QUEZONIAN CONTEXTS FOR OUR TIME

“I WOULD rather have a country run like hell by Filipinos than a country run like heaven by the Americans, because however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it.” Quezon the movie adopted another version of that quote, which ends with "because no matter how bad, a Filipino government might be improved." In our time, those two versions would differ significantly.

THE former. The former could be used to refer to a US-modeled system of government with a strong president under a strongly-representative democracy CHANGED IN THE FUTURE, after repeated demonstrations of failure, to a more democratic parliamentary form perhaps, and/or to one under a more participatory democracy or quasi-direct democracy like that of Switzerland. The word "can" is optimistic towards Filipinos' capacity to create or instigate or demand such a transition or transformation. The latter. The latter version of the quote (with "might") is less positive, but perhaps more realistic, as if cognizant of the fact that we have always had a policy of maintaining ignorance and propaganda-vulnerability in our country's overwhelming majority (simply via our education system that refuses to be fully socialized and takes pride in a hierarchism of trainings). But although the latter is realistic, almost implying a pessimism or as if subtly preaching the impossibility of hoping, it is however ignorant of the fact that a government molded through a plutocratic model of fake democracy WILL NEVER ALLOW ITSELF TO BE "IMPROVED". Or is it pessimistic precisely because of the near-impossibility of seeking improvements within it?

WHICH version do you prefer? At the risk of sounding like a Macchiavellian inciter of armed rebellion, I'd say that such a plutocratic/kleptocratic government system that has allowed so much power among its wielders will indeed never allow a more open government, or share legislative power with the people through truly-useful initiatives, and that the only time it will allow these to encroach into the system is when a revolution occurs that would demand the upending of those eternal refusals. As an open government and participatory democracy advocate I'll risk stating that statement bordering on Macchiavellian or otherwise Marxist pessimism, however, knowing full well that Filipinos currently want to upend our current system that continues to refuse significant changes only through the lens of either communism or Islamism, both of which our plutocracy has been able to keep at bay. Filipinos will never go to war against our eternally corrupt plutocracy in the name of open government or a quasi-direct democracy. . . . Never. Although they might be able to, someday. Can change. Might improve. Two different worlds in a parallel universe.

Anti-Semiotic, Ang Putik

(borrowed from httpbellyngot1.wordpress.com)

LAHAT ng bagay sa mundo ay may meaning. Kahit nga ang pambansang almusal nating pan de sal na imported mula China at Turkey ang ginagamit na arina ay isang maliit na bagay lang na may malaking meaning. Ang EdloSA pa kaya, na may kilokilometrong trapik na ngayon ay may problemang ayaw solusyunan (dahil malaki ang kinikita ng oil companies sa trapik na ito) . . . kahit pa nag-rebolusyon na sa abenidang ito ang maraming ordinaryong tao noong 1986! Diyan pa lang, may malaking meaning ka nang makikita! Kaya kung sasabihin mo sa akin na wala nang meaning ang EdloSA 1, isa kang nagbubulagbulagan sa katotohanan ng mga bagay-bagay tulad ng pan de sal. O baka naman iniiwasan mo lang ang totoo: na hinayjak ng elite, tulad ng idolo mong elite o royalty, ang naibalik na “demokrasya”. Hinayjak nila ito para hindi na ito maging mas demokratiko pa, maging sa participatory man o semi-direct na democratic direction. Di ba? Aminin. Pati ba naman ang mga meaning ay hahayjakin mo rin, tarantadong hayjaker ka. [S / -I]

Isang Maiksing Reminder Tungkol sa Anatomiya ng Pilipinong Botante at ang Ugat ng Abuse of Power sa Ating Bansa

