fear pa more! [S / -I]

SUSPECT INDEPENDENCES IN THE YEAR OF GEO-REALPOLITIK

photo from http://bmag.com.au/things-to-do-in-brisbane/latest/2015/05/06/experience-the-philippines-at-the-barrio-fiesta/

SHOULD every Filipino behave or think like a neocolonial lumpenbourgeois according to the preaching of his favorite real neocolonial lumpenbourgeois leaders? Sa ngayon kasi ay hinahati tayo sa dalawa ng lumpenbourgeois factions sa ating pulitika ng ganito:

    Kung mas marami kang pakinabang sa Amerika at galit ka sa Tsina, dapat ay anti-Duterte ka. At kung may galit ka naman sa Amerika, for reasons as small as having been served water instead of a lauriat (lao diat) merienda during a visit to an American office, or having been denied a tourist visa once, ay dapat pro-Duterte at pro-China ka na. Ito ang tanong ko: pag anti-America ka ba, ibig sabihin nationalist ka na? At ganun din pag anti-China ka? Baka kailangan nating lahat bumalik sa kolehiyo para mapag-aralan muli ang buong kahulugan ng mga salita, dahil may mga pangyayari sa mga nakalipas na buwan (kung di man sa nakalipas na mga taon) kung saan tila napakadali lang sa ating mga pulitiko (o aktibista man) ang mag-preach o mag-claim ng posisyon ng nationalism at independence, ipse dixit—ito’y habang may paghinala sa kanila (o sa mga grupo nila) bilang mga resipyente ng pondo galing sa kung anu-anong banyagang bangko, mga kompanya, o mga indibidwal na di-malayong may kani-kanyang interes na maaaring taliwas sa nasyonalismo o independensiya na isinusulong ng mga talumpati ng mga pulitiko o aktibistang ito.
    Here’s my next question: nationalism, according to what concept of nationhood? Or according to whose perspective on the idea of ideal nationhood? Now, I’ll grant that patriotism is what binds us together as citizens of our country, and that—as a friend of mine quipped—this patriotism can derive from different orientations, religious affiliations, political ideologies, ages, economic brackets, and so on. Indeed, we can always choose to focus on the power of the positive fact concerning this common ground’s goal instead of on the doldrums of a non-goal with our often-ready list of differences. For, after all, it's this love of country—albeit a country molded by our conquistadors, the Spaniards—that has retained our wholeness and coagulation as tribes or linguistic groups, and we’ve remained relatively undivided for decades since the fall of the Spaniards and our independence from the Commonwealth. True, also, anyone who has attempted to strike at our motherland in order to subtract from it, e.g. the long Islamist separatist insurrection in Mindanao or the battles in the North before the establishment of the Cordillera Autonomous Region, would always be countered by the center with the ample defense of unity against these many efforts at wedge-building.
    But here’s the problem: we've been ruled by neocolonial lumpenbourgeois interests since the beginning of our republic/s, and these interests have been imposing their neocolonial lumpenbourgeois formulas on the nation for the same length of time, all in the name of patriotism and nationalism! Yes, to the point that the connect between these impositions and the nationalist ideals these lumpenbourgeois factions claimed would be questioned many a time by many a cynic from both the academia and not. In short, it’s not the lack or absence of patriotism and/or nationalism that’s the issue but who the people are who have had a handle on these ideals and used the very same for intents many would regard as other than what nationalist ideals proclaim.

    And as for love, that great intangible almost guaranteeing the ultimate sacrifice for its service, it has been used in the same breath that some leaders of France bandied it for a rationale to side with Hitler. And it is in this sense of a problematic regarding the concept of love that I would here unabashedly assert that perhaps our current President, Rodrigo Duterte, may be allowing an emotional love for Freddie Aguilar’s country music to influence his pragmatic love of country, by which I mean mistaking self-centered love (controlling love from an emotional utopia) for selfless love (love of a democratic nation). The first kind of love (emotional and self-centered) may be sincere and real in a lumpenbourgeois leader, but is it the kind of love the majority really want (or need) or are truly empathetic towards from their democratic voice, post-election?

MY friend the banker and gallerist Boy David says: “Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. The challenge is that it is harder to be subtle than strident.”

    And that’s the crux of our problem today as receivers of a media image, isn’t it? Consistency, as a requisite of the art of media image-making servicing the star system-leaning presidential form of politics that we have, would find the need to be subtle about the devil in the details (that would often require analysts to appear on talk shows) waylaid by our political culture as a whole in a manner that would not be done in a parliamentary system’s culture of constant debate. A shallow consistency of and for a media image becomes the science as well as the subject of political scientism, precisely what we see stretched to its utmost level of ludicrousness on Fox News and CNN regarding the US’s own stars in their presidential system. Was his smile the right kind of smile for the right kind of audience? What did his/her offensive statement achieve, poll-wise? Woe to the devil in the details as they continue to dress up as PR and marketing angels upon public ignorance.

    And what details are we talking about? Well, here’s a sample of the sort of Facebook discussion that I would prefer (not that this sample is as “deep” as an esoteric, academic thread, which we do not need to be):

WHILE on the issue of the division in our society/nation, our friend the Perth-based painter A- referred us to a 1970s root division in the study of Philippine history: “Kuyang, nahati sa dalawa ang mga Filipino noon—yung mga nagbasa ng aklat ni Teodoro Agoncillo, at yung mga nagbasa naman ng kay Gregorio Zaide. Tila ang problema ay mas marami ang nakabasa nung kay Zaide. :-p”
    “You zaid it well, kuyang Art. :),” I replied. “Ang problema, ang mga nagbasa kay Agoncillo ay nag-aala-pro-American-Zaide na rin pagdating sa China. Nagiging pro-China Zaides. :v”

    “Lol... :-p,” wrote Kuyang Art.

    “At pa’no naman ang mga nagsunog ng kilay kay Renato Constantino at sa mga namulat at namumulat pa sa patuloy na nagbabagong anyo ng kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, halimbawa sa pamamagitan ng mga akda o lektura nina Ambeth R. Ocampo, Ka Inggo (Domingo C. de Guzman), Xiao Chua, atbp.?” asked our friend R-. At maganda na nabanggit sila ng ating kaibigan, dahil interesado akong malaman kung ano nga ang masasabi ng mga historyador na ito tungkol sa tunggalian na nangyayari ngayon sa pagitan ng TeamAmerika of anti-‘Dutertards’ at ng all-but-TeamChina apologists ng Duterte-ismo.