ANO ang mali sa pronouncement na ito?
    "Jojo, di ba ibinoto mo rin si Duterte? Tapos wala pa yatang isang buwan ay kung anu-ano na ang pinagsasasabi mo tungkol sa Duterte government na binoto mo? Kung gago nga ang Duterte government, ayon sa punto ng ilang kritisismo mo laban dito, aba, isa ka rin sa mga dahilan kung bakit ganito ang nangyari sa bansa natin under the Duterte government. Kaya ang masasabi ko sa iyo ay ito: dun ka na lang sa binoto mo, gago ka! Panindigan mo na lang, punyeta ka!! Di ka namin kailangan sa panig namin!!!"
    Obvious naman na ang nagsulat nito ay hindi bumoto o nangampanya kay Duterte. Dahil ang bumoto kay Duterte ay ganito ang isusumbat:
    "Ang problema sa atin, boboto tayo, tapos sa huli tayo ay magrereklamo. Ganun ba parati? Di ba dapat suportahan na lang kung sino man ang nanalo dahil yun ang pinili ng tao? O totoo nga bang mahilig lang talaga tayong maging parating opositor? Kaya siguro hindi umuunlad ang ating bayan."
    Hokey. At ngayon, ang sagot ko sa mga mungkahi na yan, na ilalatag ko ng mahaba at ng ganito:
    "Ser, ma'am, ang pagkakaalam ko po, lahat po tayo ay nalalagay sa single-issue activism o single-issue politics tuwing eleksyon. At least sa case ko ganun ang tingin ko sa sarili ko bilang botante. Ibig sabihin, binoboto ko ang tao na nagmumungkahi na gagawa ng solusyon sa single issue na nasa tuktok ng aking listahan. Oo nga't marami tayong nasa ating mga listahan na di angkop sa kandidatong iboboto natin at maaaring angkop dun sa kabila, kaya lang hindi iyon ang nasa tuktok sa listahan natin, at kahit man marami tayong magkakaparehong causa sa ating mga listahan ay magkakaiba tayo ng piniling issue na ilalagay sa tuktok ng ating kani-kaniyang listahan. At dahil alam ko iyan, ser, ma'am, nung ako'y bumoto, pinangako ko sa aking sarili na hindi ako magiging loyalista ng sinumang pulitiko at ng kanyang mga pagpangako kundi ng pagtupad sa mga issues sa aking listahan. Kaya . . . dun sa sinasabi niyong pareho na dun na lang ako dapat sa binoto ko parati, nagkakamali po kayo sa inyong pag-iisip na ang binoto ko ay yung tao at hindi yung causa na nasa tuktok ng aking listahan (na maaaring tinupad niya o tinupad niya ng mali o sinuway niya o iniwan na sa daan). Alam niyo, hindi lang naman ang kandidatong binoto ko ang nangako. Ako rin ay nangako. Pinangako ko sa aking sarili na lalabanan ko ang aking piniling kandidato sa ibang issue sa aking listahan na hindi siya angkop. At, alam niyo, ganun din naman ang pinangako ko sa aking sarili pagdating sa ibang kandidato, na kung sila ang mananalo ay hindi ko sila lalabanan sa lahat ng issue, dahil hindi sila ang kinalaban ko kundi ang maraming issue na hindi angkop sa kanila. Susuportahan ko naman sila sa mga issue sa listahan ko na angkop sa kanila. Muli, . . . sa mungkahi niyo, ser, na doon na lang ako parati dapat sa binoto ko dahil di niyo ako kailangan sa panig niyo, at sa parinig ninyo, ma'am, na tila adik na ako sa pagiging kontra parati, hindi po ako pumapanig sa inyo, ser, o sa kabila, ma'am, dahil sa tao ninyo/doon kundi dahil sa causa ninyo/doon kung saan kaisa ninyo/nila ako, dahil nasa listahan ko rin ang causa na iyon. Ser, kung ayaw niyo akong tanggapin sa rally niyo dahil binoto ko si Duterte, aba, okey lang. Kikilos ako nang hindi ko kayo kasabay, dahil hindi ako lumalaban sa ngalan ng isang pulitiko kundi sa ngalan ng mga causa ko. Hindi ko kayo kaisa sa inyong loyalismo, ser at ma'am, dahil tinuturing ko ring kalaban ang anumang uri ng loyalismo sa tao o partido."
    At dito ay biglang paakbay na pumasok ang aking Facebook friend na si Bert David ng may ganitong mga salita ng pagsuporta sa aking posisyon. Aniya: "Baluktot pa kasi at dapat itama ang pag-unawa ng mga kababayan natin sa kung ano ang demokrasya. Akala pa rin ng ilan, ang inihahalal sa mga eleksyon ay kundi man inihalal upang maging diyos, ay hinalal para maging hari o reyna o diktador, kung kaya't ang mga itoy ay nagiging mandarambong o manggagantso o mamamatay-tao nila. Di pa rin maintindihan na ang ibinoboto at dapat ibinoboto ay ang mga mabuting tao na makagagawa ng mabuti sa bansa at sa kapwa. At lalong di alam na sa demokrasya, kabahagi ang botante sa pang-araw-araw na pamamahala kung saan tinatalakay ang mga bagay-bagay na ginagawa para sa ikabubuti ng madla (hindi para sa ikabubuti ng mga ibinotong akala nila'y dapat lang na naging diyos o hari o reyna o diktador na naging mandarambong o manggagantso o mamamatay-tao ng botante."
    Mismo. Dahil kung ito nga ang anatomiya ng ating pagboto, totoo nga ang kasabihan na ang karapatang bumoto ng tao sa isang representative democracy ay isang karapatan nilang pumili ng kanilang susunod na magiging diktador.
    Matagal ko na ring sinasabi na tae talaga ang isang purely representative democracy na walang kasama o kaakibat na direct democracy instruments para sa tao. Hindi ito totoong "demos kratos" (democracy) o people's rule, dahil madalas rito, ang ibinoto mong tao ay nandun na, nagsisimula nang umalis sa kanyang ilang mga pangako at umabuso na rin sa kapangyarihang ibinigay sa kanya at di na mabawi ng mga bumoto sa kanya, salamat sa pribilehiyong ito na bigay ng taeng pure representative democracy.
    At kahit pa matagal na akong nagdadadaldal tungkol diyan, walang nakikinig sa kuto na tulad ko, dahil buo na ang paniniwala ng sambayanan na ang ating kaligtasan ay nasa mga inihahalal, mga inihahalal na sana ay maging mabuti at hindi masama. Buo na ang kanilang paniniwala na ang ating kaligtasan ay hindi nasa pagpalit o pagbago sa sistemang nagbibigay ng pribilehiyong bukas na bukas sa temtasyon ng pag-abuso. Kaya walang natututunan ang bansang ito tungkol sa kasamaan mismo ng sistemang bukas sa abuso ng masama (at ng mabuting maaaring maging masama), dahil sa kanilang malakas na paniniwala na ang taong inihalal lang ang maaaring maging masama (at mabuti), na ang taong mabuti ay di magiging masama sa loob ng ganito kalaking pribilehiyo at poder. At ako'y naging pessimist na tungkol sa future ng bansang ire na reklamo nang reklamo ngunit ayaw umalis sa sistema ng pure representative democracy na siyang ugat ng lahat ng abuse of power ng mga pulitiko. [S / -I]

On our continuing search for new solutions: a discussion with a security consultant

LET’S HAVE a break from all this debate about extrajudicial killings and about death squads and move to more positive stuff, like community development inputs. Or, perhaps we could move to such positive topics as community development that may actually offer alternative answers to these very problems at the top of the news, both directly and indirectly. Is that possible, please?
    Okay. So who do we talk to, then? Uhm, a politician or appointed government official with a plan perhaps? Hmm. Oh, I know, why don’t we talk to a humble security consultant working on solutions, like many others, from the sidelines of the debate?

    Oh, I know, I know. Security consultant, did I say? I realize, of course, that our impression of security consultants whenever we hear that phrase is either of 1) people behaving like loyal knight warriors to kings and princes corrupt or otherwise and deeply knowledgeable about things to do with security and not much else, or 2) a bunch subcontracted by military agencies to implement operations that cannot, must not, be attached to the name of the military force of the land, especially when it involves securing private corporate interests or assassination. But a few years back, during a meeting about an action-genre comic book project that has yet to see the light of day, I had the opportunity to meet Hubert Posadas, a humble security consultant who debunked either of these popular impressions. His concerns definitely went beyond the usual action-genre defense and offense concerns of security science and art and explored social empowerment dreams we usually associate with social entrepreneurs.

    Recently, Hubert and I crossed paths again on Facebook in the light of current anxieties about the goings-on in the administration of Rodrigo Duterte. Though somewhat sympathetic to the direction the government is currently taking, he is far from being uncritical of its overall management of its operations while critical also of mere criticality. It is in that last, in the criticism of mere criticality, that our conversation led to an interesting zone, a zone where, it turned out, he was presently involved in something that economically empowered besieged niches of society.

    As in our comic book project conversation with painter Marcel Antonio (who was supposed to be the prime artist of the comic book and the one who introduced Hubert to yours truly), Hubert was now, again, not just talking about defense and offense concerns in the security sense but also in the cultural sense and even the economic sense. He was now speaking as a co-stockholder of a community security and permaculture-advocating social enterprise called Dagyaw.

Hubert Posadas of the community security and permaculture social enterprise Dagyaw
(Photo by Vanjoe Clemente)

Hubert with UN consultants

    The concept of Dagyaw as both a community security and permaculture-advocating program formally started in 2015 with the challenge of securing a Mindoro tribe as a client besieged by threats of losing parts of its ancestral domain to certain interest groups. This was all happening in the wake of the killings of Lumad chiefs in Mindanao who lost tracts of their ancestral domain to mining interests. As a security consultant who has been everywhere, however, Hubert has learned that not everything about security involves the use of force by a hired group to counter the force of another (hired) group. Sometimes the concept of security is better served by allowing both sides of a conflict or near-conflict to surrender the concept altogether in order to arrive at a win-win situation for all, without each side giving up a claim to anything. Or perhaps security as a concept is best served by the ultimate medium that should be way, way better than any hired security force: the idea of community security.
    Community security is probably familiar to those who've heard of the OSCE-organized Community Security Initiative (CSI) of Kyrgysztan. Or of the Community Security Trust (CST) of the UK. The first, CSI, emphasized bridge-creation between the police and the community, while the last, CST, was focused on community organizing for self-defense. Corollarily, we might remember that in the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan, barangay governments and their tanods disintegrated into individuals looking after their own families, with other virtual leaders sprouting up to take the place of those original security organizations that momentarily disappeared (the Pareto principle at work); that would be an example of a natural organization of community personnel for community security.

    Now, talking about Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan, earlier than his Mindoro project Hubert was party, along with several foreigners, to a permaculture training project in Antique—like we said, this was in the wake of the problems that arose from the Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan catastrophe. This was perhaps where Hubert’s idea of securing communities or institutions started to expand, to include food security and economic security, for a program that may fit other types of besieged clients, for instance informal settlements.
    And so, currently, in an Antipolo informal settlement site, you would see Hubert’s group focused on introducing a type of community security that 1) augments the government’s anti-drug dealers program and other policing action against exploiters of the inhabitants of the informal settlement, and 2) bridges the gap between informal settlers and owners of idle lands. In the #2 part of this plan, the informal settlers enter into training with Hubert’s group to be empowered to enter into contract with the owners of the idle lands to permaculture-farm those lands with either monetary or produce rent. What results from this is an economic liberation of a percentage of the community’s unemployed, the provision of self-sustenance to a part of the settlement’s food needs, and the liberation from idleness of the idle lands themselves. We must also take into account the fact that the concept of permaculture is itself a form of security from food source annihilation by catastrophes, if only because it is agriculture that emulates the ecological patterns of nature instead of limiting produce to one source, thus providing a community with surviving food sources after a catastrophe like a strong typhoon has hit it.
    Here are parts of our threads of conversation (adapted for this blog):

Me: . . . the Philippine problem with democracy is that "we the Filipino people" have a political culture of always wanting to fight not for our personal 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 sense, "we the Filipino people" are still living in a monarchic system before the occurrence of the events that led to the French Revolution. . . . That is why I’m advocating for the urgent incorporation of direct democracy instruments into government as what could take us out of that state.

Hubert: Ah, but we are growing. All the institutions are being questioned, all crumbling, in the current government. Catharsis begins with these kinds of events, helped by the dawning of awareness given insight by (various people, like you). Frame the positive outcome and prescription and see that the change is already here with (such people as 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 wherein one finds oneself constantly complaining without seeing a solution. The mind must work to find a proof of concept, not just to discuss 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 the rationale for a movement is in finding a fault and in asking others to join in agreeing to find fault or to a found fault and to 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. Without a clear scalable proof of concept, it never really becomes a true movement. I think change begins with a small group with clearly defined action that proves a new reality. Often, everything else around is reaction.