    Totoo, marami tayong lalong mauunawaan tungkol sa ugat ng katiwalian dito sa ating bansa kung mababasa natin ang aklat na The Evil That Men Do (a Philippine history book) ni Ka Inggo. At malinaw din sa mga pahayag ni de Guzman na pro-Duterte siya, ayon sa ating kaibigan. Pero pro-Tsina rin nga ba? Marahil kaugnay lang sa tipong pang-malayang patakarang panlabas, sabi ni R-.

    Ngunit, kung usapang geo-realpolitik na, kalayaan how? By joining them when you can't beat them? Hmm. If so, I wonder why those who would be espousing this sort of logic towards China weren’t so enthusiastic in applying the same logic towards the statehood-for-the-Philippines-in-the-US-federal-union movement’s cause? Is it because China is socialist and worth “joining” our islands to, and the US is not?
    If so, for socialism’s sake, it begs the corollary question regarding how socialist China is. Is one-party communist rule, with its own communist party elite of businessmen and new capitalists, socialist? How? How (plutocratically) not? Is the sort of socialism in some parts of the EU despicable or lame to Chinese communist partisan capitalism? Would the sort of socialism espoused by the left of the US Democratic Party be regarded by it as equally lame? What would be their comment on Trotskyist takes against the Communist bureaucracy? Or on anarchist communist takes against this same statist bureaucracy?

    Sana ay kalayaan talaga sa puntong walang pagdidikta o pagdodomina ng mas malakas, was the articulation of our friend R- of an oft-repeated expression of hopefulness among those sympathetic to or hopeful for the President’s veering the Philippines away from the West towards a closer-to-China foreign policy. But ‛sana’ is a too-hopeful prayer-cum-gamble hovering above the current Duterte excitement over a hoped-for Philippine future, wouldn’t you agree? Our friend Wilfredo Gallinero’s comment on another post of mine treats of concrete examples for this very topic, and it doesn’t beat around the bush. He wrote: “why don’t we ask some of the former satellites of Russia why they broke away from the USSR (and then aligned themselves with the rest of Europe away from Russia)? Or why Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Taiwan, do not like mainland China that much. Why not ask millions of Chinese émigrés scattered around the globe why they ran away from their homeland (and would still be wary of going back)? Why not ask millions of later Chinese and Russian immigrants to the United States the reason why they chose to live there instead of in China or Russia? Why not ask the Venezuelans what they got from switching sides? Why not ask the Cubans if they think they deserve a 2016 Ford Everest instead of a vintage Chevy Cadillac?”

    There you go. So, it’s not Duterte, Our Deliverer, then, is it, Mr. Gallinero? Appears more like Duterte, China’s Deliverer. Tama ba ako? And so, who, then, is fit, or should we trust, to deliver for us a truly independent foreign policy, if it is possible?—asked our friend R-. This is definitely a question worth delving into in order to look the devil-in-the-details in the eye. Without beating around the bush, let me go straight to my abstract, which goes thus:

    An independent foreign policy is policy reached by choice of principle, not by the dictate of, say, one's campaign or regime foreign-bank donors, for example. And while the rumor that the AIIB donated a sum to Duterte’s campaign may be a wicked lie, it is also a fact that there was instant communication between the AIIB and the Duterte transition finance team after the President’s win. (Remember: while it was indeed the Aquino government that started mulling the possibility of the Philippines' joining the AIIB, President Aquino himself would later issue a caveat concerning being quick to bite the temptation, even though he would later announce in December 2015 that we shall be joining the Bank).
    We are not saying that Duterte is selling us to the Chinese quick, the way the Makapilis sold some of our grandfathers and grandmothers to the Japs during World War II. But remember that the bulk of the Makapilis, who were promised lands through land reform or peace or good times in Japan, did not become Makapilis by choice of sober principle, but either from duress or from sheer hatred of their neighbors or present landlords. Duterte has been expressing a personal anger towards Americans as a nation of loud people, which could be blamed for the impression that his anti-American friendliness towards China is not entirely derived from a sober principle.

    Pero, whatever sort of principle is behind the Duterte plan, ang problema natin, ultimately, is not whom to trust to deliver us to a zone with an independent foreign policy, but that we have a presidential system where the president is the dictator who decides for the destiny of 100,000,000+ individuals outside of his possibly neo-lumpenbourgeois present luxury. One should wonder why no one is yet calling for a referendum on at least one of Duterte's humongous decisions.

    Ser Boy re-entered this part of the conversation with this: “Right now, China succeeds in peeling the Philippines away from the United States; it is whipping a major win in Beijing’s long-term campaign to weaken U.S. alliances in the region. It will feed fears that the right mix of intimidation and inducements could influence other partners to distance themselves from Washington.”

    “The pre-election rumor that Duterte was a candidate funded by the AIIB turning out to be an earth-shattering reality?” I offered a wicked, gossipy conjecture.

    Here, our friend Don Miguel came in with a re-post of a status post by one named Randy Valiente, who wrote: “Mami-miss ko yung mga sigaw sa kalsada ng 'Tuta ng Kano'. Baka nga mas cute pakinggan yung 'Chihuahua ng China'. Chos. :P”

    Hahaha. :)

YES, our thread ended in laughter. But it was not just that ending that made the thread not the kind of exchange you’d read in comment boxes with Duterte loyalists (on one hand) and opposing politicians’ loyalists (on the other) in them. For, given that some of my friends are sympathetic to certain or all Duterte policies, with others not, I believe that they have all been demonstrating amply well the fact that the brain of each member of this Filipino nation of ours can behave or think beyond being a merely neocolonial lumpenbourgeois echo chamber for the preachings of its favorite neocolonial lumpenbourgeois leaders. I think an independent foreign policy can begin with each of our nation’s members’ exercise of its independence from the chains of politician- or party-directed blind loyalism. Otherwise one should have no business waving about the word “independence” when he cannot himself be independent enough to be able to examine or question his own idol-politician’s or idol-party’s suspect use of words. [S / -I]

What you consider as yours and what He considers as His are two different things: a comic report

A Philippine-American military exercise (photo from http://dailysignal.com/2013/04/19/americas-ally-the-philippines-requires-continued-support/)

DEAR lords and ladies of JoJolion’s Diet. Today I report to you this:

    I, Josuke of JoJolion, was there to personally hand to the King of the Philippines our Emperor’s invitation to visit the Empire of JoJolion immediately after that very period of His Lordship’s visit to the Empire of China. In all honesty, I was sent by our Emperor for the simple reason that I could speak English and some Tagalog and fully understand Tagalog and Bisaya; all of these three languages being what His Lordship the King has at His disposal. You also all know I know nothing much about Philippine ancient history, and I know that some of you have stated on Tokyo television that you would rather that the Emperor sent somebody else. Thankfully, my lords and ladies, you might like to know that while I know nothing much about Philippine ancient history, well, neither does much of the Filipino population! Anyway, my lords and ladies, that night in China when I watched and then sat with His Lordship the King of the Philippines, I was sipping tea and listening to him speak.