Me: That’s true. But who make up that group and what kind of change they’re advocating is crucial. Historian Xiao Chua said, on a Net25 talk show, something like, "I don't blame the Americans for keeping to their interests. Ang problema is how well we fight for ours." Aside from the “how well,” mahalaga ro’n ang “fighting for our interests” part. And in relation to our common concern, sa tingin ko natumbok ni Xiao Chua rito sa sinabi niya ang anatomiya ng lumpenbourgeoisie-ness ng ating lumpenbourgeois politicians na hindi nawawala sa paghahanap ng ibang amo. Kung ang bagong mga amo ng pagka-lumpenbourgeois mo ay mga Chinese creditors and investors at hindi na American o European creditors and investors, yun lang ang nabago; lumpenbourgeois ka pa rin.

Hubert: Tama ka, bro. Ngayon, pa’no natin maooperationalize yung changes pregnant in the situation you exposed? Currently my group is starting a bottom-up approach with some communities, using an initial framework. Maybe you can help us with it. Kailangan ng proof of concept, pero kailangan din i-mekaniko yung conceptual framework derived from real conditions. Nag-umpisa kami sa baseline data gathering, papunta na kami sa community organizing.

Me: Pareho tayo ng paniniwala diyan sa necessity of proof of concept, to depart from the pure utopia level of such political concepts as left libertarianism. I was actually lobbying my mates in a group that was for a moment devoted to the concept of direct democracy, pero masyadong marami ang obsession ng grupo kaya naging kalat. I was lobbying for the formation of a direct democracy party of sorts, not necessarily with the aim of placing candidates in an election but perhaps of endorsing some. But, anyway, I was primarily lobbying for our group to start our rise at the bottom, by educating barangays on the availability of direct democracy options, starting with barangay officials who would want to cooperate or might even encourage their citizens to participate in this cultural thrust. I was thinking, one barangay people’s initiative alone succeeding would be worth covering, if I were a TV network, as it would be a first—as far as I know—and would have the potential of becoming a model for other barangays to emulate. A new culture of participatory democracy could be jumpstarted there, with the cooperation of the media.

Hubert: In our case naman, we have a good framework that is scalable. We introduce the concept of community security to address an immediate benefit and something to exercise direct democracy with. This framework enables what we call our clients to technically increase their property value and create sustainable food security, thereby creating place-based economics, integrate informal settlers into the mainstream economy, mobilize "tambays", and so on. (We even have an internet media program to cover and document their progress.)

    So, this setup enables what we call our clients to immediately address their basic human needs, prepare them to survive and thrive during disasters, and foster back old values and culture like bayanihan and pakikitungo, pakikiisa, etc. We are even incorporating gamifications in order to land social targets that the shareholders agree upon. The program was designed with a psychologist and an organization development consultant to maximize traction on the ground. We are interested in getting more experts on board in essentially a reality show to create a proof of concept.

Me: This is nice. But what I'm interested in is how this can expand to inhabit national space and national culture. The usual way for extending community-specific experiments into adoption by and for the national evolution is through a political ideological framework as vehicle, thus through empathies like those for social liberal structures, socialist structures, direct democracy or participatory democracy structures, even utopian anarchist structures. So, how a social experiment becomes part of a governmental ideological policy is what I’m interested in, to go beyond being a mere isolated project initiated by a social enterprise, to go beyond being the aid product of corporate social responsibility.

    Like, halimbawa, even in international relations between states, there's really no such thing as aid or donation na walang kapalit. And although corporate social responsibility projects may require no “payment” from its beneficiaries other than a sense of gratitude, it either sustains itself through government “recognition” of their actions or through profits from contributions coursed through foundations. So I’m looking for that kind of aid that doesn’t end as a charitable product that was also profitable for its donor, but an aid that evolves and becomes a part of the national culture.

    So, can a social enterprise-initiated culture at the bottom blossom into something that would not just end up being a CNN Hero thing that governments don’t absorb? Can it become part of national policy, in short a part of government culture?

    Now, I know that you have an answer to that query of mine. Pero, before you answer that, let’s talk first about this obsession ng government ngayon, the illegal drug trade, which some are happy to see finally addressed as a priority even while some are not happy to see it take the limelight of sole focus.

Hubert: Ah, meron ding magandang nangyayari dyan. Yung exposure ng malalim na sitwasyong-panlipunan na ito, kasama na ang iba pang sitwasyong-panlipunan na pinag-uusapan na ngayon, ay di dapat maliitin, kahit na medyo di pino ang nangyayaring pag-address sa mga ito.

Me: Yun. Yun din naman ang magandang kontribusyon ng pamahalaang Duterte, at least in terms of pushing our awareness of the problem to the forefront, the debates on how it's being addressed notwithstanding. Kahit pa ito ay mapatumba as a war, kung sakali, mananatili na sa ating memorya ang reyalidad na inungkat ng Pangulo para ito’y makita ng ating matagal nang tulog na mga mata. Kaya if, kung sakali, biglang may mangyari at kakailanganing pumalit ni Leni Robredo sa trono, it would be interesting to see kung ano ang gagawin niya sa war on drugs, dahil hindi niya ito pupuwedeng itapon sa tabi bigla, bagamat puwede niyang tawagin ng ibang pangalan. That, along with the war on other manifestations of elitism by the ruling class which Duterte brought out into the forefront of the conversation (never mind if his still seems partisan and personal in reality instead of truly ideological).