    "Today I announce my separation from the United States," said King Rodrigo I of the Kingdom of the Philippines that very night of October 20, there speaking at the court of the Empire of the Communist Partisans of China. Incidentally, my lords and ladies, the 71-year-old King said this between the 70-year old Philippine-US relations and the 72nd anniversary of General Douglas MacArthur’s Landing in the Barony of Palo on Leyte Island on October 20, 1944, whatever all those numbers might mean to you. I just came to learn about this from my Joestar family.

    Well, I am also happy to report that there is one thing you don’t know about this King, my lords and ladies. He actually likes the country music of Freddie Aguilar! As well as guns, of course. That makes Him a sort of cowboy in a Western film, doesn’t it? He even asked the Filipino country music singer to rewrite the lyrics to one of his songs so it can serve as a theme song for His reign, a fanfare of sorts to be sung by electronic minstrels wherever he goes. But here’s my question: Is superior love for Freddie Aguilar's country music enough to substantiate the King's claims of supreme love of country? For it seems he has a knack for claiming this. A knack, Anak, get it? [Pause here in case The Diet laughs]

    Anyway, my lords and ladies, after the King’s appearance at the court of the Empire of the Communist Partisans of China, we went to the balcony of the Imperial Communist Hotel to join a bevy of Filipino journalists on separate tables.

    “Naaalala ko ang lahat ng tinuro sa akin sa elementary tungkol sa mga pinaggagawa sa amin ng mga Amerikano at ako ay galit na galit hanggang ngayon,” whispered the King to me in a Tagalog with a Visayan accent that I could fully understand. We were seated at a merienda table full of what our Chinese chef called His Lordship’s Favorite Fried de-Lima Saba (all in all, five saba bananas on each plate, each banana halved right down the middle and fried and cinnamon-flavored).
    “Ang di ko maalala ay yung mga sinabi ng Nanay ko tungkol kay King Ferdinand of Marcos noong Queen Cory lady pa siya,” the King continued. “Di ko na nga rin maalala kung totoo nga bang si Queen Cory ang nag-appoint sa akin kaya naging Officer in Charge ako ng Duchy of Davao Siti (better known in all the Kingdom by the acronym DDS), wala na talaga akong maalala tungkol doon.”
    “Basta ang alam ko lang,” he continued, “salbahe talaga itong mga Amerikano. Bakit ba nila pinatay si General del Pilar, ang bata-bata pa noon at masunuring bata sa mga utos ni King Emilio del Aguinaldo, isa pang idol ko. Grabe talaga.”
    I attempted to ask the King details about the names he mentioned, but he was quick to follow up with:
    “Pero itong si King Ferdinand of Marcos, ha, di naman siguro totoo na salbahe ito kasi sa tingin ko kung naging salbahe man iyon, malamang dahil sa mga utos ng mga Amerikano, kasi salbahe talaga itong mga Amerikano, naalala kong turo ng mga titser ko sa elementary,” he said, looking at his plate of de-Lima Saba. I here again attempted to ask who---
    “Naalala ko rin yung sa collegium pa ako . . . iyan, mga classmates ko sa Ateneo de San Beda yang mga secretary ko na yan sa kabilang mesa, mga honor students yan silang lahat, gustong-gusto ng mga praile ng San Beda yang mga yan, sus ginoo. Ako 75 lang palagi,” he said, expecting laughter, which I promptly gave him and his joke.

    You laugh, my lords and ladies. But I expected that, that refrain of His Lordship’s overplayed song: “ako 75 lang palagi.”
    Anyway, after a pause I again attempted to ask about where Ateneo de---
    “Naalala ko, . . . ang daming rally noon dito sa Duchy of Maynila (better known throughout the kingdom as DOM). Kasi, siyempre, kaya siguro kami pinag-iinteresan ng mga Komunista noon kasi nandito kasi ang mga Amerikano, salbahe talaga, tsk,” he said, shaking his head.
    There was, again, a bit of pause here as the King rolled up a sleeve and reached out for a fried saba on my plate while side-glancing toward a female journalist. I felt like peeing from all the many cups of tea I had drunk and there stood up, and---

    “Kaya sabi ko, . . . para di na kami pag-interesan uli ng mga Komunista, pabalikin ko na lang si Joma, yung Robin Hood na titser ko, naalala ko, tapos makipagkaibigan kami with the Empire of China and KGB tsars-ruled Rusya, para wala nang gulo ba, o di ba? Mag-share na lang kami sa West Philippine Sea na yan. Tapos, laswik, pumunta ako ng Vietnam ni Bảo Đại, isa pang Komunista yan. O. di ok na ang Pilipinas, di ba? Sus ginoo, believe me.”
     At that moment I wanted to ask permission to go pee, but---

    “Kaya, sabi ko, itong 2016 Philippine-American military exercises, this will be the last, kasi mga salbahe talaga itong mga ito, naalala kong sabi sa akin ng mga titser ko sa elementary. Dito na lang ako sa Empire of China at sa KGB tsars ng Rasya---baka mababait pa itong mga ito, sabi ko, kasi biruin mo binigyan pa nga kami ng perang pangtayo ng drug rehab centers dito sa, saan ba yon? Basta meron dyan. Isipin mo yan! Saan ka ba---” I couldn’t understand the rest of the words he was munching on at that moment as he chewed on more saba. “On the other hand,” he continued, after wiping his mouth with toilet paper he got from one of his pockets, “wala talaga akong maalala na may ginawang salbahe sa amin itong Tsina at itong Rusya o Rasya. Wala talaga. . . . Well, wala akong maalala. . . . Ang parating naaalala ko ay itong Amerika. Sus, ginoo. Elementary pa lang ako, salbahe na talaga ‘to, putang ina!!!”

    I ran out to pee.