    Afer all, for as long as we are managed by this ruling class, whether it's an opposition-friendly ruling class or a ruling party-friendly ruling class, we are never going to be united, simply because the elements in this niche (the lumpenbourgeoisie) are working for themselves and their factions and not for the nation, thus necessarily dividing us who are easily duped into siding with the factions the way TV viewers have been duped into joining either a kapamilya or kapuso or kapatid kind of brand loyalism.

Hubert: Tama. Tumbok at tumpak.

    Duterte is a reaction to the historical inadequacy of our ruling class. Now, he may not have the right solution, but his reaction should bring about a coherent response from the citizenry. It is about time we disengage from being purely pro or against in our respective stance with regards to this leader, but sift through the destruction of sacred cows and old boxes to propose and act on the changes we want. That is why I for one do not complain but act.

    Extrajudicial killings, for instance, are a reaction to a corrupt judicial system, so in order to correct it I started to promote and train communities on the concept of community security to both address the drug problem and negate extrajudicial killings. Also, I do not cry over dead drug dealers but advocate engaging the PLEB to strengthen the cases against cops killing the innocent. One of my groups has adopted two community test sites and will start training other village security forces to adopt a framework that uses involving all community shareholders to address the problem in cooperation with traditional service providers. This is a highly technical program that is mission-driven to address the problem. We do not complain. We act on the ground.

Me: Right. So, mabalik tayo do’n sa tanong ko in relation to your other social enterprise that combines community security and permaculture training: again, what I'm interested in is how this can expand to inhabit national space and national culture. Like I said, and to repeat it here, the usual vehicle for expanding community-specific experiments into adoption by and for the national evolution is a political ideological framework, thus through empathies like those for social liberal structures, socialist structures, direct democracy or participatory democracy structures, even utopian anarchist structures, and so on.

Hubert: Mas maganda magtagpo, dahil—on the one hand—kadalasan yung political parties and their programs ay nauunsyame sa IRR. Puro theory, walang binti sa lupa. Most current social changes happen on the outlying, grassroots level; kaya nga lumabas yung community security framework, permaculture aid, at iba pa, dahil nauna yung grappling ng proof of concept, tapos napauso pa. Pati sa libro ni Maxwell Gladwell napatunayan na change comes in the form of a virus. The initial cell is important, mapa-Arab Spring man, Orange Movement man, o internet revolution. Proven na rin yun sa experience ko sa community work. Di mo kailangan i-convince ang lahat. Magsisimula ka lang with a small tribe, tapos kunin mo yung parehong group mo. Pano magpakilos ng isang toneladang kalabaw? Kunin mo yung ilong. :-) Anyway, lahat naman ng pagbabago nagsisimula sa maliit, hindi ito putok sa malaki.

    On the other hand naman, yung experience naman ng community security and permaculture aid ay bottom-up, eventually leading to a national level. Three-tier milestone. From one local proof of concept, the cell expands to the municipal/regional level, then national.

    Sa second tier, meron din kasing opening sa local government level. Polity at the bottom is allowed to create policy. Wala lang naggawa ng technical framework to do it. Yung direct democracy din kasi merong inherent weakness in that it is inefficient without an educated and informed electorate, it could lead to the destruction of national resources at an increased rate unless a universal framework is first established based on a national resource management goal, with a proviso that you lock the policy on a sustainable asset management framework for the greatest good of all.

Me: Well, I would like to see how direct democratic votation on initiatives may have a weakness leading to the kind of risks you mention, Hubert, considering that votes on initiatives usually go through six months to three years of debates among all sectors of society affected by the initiatives. An initiative therefore that allows a provincial government to sell public black sand and corals to foreign governments would be debated on by fishermen and their leaders, and I don't see how such an initiative can win among such a directly affected people. In contrast, a representative democracy legislature can easily pass such a bill without the people knowing anything about it.

    Tsaka it is a chicken and egg thing. The people can never be educated about issues unless you involve them in those issues. The alternative is to stick to status quo, where the few representatives of the people decide for the millions.

Hubert: I guess tama ka. Chicken and egg. Kailangan lang i-mechaniko. Let’s keep in touch as we start documenting our pilot program and share it on the Net.

    Pwede ka ba namin mainterview?

    Or guest host kaya sa show?

Me: May show kayo? :) Saan?

Hubert: Yes. Here's a glimpse of "Dagyaw" on YouTube. :)

Me: Baka naman makasira lang ako sa videos ninyo pag may masabi akong parang devil's advocate ang labas. :D

Hubert: Hindi naman. . . . Yung attitude namin accepts that. Asset-based thinking and De Bono's Six Thinking Hats accept that attitude and incorporate it. Maganda rin para ma-juxtapose sa pag-ba-Bagani na prinopromote naming [no relation to the “baganis” accused of killing Lumad chiefs in 2015]. It is important because you have to start with hard facts, then you turn the problem on its head to see the solution. We just pass it through the process, which is to 1) get the "Problem", 2) turn it into a "Situation", then 3) pass it into a gap analysis, milestones and measurable results. Ang dagdag lang namin dito sa lahat ng ito ay yung pag-apply ng ilang theraputic tools and use of normative culture and practice.

    After the introductory episodes, we set into the laboratory site and use gamification to land social targets, like I said. Yung paggamit naman ng mga science ng mass marketing and propaganda ay gagamitin din naman, as in using the tools used against us to redirect them for social change.

    Mas enjoy kasi sa amin ang operators at hands-on ang approach, e. :-) Pati yung problema masarap!

Me: Pero di mo pa ako nasasagot. How could this evolve into a political system that creates its own laws instead of just adapting into the existing system of laws that could in the end swallow it (you know, property laws, for instance, that would conflict with an attitude towards the commons).

Hubert: Hahahaha! Our goals are closer than you think!
    The difference is in the method, something we would rather show in the series than discuss, to create the correct brand and psychological magic that we intend to create. The key words are: the commons, place-based economics, community well-being, etc. Show and tell and approach.
    This includes, on my part as Security Consultant, taking the bull by the horn and signing a contract of service to former rebels, their communities, as well as indigenous peoples with ancestral domain. Sila ang kliyente ng mga consultants, yung marketing vehicle yung show.

    The resultant political system will follow from the organized network of stakeholders in the place-based economics.

    Ngayon pa lang, yung mga exclusive villages are de-facto states and are a polity themselves. I researched legally if I may treat client communities, informal and marginalized, as well as IP (indigenous peoples) communities as . . . if legal ba to serve them itong mga usual service providers. Sabi ng mga lawyers, NICA, and the Left, pwede raw. Wala pa lang nag-isip gawin yun.

Me: It's good that you mentioned the word legal. Kasi, from what I'm reading, everything you're talking about and describing looks good. That's well and good, for as long as we're aware that there are existing political setups that can intervene and contradict your progress. The movie Avatar is a good example. :) But, seriously and realistically, the laws of the land can creep in anytime and stop you.

Hubert: Yup. Pero ang advantage kasi natin as consultants, e galing tayo dun sa dating system na yan. ika nga, na naging enlightened Intelligentsia doing social enterprise. Galing ako sa isang military contractor kaya alam ko lahat ng ins and outs. Mga kasama naman natin, mga galing corporations; pero yung mga dati nilang methodologies e mamimitigate. In fact, when they see the rationale, ma-aaikido mo pa sila. Biro mo, low start-up, high production and increase in property value that benefit all? Using their language, ika nga, pero addressing social needs, empowering the masses as Clients, and not perpetuating a mendicant's mind. (Yes, hindi mendicants or mere recipients of aid, kasi, siyempre), as Client, kasama dun sa package para sa kanila ang education, training, certification, marketing, etc. All kinds of services that will create a place-based economy and professional citizenry.

    Ang dami ng sundalo at rebelde na sawa na sa gera, farming na ang gusto.

    Yung gamit ng “law of the land”, likewise, pwede rin natin gamitin. Tayo rin naman ay pwedeng gumamit ng lawyer at gumapang. Lahat ng skills ng corporations kaya natin, yung internal wealth distribution lang natin ang iba sa kanila.

Me: Ang primary concern ko ay yung property laws, especially those governing land titles. Pero okay yan kung sa ancestral domain na collective na kaagad ang ownership. Pero paano pag lumabas na roon at ibang kliyente na?

Hubert: Several models ang nakikita namin. Yung sa PPP ang pasok natin, to be recognized by DENR. Yung sa normal community naman ay kukunin natin sa "Community Development Plan" na nakapasok sa Development Plan na pinapasa ng isang developer. Meron na tayong partner diyan. Pag nakita ng mga may-ari ng nakatiwangwang na lupa, nung mga informal settlers, at maging ng mga developers na 1) tataas ang property value at the lowest possible cost, 2) meron silang tax break in terms of environmental incentives under the Environmental Act, 3) pwede pala sila immediately kumita with the informal settlers as Clients and Partners at the production base, e di gagawa ka na ng trend. Yung mga middle-income din makakabili ng Farm Lifestyle plots and/or partner with the community.

    So, Communal Corporation? Socialist Corporation? Kahit ano pa itawag mo, yung operation achieves the stated goals.

Me: Interested din ako dun sa variants ng internal wealth distribution.

Hubert: Merit-based, to address the weakness of Communism, with its own privatized health care, housing, education, etc., to address the weakness of the Capitalist System.

Me: Saan kayo nagsisimula, sa public lands or private?

Hubert: Private na merong informal settlers. Napapayag ko yung developer, yung association at yung mga informal settlers na mag-partner imbes na mag-away.

    Pagtakbo nung model, larga ako sa communities on the edges at sa mga IP. Kailangan ipakita na nagwowork. Percentage ng increase in value ang usapan. Yung mga gap sa framework from the baseline data, i-sinub-contract ko sa mga proven organizations, community development experts, at research and academic orgs, para merong template that will be scaleable. Education naman is community-based, para walang perang maipit sa buildings and stockholders—mas magmura sa mga magulang, experiential, and based sa work for the community and the environment, tapos may kita yung mga teacher at module developers.

    Ang kailangan kasi, e . . . engineering stage pa kasi tayo. Yung general principles ay gagawing policy na pasok sa agreed vision, pero without proof of concept and an entrepreneurial spirit, hanggang vision lang yan. Ika nga, Pinoy tayo e. Kung sa kanila hindi pwede pagsamahin ang Socialism and Capitalism, sa atin pwede. Ism lang naman yan e.

Me: Ang old -isms naman ay nag-eevolve. Ang communism ng China ay ibang-iba na ang mukha ngayon, just as the American Dream is in need of a reengineering to keep it from turning into a nightmare.

Hubert: Good. Now, we can look at what is good about both experiences and come up with our own, based on our own ground conditions. That is pure lateral thinking!