WHEN I got back I saw the King winking at a female journalist. I said to Him:

    “My Lord, can we get serious about this?”
    He looked at me as if to say he is always serious about anything and everything under the sun, even when he’s joking.
    “Let's say your Kingdom becomes more pro-China and -Russia than pro-Westeros from this moment forward,” I said, “okay, but what do you give away and what do you get?”
    A lady at a nearby table with her back turned to us almost half-turned at that moment, as if to listen harder to what might be the answer to the question I just threw at the King.
    “Let's do some real math and realpolitik here, my Lord,” I said. “Your subjects are warring with each other on abstractions like ‘sincere leadership’, ‘His caring presidency at the Presidium of Lackeys’, ‘nationalism’, and ‘independence’, which are---for now---still really nothing more to most than noisy, empty kettles of nice words they can't get water from for a jasmine tea of substance.”

    I didn’t notice Prince Wilfredo of Gallinero, son of the King’s estranged brother, sit at the table. He proudly swung the saba on his fork from left to right as he loudly, sarcastically said:
    “Instead, let us ask the former satellites of the KGB-Tsardom of Russia why they broke away from the USSR. Why the Tibetan Empire, The City Formerly Known as Her Royal Highness’ Hong Kong, Bảo Đại’s Vietnam and the Kingdom of Tungning (oh, Taiwan to you, ser Josuke of JoJolion) do not like mainland China. Why not ask millions of Chinese émigrés scattered around the globe why they ran away from their homeland? Why not ask millions of later Chinese and Russian immigrants to the United States of Northern America the reason why they chose to live there instead of in China or Russia? Why not ask Guaicaipuro’s Venezuelans what they got from switching sides? Why not ask Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar’s Cubans if they think they do deserve a 2016 Ford Everest instead of a vintage Chevy Cadillac?”

    Ser Dexter of Amoroso, son of a cousin of the King, was now also at the table. He said, joining the conversation, with the King not minding anyone as he busied himself with his saba, “If we are allied with the US of North America and the KGB Tsardom of Russia starts war, China as our ally would most likely be in charge of the Pacific front and use our islands for bases. And having the US of NA as our ally, well, they’d most likely request use of the burghs of Clark and Subic. That would make us a primary target, and same goes with the Empire of JoJolion and South Goguryeo.”

    We all stared at him, even the King.
    “Well,” ser Dexter continued, “if we are allied with China, same goes din. Either way, no choice. Two-edged sword ang pagiging strategic ng bansa natin. Di ba, My Lord?”
    “A, ewan ko sa iyo; not my cup of tea,” said His Lordship, who quickly went back to winking at the female journalist while he sipped tea.

    “So, siding with China is safer with that Pacific front scenario?” I asked ser Dexter, in my English with a Nihonggo accent.

    But before ser Dexter could answer, ser Wilfredo there addressed the King, again sarcastically: “Just asking, my Lord, but why are we so hyper about changing our status quo? Our big problem before was Drugs and Corruption. Now we are so involved in geopolitics?”
    “I think they belong to the same category, ser Wilfredo,” I hastened to offer an explanation on the King’s behalf, who might find the good ser not his cup of tea of a conversation mate. “One seems eager to sacrifice all geopolitical complexities in exchange for rehab centers.”

    I couldn’t believe that that was what came out of my mouth. The King there turned to me, stared at me, but soon smiled and moved back his stare to another female journalist at whom he also winked tirelessly.

    “And as for the corruption of others,” I ventured to utter a joke, sensing that the King was up to receiving jokes at this hour of the night, “I dunno if theirs are bigger corruptions than the rumored one that says One actually got his prime campaign money from the AIIB.”
    Sers Dexter and Wilfredo looked at me, shocked, then giggled. The King turned to me again, stared at me, but after four seconds on a grandfather clock smiled at me for having the ambassadorial charm to crack such a joke, only to be frightened by the Kingly stare, haha. He threw his cooking oil-stained fork at my livery, over which act sers Dexter and Wilfredo LOL’d.

SER Wilfredo was saying: “China will deal first with JoJolion, South Goguryeo, HRH Australia, Bảo Đại’s Vietnam, and most likely the rajas’ India and Indonesia. If we remain neutral it will be worse. Warring factions within our country will be armed by each’s opposing powers. We become like Syria, killing each other 'til the fight between the superpowers end.”

    I suddenly realized that Ser Hubert of Posadas, a freelancing knight of sorts, had been standing behind Ser Wilfredo, holding a cup of tea. He said then, “I do not think there is an exit from this. We have always been primed for proxy wars, so either end of the situation we will still be like Syria. We cannot escape playing the geopolitical game at this point in history. We have to at least take initiative, or be, as always, victim to the external manipulation by foreign powers. And how could we not, with our strategic location and weak military? The end goals, gentlemen, however you play it, are 1) industrialization while expanding our agricultural base, 2) equitable growth, 3) a strengthened local military’s technical capability, and 4) unified internal warring factions. The homework is more internal, regardless of the externalities, because once we achieve internal technology to a level of sustainability and equitably utilize our resources, we can then start to assert control of the strategic location that we have been blessed with by the Lord Bathala. Play them against each other is what I say. Eh, my Lord King?”

    But the King was suddenly not there. Ah, he was now standing in front of a bunch of seated and smiling journalists.

    “Why not concentrate on improving our economy to solve our poverty problem?” asked ser Wilfredo, turning to face the freelancing knight. “We are rich in everything. All we need to do is manage it well and share it fairly among us. That is how our leadership should show genuine love for its people.”

    “Yup,” said ser Hubert, “but as someone exposed to risk organizations and the intelligence community, that is the crux of the problem. If you try to do exactly that, foreign special interests and powers will neutralize you. This is well documented in our own Alexandrian libraries, and if you talk to any careerist in the NSC and NICA or even ISAFP, they will privately say so. It’s just that we are so enamored with our relationship with the US of NA and, as ser Josuke of JoJolion has been wont to point out, the internal colonizers are easily swayed by US of NA companies, Indonesian big money, China money, Malaysian money, that you will find that goal unattainable. Many have tried and literally died.”

    Everyone stared at ser Hubert, shocked at the reality bite he shared, their hands stopping short of bringing their sabas to their respective mouths.

    “The SOP,” ser Hubert continued as he strolled around the round table, “and I have worked with mining companies and contractors, is to start with AID while they steal the land, and many times stealing the health of the community as well. If the community is not compromised, brand their leaders as communists and place them in the OB! Then it will be easy to kill them.”

    Everyone slowly pushed their sabas to their mouths, still eager for ser Hubert to continue.

    And ser Hubert continued. “The AID,” he said, “is used to get baseline data and a social survey. Third parties then use bribery to buy the local dukes, extract resources. All standard playbook procedures.”

    Everyone slowly chewed on their sabas, looking down at the linen of realization on the table of globalization, as ser Hubert moved on to another table.

I DIDN’T know it was Lady Melanie of Victoriano at the nearby table. She swung around and asked: “So, ser Josuke of JoJolion, what items are on your ‘give away’ and ‘get’ list?”

    “Sa Those Chinese-American Companies In Manila That Cannot Be Named na lang ako manghihingi ng get list ko, ma’am Melanie,” I said, smiling, as I struggled to flaunt my Tagalog with an anime accent. “As for King Rodrigo I, I think rehab centers okey na sa kanya; yun lang yata hinihingi niya, simpleng probinsiyano lang naman daw siya. Tsaka isda promdi Iskaroboro?”
    She smiled and turned back to her table.

    Ser Wilfredo said: “We give away our natural resources and we get low-paying jobs as promoters of their products at the expense of our Overseas Filipino Workers.”

    I said, “Your country is so used to doing those, ser Wilfredo. What's to stop your lumpenbourgeoisie from giving away the same to a new colonial party? :)”

    He smiled and returned to his saba.

    Lady Melanie turned back again, saying: “We won the case at the inter-nations arbitration table, didn’t we? The King won't even get what is ours?”

    “Madame,” I said, “I think what you consider as yours and what He considers as His are two different things? And I think His definition of ‘bayan ko’ is not so different from the definition of it by seemingly China-funded Bayan Muna? A China-centric Asia Union would be their definition of a supreme bayan, different from your definition of the word, true?”

    “Hmm,” she said. “Do you think His ‘Bayan ko’ (pre- & during the election of Kings) is different now, now that he is the King?”

    “Rumor is creeping in, my lady,” I said, “that what we're witnessing now are the repercussions of that equally rumored pre-election Rodrigo-AIIB connection.”

    Ser Wilfredo looked up from his saba, saying, “Silk road, too, eh?”

    “Silk bridge,“ I said.

    “AIIB controlled by China,” ser Wilfredo continued, glancing with a tinge of bitterness towards his Uncle, “will finance that ambitious bridge project. All member states' banking and private sectors will put in their share. Most material and labor will be from China. It is business as usual for China. They have to think faster because their temporary prosperity is diminishing. In the long end, it will be faster to spread their products throughout the continent. Sounds good, but are we sure China will not use that leverage against the AIIB’s member states? As far as we are concerned, what do we need them for? We have more than enough wealth for every Filipino. All that this wealth needs is proper management!”

    He glanced bitterly towards his Uncle, there flirting with the media.

    Suddenly, Ser Raymond of the Red, the jester-puppeteer, passed by our table, saying to us as he danced to Freddie Aguilar’s music, “One for you, one for me. Two for you, one, two for me. Three for you, one, two, three for me . . .”, as he disappeared into the crowd of standing and talking journalists, among whom was the King, dancing with His cup of tea.

    And that is my report to you, my lords and ladies! Arigato! Here’s hoping you will have use for it before His Lordship arrives for his visit! Just remember this, though, my lords, my ladies. To the King of the Philippines we are a friend. We are not the anime. Get it? Not an anime at all, hahaha. Kanpai!!! [S / -I]

THE LUMPENBOURGEOISIE’S METHOD IS TO DIVIDE US ON ISSUES OTHER THAN WHAT THE LUMPENBOURGEOISIE HAVE THEIR EYES ON TO IMPOSE ON ALL OF US

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/571910/news/specialreports/scenes-from-president-rodrigo-duterte-s-inauguration

1. On Behalf of Inang Bayan Kuno

PUTANG INA MO, China, hanggang ngayon di ka pa rin nag-aapologize sa pekeng rice na pinasok mo sa amin, sa mga illegal drugs na pinapadala mo rito sa Opium War by Shabu ninyo laban sa amin, sa pag-okupa mo ng Scarborough Shoal hanggang sa mga oras na ito, sa mga fraudulent loans ng mga pulitiko namin na inasikaso mo, sa dumping mo ng kung anu-anong shady products sa buong mundo, at marami pang iba, . . . China, I wish you see hell!!!!!

    Pero teka, teka, teka, mali yata ang script na binabasa ko. Dapat pala, kung sang-ayon tayo sa script ng pamahalaan ni Rodrigo Duterte, ang Amerika ang hinihingan natin ng apology saaaa . . . let’s see . . . ah, alam ko na . . . sa atrocities nito sa Bud Dajo noong taong 1906. So sige, heto na: Amerika, tang-ina mo ka, padala ka ng padala ng aid pero di ka pa rin nag-aapologize sa Bud Dajo, tang ina at ama mo rin ka! Go to hell!

    Ok na ba yon? Yey! Rak en rol!

2. An "I" Persona

KUNG IHAHAMBING MO ang Rodrigo Duterte script na ito sa, say, Noynoy Aquino script o kahit sa Fidel Ramos script noon, makikita rin natin na ang Rodrigo Duterte script ay karaniwa’y isang “I” persona script, as against the former presidents’ conventionally “we” personae scripts. But of course we can argue that, in effect, all presidential scripts, whether presented in the ‘I’ mode or in the ‘we’ mode, are all largely dictatorial products of the dictatorial presidential system, and are thus all “I” persona scripts at the end of the day (dictating the president’s will upon the nation through either threat of violence, threat of being denied funding, or threat of legalist suit).

    So one could say that Duterte’s “I”-based script is simply more honest, or vulgarly forward, if you will, about it. Or simply more cognizant of the fact that presidential personae are largely all ultimate products of the big “I” hype manufactured by the star system that defines the presidential system as the most star system-reliant form of representative democracy. Duterte’s cognizance and embrace of that privilege now wallows in the very depth of the hype, or at the summit of it, almost as if to test its limits.

    Thus Rodrigo Duterte is now wont to utter such lines as "I might break up with America" or "I might go to China and Russia instead" and "I only want to be at peace with everybody, doing business with everybody, and no quarrels with anybody" in reference to a desire for "an independent foreign policy” for the Philippines. And as if to hide the kingly grandiosity in these pronouncements, at one of his speeches for his police camp audience (as he’s been wont to visit the police camps of the country since day 1), he recently said, referring to the “insulting” United States and European governments’ criticism of his war on drugs, "when you insult the President of the Republic of the Philippines you also insult the Filipino people." Really?