    Ang point kasi nito, parang tubig ang kilos natin. Dun tayo sa merong objective conditions to succeed. Pag umabot sa point na uso na, e di labanan sa market of ideas; pero at least meron nang produktong madaling bilhin, which is yung samahan. Yung economic engine at yung political party iisa.

    Meron pang sweat equity na pang-bayad ng community shares, so ang labas ng tao hindi mendicant. Binayaran niya yung services ng training, certification, benefits. Hinde siya lalabas na kawawang tupa.

Me: One additional question, pre. How do you avoid conflicts between your chosen community leaders and the barangay leaders as well as between your community security force and the barangay tanod? Or is the barangay always involved in the organization of the community security forces? Tsaka what's your concept of community security outside of besieged client communities---is it to build rapport between the police/tanod and the community, thus lessening police abuse, as with the OSCE’s Community Security Initiative in Kyrgysztan?

Hubert: Excellent question.
    The first priority is to establish rapport and gather information about who the community leaders are, to include the informal leaders, NGO heads, and/or, in some instances, the gated community Association Board members, etc. Of course it is easier to work with a gated community or with a subdivision Association, because they already are an organized polity given recognition by the HULRB/Magna Carta for Homeowners' Associations.
    Following the prescribed formula of Saferworld, the community development approach, and from practical experience, the survey proper and needs analysis come first. This part includes interviewing members of the community and stakeholder representatives what "insecurities" they have. Now, the common opening is usually on addressing common pains such as disaster preparation, water, sanitation or even crime issues.
    The dialogue then leads to a workshop to empower these communities. I have yet to come across a community or barangay that did not appreciate and accept the initial workshop, as it constitutes free technology for them to effectively address issues. Usually, bringing a third party technical expert is enough to open the door. The approach is critical in that one has to establish what the relationship is and what it is not. This is also critical in that it is the first reframe.
    Back in Barbaza, Antique, after the Yolanda disaster hit the municipality, I assisted a permaculture aid specialist team that did not bring any relief supply. In fact, the mayor told us the first time he met us to "Please do not give any more relief goods to my constituents as they are becoming like mendicant rats," to which we replied, "Good, we did not come here to give relief goods, but to give knowledge." So we immediately went to Sitio Cadiao and had a dialogue with the Kapitan and the Elders. This was Day 1. After assessing from them their situation, we made a deal to stay and help them if they would meet us as a community early in the morning to do "dagyaw," which is Visayan for bayanihan. In the beginning the men hemmed and hawed, saying they had to work on their respective houses; but Steve Cran, the head of the team, convinced them by asking them how much work they can accomplish as individuals in one day. We then asked them to try us out for one day. By day two, within only 4 hours of work, we were able to clean the mountainside of debris, sort and segregate usable materials, teach them permaculture principles, and, more importantly, taught them with their participation how to plan and execute a structured and prioritized plan of action in an achievable timeframe. We were able to organize them according to their skill sets and turned what was once a feeling of hopelessness into an excited and focused energy that started them on to address their situation. By day 3, two more sitios asked for our help. By the end of the 5th day, we had a project going with the barangay and the school in the area. So, the above example leads us to three crucial principles, 1) the community knows what it needs, 2) the assets are already in place, and, more importantly, 3) the approach: authority by demonstration. This goes both ways, in gaining trust, and then in pinpointing your Pareto principle concerning people on the ground. The immediate hands-on work will bring these out.
    Going further on this, the important initial group to work with is your basic community, along with the Association head if it is a gated community, the Kapitan if it is a sitio, or the Barangay Captain if it is a barangay without a gated community. Get the basic unit of community first. From there, once an agreement is made and signed after a workshop, strengthen this basic unit by experiential education, meaning to say help them by giving them best practices, a workshop, and consultation on what their vision for the community is, how it is related to policy, how policy is related to rules and regulations, and how plans are related to the whole. Basic knowledge on how to conduct a meeting, how to document a meeting and a project, how to form committees, etc. are given.
    Now, here is an important point: walang libre. I learned this from Steve Cran who has proven, as one who has worked on UN-sponsored programs in conflict zones, that it’s better to work with the basic unit of a community as partners, or, better, as clients. Kahit seedlings or sweat equity for workshops ang pambayad, dapat meron silang bayad—because you want to cultivate a mindset of both ownership and non-mendicancy. They take the meetings seriously because they "paid" for it.
    Now, this process, one that organizes them according to their skills set (from a capacity inventory survey), immediately seeing them turn out a group who has the skills and a group that has the planning capability, etc., both working for the low hanging fruit that will give the maximum impact, creates the community esprit de corps, so to speak. You make them aware that, 90% of the time, most communities will argue about the 10% of the things they do not agree on. So the trick is to immediately make them realize that it is better to work for the 100% immediately, on the things they agree on, whatever the percentage, and to empower them further by documentation and recognition of accomplishments as a community and as individuals qua community champions. After the basic community is thus empowered, then and only then do we teach them how to liaison with the next tier of the wider community and what is called the "Traditional Security Providers," the barangay government and the PNP.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hubert: Now, as for your other last question, . . . the community, agreeing to adopt a community security policy, is thus empowered legally, as by law any community may do this provided they do proper coordination in matters of apprehension, crime reporting, etc. Also, a community may also want to enter into a valid contract with a third-party service provider to be thus empowered, especially if the service provider and community know the law relating to this.