    I am beginning to wonder if all this honesty from the “I” persona of Duterte’s script also means that Rodrigo Duterte now regards himself as independent of the Filipino people's opinion, post-election, so independent in fact as to be able to unilaterally decide on such things as what happens to the Philippines (which he now seems to consider as his) and the Filipino people (whose brains he seems to now consider as connected to his, irrespective of their current individual desires). The thought of referenda on anything major be damned, and fuck even a bit of decrease on his still-high approval rating, and a spit of phlegm perhaps on thoughts of a coup that might subsequently try him for treason. His government has said it not a few times: he was elected by a large majority of the Filipino people, which by his understanding gave him the license (given by that large majority), or prior approval, to do whatever he announced he’d do during the campaign and things he intends to do now and henceforward, ostensibly all for the betterment of the Filipino nation that he loves (often completing such a pronouncement of love with a gesture of touching the flag behind him on a stage in a visited police camp somewhere). But this should not be a surprising proposition, given that that’s precisely the attitude that presidential systems and presidentialism expect presidents to don, post-election.

3. Braggadoccio

AND SO IT was no surprise to read that report wherein the President claimed that the Philippines can survive without foreign aid, referring to aid we have received mainly from the United States and Japan.

    Well, unang-una, there's no such thing as aid na walang kapalit (which kapalit might take the form of export or import concessions); madalas din ang aid ay synonym for a loan/debt.

    Pangalawa, this is total bullshit from a government that has been in close contact with the AIIB from day 1.

    Otherwise, this almost sounds like taunting Western banks and the ADB to leave us, I suspect as per instructions from AIIB officers whose institution must be eager to send its people in droves to our archipelago in the way a Russian missile system triumphantly entered Syria last month.

    My friend Hubert Posadas, a security consultant, commented on a post of mine on Facebook on this subject and wrote: “There will be a trade-off, and it will work if we are a country united. However, he could have done it more smoothly, without creating overt tension and hostility in a growingly threatening climate. In a country rich with natural resources, we have become addicted to aid, which has only perpetuated our being a natural resource-rich country with a poor populace, a country exporting natural resources without added value and buying it back as finished products we could have created ourselves (thus a country importing produce we can actually produce on our own), a country furthermore exporting fathers and mothers to become slaves abroad and leaving a generation of kids without guidance in return for material goods that addle our children's brains. . . . We are addicted to aid to the point that we do not learn to manage what we have for our collective good, never questioning businesses that perpetuate this cycle where only the few oligarchs and industrialists prosper. We never question the control that AID and Borrowing creates for the Lendor, believing in the institutions that create the machinery that exploit us, how the World Bank loans us on paper money they never really give as we hire their contractors and pay their services with siphoned resources. We never understand our complicity in the deaths of other civilians around the world that suffer a war for pretended causes just because they have resources our big brother wants. We have to ween ourselves from these addictions.”

I WON’T COMMENT on my friend Hubert’s trust and optimism towards the Duterte thrust towards China away from the West, if that’s what he meant by his first sentence, nor would I comment on his preference for a more statesman-like Duterte mouth (especially as I suspect it is all from a script suggested by the President’s targeted main creditor and possibly foreign election campaign donor, the AIIB), nor on his view of foreign aid as motivated by some blind addiction, if I got him correctly on that. But I definitely agree with much else that he wrote. Not because I believe that our leaders (national and local) have been treating foreign aid from a position of blind addiction, but because I believe that foreign aid (from whichever source) has always been that product peddled by foreign banking or governmental interests (of whatever nationality) to countries such as ours, where these in turn are received with warm welcome by these countries’ respective lumpenbourgeoisie-gone-wealthy.

    In fact, in the Philippines’ case, that state of affairs described above by my friend is all due to our having been through decades of being managed by elements of the lumpenbourgeoisie, a lumpenbourgeoisie whose instincts are naturally inclined to the enriching of themselves and the neglect of those they would pretend to serve. Here’s where I have qualms on any shift from West-based creditors to a China-based credit source: a pro-American lumpenbourgeoisie replaced by a pro-China lumpenbourgeoisie is not going to remove us from the shackles of conditions imposed by global banks (which banks also happen to be attached to governments with their attached conditions and impositions). And, worse, while you can shame Western banks when certain details about them are exposed, there's no shaming the AIIB (China's West Philippine Sea attitude is already an omen of what our relationship with our new creditors are going to look like).

    For as long as we are managed by this niche, this class, we are never going to be united, precisely because the elements in this niche (the lumpenbourgeoisie, now also interestingly containing elements from the Left) are, to repeat, naturally inclined to forever work for themselves and their factions in the guise of working for the nation. Being thus predisposed, they are likewise necessarily inclined to divide us, us who are easily duped into siding with the competing left-right-center factions of the lumpenbourgeoisie on various issues other than their lumpenbourgeoisie-ness. That is to say, we are led to debate and curse each other on distracting issues (or false flags) that hide the bigger issues that define their being lumpenbourgeois. We are divided the way TV viewers have been duped into joining either a kapamilya or kapuso or kapatid kind of TV channel brand loyalism, where we get deeply passionate about these myriad team affiliations for groupthink while missing what the lumpenbourgeois man did to our country for his and/or his faction’s enrichment and/or their personal ideas’ fulfillment.

A LIBERATING VIEW of a truer division has yet to be seen. It is a view within which we can glimpse and acknowledge how we are actually divided: into two separate nations, with the mob of the lumpenbourgeois-gone-wealthy on the one hand and then the rest of us on the other. When the time comes for us to awaken to the ideals of true democracy, let’s say participatory democracy wherein we become participants in decision-making, especially on matters pertaining to what happens to our country, only then can we say that we have attained the first step to independence, to a true freedom to choose among policy choices and not merely to be led into obeying the readymade choices of messiahs from the center, right or now-included-left of the lumpenbourgeois class with their foreign bank and superpower-big-brother preferences.

4. The problem with us, the people

NOTICE THAT I used the clause “time for us to awaken . . .” Now, is that day near at all? Hmm. Presently, there is reason to be pessimistic. For every time we start talking about “we,” we usually do not examine the we-ness in it or of it.