    To tell you a story, nung executive director ako sa FORA SECNET, I handled the security problems that ordinary security agencies could not handle for 40 exclusive villages. Dahil naka-lock kami sa valid policy, rules, regulations and contract, hindi basta makapasok ang PNP, dahil empowered by awareness yung mga communities and backed up by documentation process. Yung mga Security Commanders, Security Committeee Chairmen, maski ako, parang mga hepe inside the community. Hinde basta makapasok yung PNP! But because we pro-actively worked with the PNP, we were able to select and work with the police personnel assigned to our area and they became part of the community and looked after the community’s interest. They became friends with the community and dared not do anything to destroy their good name, and the community took care of them.
    When I realized that the principle may apply to the communities of the less fortunate, I asked around first if the principle applies, and I found out that it does but has not been fully explored. That moment of realization was when I set out developing the technical skills to do it, providing this kind of service to the communities of the masses. There is a provision in the Magna Carta for Communities to federate. And once I get a number of gated communities to adopt communities peripheral to their area, to include informal settlers, then we may expand to gated farming communities. Our ultimate goal? IP communities.
    Now, conversely, the setup also aids the PNP and the barangay government. We "help" the PNP and the barangay government by making them do their job efficiently and effectively with the community, by reminding them that the Community ultimately is the Client. We give them recognition of accomplishment, and address their problems, professionally or personally, as part of the Community, which they are also a part of, after all. This acts like a magnet on iron filings!
    So, you see, positive conditioning is the key! [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]

ANG ATING LABAN SA ARAW-ARAW

from http://quotesgram.com/joseph-brant-quotes/

BAKIT daw ba ako nagrereklamo sa ilang mga pangyayari sa ilalim ng pamamahala ng gobyerno ni Rodrigo Duterte, gayung ibinoto ko ito at tila ikinampanya pa sa Peysbuk.
    Ang kritisismong ito laban sa kritisismo ko sa ilang hakbang ng gobyernong Duterte ay nagpapatunay lamang na may tatlong prinsipyong umiiral sa ating kultura:

1. Na ganun kalalim ang kumpyansa o tiwala natin sa ating mga manok sa eleksyon, na para bang sila'y walang magiging dungis kung sila ang nanalo at siyang magiging tunay na messiah tungo sa mas magandang umaga;

2. Na ang ating kaligtasan ay nasa isang presidente at hindi nasa mamamayan;

 At, finally,

3. Na ang ating kaligtasan ay nagmumula sa boto natin sa ating mga eleksyon.

KATANGAHAN.
    Dahil ang ating kaligtasan ay hindi nasa mga panginoong matatalino, kundi nasa patuloy na tunay na kritisismo nating mga tao, ayon sa ating kolektibong talino, laban sa mali ng alinmang manok na nanalo sa ating mga eleksyon, maging sila'y manok mo man o manok ko. Dahil sa paniniwala nating nasa kanila ang ating kaligtasan at nasa kanila lamang, diyan tayo patuloy na tinutuka ng garapata ng mga hayop na 'to na tinuturing ng ating representatibong demokrasya na siyang tanging may talino para sa milyun-milyon.
     Oo nga't dapat may binoboto tayo tuwing eleksyon. At oo, yaong sa palagay natin ay may mas magandang plano, isasakatuparan niya man ito o babaliktarin. Pero yan ay eleksyon lamang ng mga lider, mga kababayan. Nakakalimutan natin na ang lider ng mga lider ay tayo, at ang pamamahala ng mga lider ay dapat pumapangalawa lamang sa ating mga kagustuhan bilang pinakamataas na lider ng demokrasya, demokrasyang di sana humihinto pagkatapos mahalal ng inihalal. Kung patuloy nating kakalimutan ito, aba'y ano ang pinagkaiba ng kultura ng demokrasya natin sa royalistang kultura ng fans ng naglalaban-labang mga hari ng mga monarkiya?
    Sa tingin ko, kaya tayo di umuunlad o may mabagal na pag-unlad sa ating pulitika ay dahil tayo ang nag-aaway-away sa sabungan ng ating reyalidad na pinapatakbo ng partisanong confirmation bias na itinanim sa mga utak natin ng ating mga pinanigang partido. Tila ayaw na nating harapin ang katotohanan na ang dapat nating sinasabong ay ang ilang mga polisiya ng mga manok nating tila'y wala pa ring humpay ang katutuka sa atin sa araw-araw.
    Sabi pa nga ni Dana D. Nelson: ". . . our habit of putting the president at the center of democracy and asking him to be its superhero works to deskill us for the work of democracy. . . . the presidency itself has actually come to work against democracy."


ANG lalim ng ating kumpyansa o tiwala sa ating mga manok sa eleksyon, na para bang sila'y walang magiging dungis kung sila ang nanalo at siyang magiging tunay na messiah tungo sa mas magandang umaga, ay nagpapatunay lamang na di pa rin tayo makaalis doon sa ating paghahanap ng ideyal na lider sa katauhan ng mga manok natin. Ito ay nagpapakita rin na sa pamamagitan ng patuloy nating pagsandal sa ideyal na lider sa ating nanalong manok, o sa ideyal sanang lider sa ating natalong manok na sa ating paniniwala ay siyang may dalang liwanag ng umaga, ay nananatili tayong nakakulong doon sa mito ng "ideyal na lider" sa katauhan ng mga elemento ng plutokrasiya na may mga sagot sa problema na para bang hindi natin kaya.
    Nakalulungkot na ang ating mga laban ay, bagamat para sa atin din, unang-una ay para sa kanila.
    How I wish that every political critic (professional and not) owned this sub-definition of "politician" or "government official"---as one who is a friend in a cause and an enemy in another. It's sad that politicians and political parties or factions have become many of my friends' political end-causes themselves.  [S / -I]