    The "we the people" phrase that we often use, for instance, is—true—often associated with democracy, more specifically representative democracy, almost never for an absent demand for some direct democracy. And there's the rub. The Philippine problem is that "we the Filipino people" have a political culture of always wanting to fight not for our personal or collective causes primarily but for politicians and such personalities, primarily. We would fight wars and die for these in the name of our politician or celebrity or sports team/athlete or favored TV channel. In that fact alone we can already say that "we the Filipino people" are still living in a kind of monarchic system akin to those before the occurrence of the events that led to the French Revolution.

    I agree, it is our poverty that has pinned us to this ignorance about the vicious cycle of exploitation by various actors. And so, perhaps, even in the attainment of true democracy, we might still need the miracle of being blessed with true leaders of the people, as against mere actors pretending to be leaders of the people. The French at the onset of the French Revolution were poor, but a culture of revolt was propagated by an intelligentsia that realized what was in this intelligentsia’s minds by making revolt the inevitable through the inculcation of that culture in the people, making the latter own this culture as if it derived from them, because, after all, it was for them and not for anyone else or for any political party seeking one-party rule. Unless, by some Marxist criticism, we propose that that culture may have actually derived from them, the masses, and was merely articulated by the intelligentsia.

    “When do we really start comprehending Rousseau and get away being puzzled by Montesquieu?”—wrote my Facebook friend, the banker and gallerist Remigio David. “For the time being, it's self destruction, defeat, disaster!”

    Expect to see light at the end of this tunnel of horrors soon, ser David. That's the optimist side of me speaking. :)

    “We shall celebrate when we bump into our own ‘Age of Reason’,” he wrote. “And when it does, let us hope it will endure despite the social contention. Little by little, our old world should crumble! I am an optimist like you, tu vois!”

    My friend Hubert P- came back with this: “Ah, but we are growing. All the institutions are being questioned, all crumbling. Catharsis begins with these kinds of event, helped by the dawning of awareness given insight by people like you. Frame the positive outcome and prescription and we’ll see that the change is already here with people like you. Know that it is hard to break old habits but easy to create new ones. That is why the revolution in psychology has been to steer away from talking about the past and more on reframing the positive outcome one wants to produce. Conditioned helplessness is the condition one finds oneself in by constantly complaining without looking for a solution. The mind works by seeing a proof of concept, not by discussing logics. The ability to train the mind to see a problem as a situation is the first skill in training the mind to find the solution. That is why we keep changing our leaders without success, because we only know what we do not want without knowing what we need to do. Most Filipinos think that a movement is to find a fault and ask others to join in agreeing to find fault and rally behind that negative statement. They are actually talking about a reaction, not a revolution. A revolution is a dynamic of change from one State to another. But without a clear scalable proof of concept, it never really becomes a movement. Change begins with a small group with clearly defined acts that prove a new reality. Everything else is reaction.”

    À votre santé! Vive la démocratie directe!

5. The problem with our intelligentsia

BUT FOR NOW I don’t see things as brightly as my friend Hubert, despite my desire to continue to rally people towards direct democratic and participatory democratic directions. That’s the pessimist side of me speaking.
    "I don't blame the Americans for keeping to their interests. Ang problema is how well we fight for ours," Filipino historian Xiao Chua said in a talk show on Net25.
    Well, mabuhay ka, ser Xiao. Natumbok mo ang anatomiya ng lumpenbourgeoisie-ness; ang lumpenbourgeoisie-ness na hindi mawawala sa paghahanap ng ibang amo.

    And so, if our French Revolution of sorts is to be provoked by our intelligentsia, we should wonder where our intelligentsia are.

    Recently, this news came out about Duterte defender and former journalist pundit Teddy Boy Locsin’s engaging Duterte-critical netizens in a word war as he defended the President, specifically on Twitter: click here. Locsin has been designated by the new President as the new Philippine ambassador to the United States.

    We do not begrudge Locsin his newly-avowed opinion and position, as this new position may reflect his utopia of a better world articulated in his criticism as a journalist. Perhaps his fans’ dismay at his “having changed” is a mal-appreciation of what he stood for on the whole in the past, thus their shock at his present behavior.

    Nevertheless, it also cannot be denied that elements of the intelligentsia in this country, like their contemporaries in government, find it easy to sacrifice old ideals for new pragmatisms, being armed with the articulateness to justify flip-flops when a flip-flop or perceived flip-flop occurs.

    And whenever that adaptation happens, and I’m not saying that that’s what happened in Locsin’s case, it’s because that’s precisely what happens when our intelligentsia elements unwittingly or subconsciously promise themselves not to fight for their causes of old (or even new causes) but for a politician, especially when they fight for their selfish enjoyment under the patronage of those politicians. There are way more “fuck-faces” in this republic than the number of letters in the name of Teddy Boy Locsin. Politician-directed loyalism is the national disease in this our disguised monarchic system, in this our era before the far future occurrence of events that may lead to our French Revolution of sorts. [S / -I]

THE PERFECT VISION OF HINDSIGHT UPON A DEVELOPING BLINDNESS

photo from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/324877/news/regions/davao-mayor-duterte-moonlights-fights-crime-as-taxi-driver

THE faults and loopholes in plans are always clearer in hindsight. And it is from this perfect angle within the present that you might grant me the indulgence to find out where the presently-perceived progressing wrongness in Rodrigo Duterte’s national war on drugs may have started, going even beyond its practical launch during the transition period prior to his inauguration.

    I won’t get into the good things the war brought out from the dark as it exposed to national attention a problem already so huge that the gravity of the situation in solving it seems almost unimaginable now. I’m sure Duterte’s defenders can enumerate quite well enough some of those good things.

    But if the world and a growing number of Filipinos have perceived some things going wrong with the Duterte approach to the problem, so have I, and—thanks to the beauty of hindsight—I may now proceed to venture into where those mistakes may have been lurking prior to and during implementation:

1. First, it seems to me now that when Duterte made his drastic solution to the drug problem as one of the highlights, if not the sole highlight, of his presidential election candidacy and campaign, that was perhaps also when he practically started to shape what would later be his impending war on drugs’ problem with critics (perhaps also this war's later-found difficulty in quickly and efficiently obliterating the menace). True, Duterte the candidate might not have been the Duterte candidate that many wanted to see blossom, though we don’t know that, if he had not harped too much on that subject (or on that solution of his to that subject). But Duterte is Duterte, and if everyone has an obsession, this was his.
       But one thing for sure now, well at least now looking back, is that the loquacity of the campaign rhetoric on it as a problem needing a drastic solution, while it served his campaign was also already paving the way for its potential unraveling. For it was simply by announcing this solution of his to the nation, and consequently to the world of criminals (and to the parallel universe of policemen frustrated with the requirements of the law and the corruption in the judiciary) that he may have unwittingly planted the seeds of the war’s own defeat.
       We might remember that the death toll from this war actually already started during the transition period when Noynoy Aquino was still commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Duterte was still the president-elect with diktats in waiting. When, during this period, Duterte made speeches encouraging police to kill drug criminals who opted to fight it out with arresting officers, the encouragement certainly sounded like an offer to policemen to use that scenario as their perfect alibi for the summary execution of confirmed drug dealers that the President might have wanted done (as per some other contents of his speeches). The encouragement would likely also have been useful to erring or criminal cops friendly to drug lords, who may have used the same scenario as the same perfect alibi for the elimination of would-be-whistleblowers (small pushers, runners, client users).
2. The garrulousness of Duterte’s anti-illegal-drug campaign never changed its ways after his inauguration, maintaining a high profile via its appetite for loudness. That practically functioned as a warning to big drug criminals of their impending arrests. In fact, Duterte and his henchman, newly-installed Philippine National Police chief Gen. Bato de la Rosa, would state very explicit warnings to those drug lords on broadcast TV, saying, clearly or in effect, “get ready, we’re coming for you”. This ill-advised loudness defeated the potential of getting to the big drug lords through the quiet use as assets of small dealers (and client users). Instead, the government practically encouraged and aided the elimination of these small dealers, in the process eliminating their potential use as assets and witnesses necessary for getting to the big drug lords and necessary for the latter’s later ultimate conviction in the courts. In short, the Duterte proclivity for braggadocio made it possible for the program to only get the small fry as it practically warned the medium and big fish to get out of the way, even aiding the latter in eliminating elements in the equation who would potentially rat out on them. Thus the so-called “vigilante killings,” which, for all we know, may likely have been killings of simple users who necessarily knew who were who in the trading of the drug supply. These “vigilante killings” by drug dealers would be exacerbated by such programs as 1) Oplan Tokhang that encouraged the surrender of runners and users for listing and 2) mandatory drug testing that announced results: these two programs exposed users to the world of drug dealing as potential testifiers, which would be reason enough for their later or immediate assassination/elimination by the drug dealers. The programs' ultimate accomplishment? These eliminated the witnesses, setting free the drug lords. 
3. Another offshoot of Duterte’s loud campaign (which might have been frustrating to the PNP’s quiet spies and assets) was its susceptibility to being used by the regular murderers for hiding the real motives of their murders. It’s not unlikely that some policemen frustrated with the law and the justice system might have been easily taken in by the cardboards laid on top of murder victims' bodies announcing an anti-drug-pusher motive for their killing, a reaction that would lead these policemen to dismiss any enthusiasm to investigate further other possible motives behind those killings. And when one such occurrence multiplies itself to a horrific number that may trouble the media and human rights organizations as well as the rest of the relatively civilized world, then the war on drugs starts to move on its way to defeat. Instead of gathering more fans (in the manner it gathered fans during the enthusiasm of the election campaign period), it accumulated critics.
4. I need not say much about the potential of Duterte’s approach—along with any killings via vigilantism that may likely have been encouraged by Duterte’s passion—to eliminate wrongfully-accused persons (innocent persons) or persons adjudged as guilty by the verdict of mistaken identification.
5. Much of the enthusiasm for and loyalism towards Duterte’s war on drugs seems to have derived from a mythical appreciation of its beauty, lacking any favor for a delicate treatment of the problem. This kind of enthusiasm would necessarily churn out more good-looking braggadocio (bravado) instead of more scientific thinking towards winning the war. The potential unraveling of the still-continuing war (for which the President has asked for another six months to complete) could start precisely from this seeming waylaying of any delicate treatment of the situation in favor of the charismatic carelessness of the drastic, thanks to the penchant for sweeping obsessive thinking in the President himself. Thus his announcements (after the Davao explosion that some have begun to regard as an experimental false flag) that the military might have to be hauled in into this war, without weighing the fact that this solution could bring in more problems (via evolution) instead of real closure. We’re not even talking yet about the announcements that seem to be jeopardizing a long-time alliance with the relatively more democratic West (that has been critical of his war) in favor of a sweet-talking trickster called China (that has offered him rehab centers allegedly already under construction). This obsession by Duterte with one single personal interest (the dreamy utopia of a drug-free world) seems to have become so emotional to him that it has placed the drug problem in a pedestal worth any sacrifice, even the sacrifice by a leader of his country’s national sovereignty, thanks perhaps to a blinded confidence that he will not be deceived by his new like-minded allies from the lands of Qin Shi Huang and surviving KGBs.
6. The recently-accumulating careless statements of the President have made people nervous, primarily of the fact that he may have used this bottom-up war on drugs not for the serious elimination of the trade and drug lords but merely as a casus belli for the establishment of a culture of fear and obedience, fear of and obedience to a loved leader, after which establishment he can perhaps impose whatever personal utopia he has had in that strange 71-year-old brain of his, and likewise place in power the friends and institutions (local and foreign) that he wanted placed in lieu of the old friends his 71-year-old memory had come to hate.

    Sadly, all this developing blindness or myopia (in government or in the people) may perhaps only be proven true when it’s already too late and the only redeeming solutions available are already hidden in the tears of hindsight. [S / -I]





P.S. October 4, afternoon: If I may be allowed to speak in the language of divination priests, I'd bluntly say this to you now, Mr. President: "Here you are again, sir, deciding out loud, making all your thoughts known at a local leaders' congress. Sure you're telling them truths, collective truths and personal truths, but isn't the habitual or continuous screaming out of extemporaneous, lecturing truths risky when you are telling these to the populace yourself, touting yourself as your own best communication expert? Isn't it a disadvantage when you are being heard in the battlefield of your war, consequently warning the enemies you shouldn't be handing the benefit of a warning? Might it not be better to tell all these to key people in your team, giving them the blunt truths they might already know that yet need to be quickly and aggressively addressed? Might not the communication of a positive purpose or goal work better for the people's collective listening ears? Can you come up with a better communication plan than the non-plan you now have of making criminals daily hear your ever-present anger that's enabling them to adapt or be ready for?"
    Here's my joke about you to counter your Hitler rant:
    Kung si Rodrigo Duterte ang naging Hitler ng Germany at si Bato de la Rosa ang kanyang naging Goering, hindi na kakailanganin ni Churchill si Turing dahil walang magiging Enigma.