Feeds:
Posts
Comments

demons

The Liberal Party, through its notoriously idiotic leader in the person of former president Noynoy “Kulangot” Aquino, is using the WRONG people in the Senate to implement his COMPREHENSIVE DEMOLITION PROGRAM against the present government.

No significant propaganda mileage can ever be generated if the people tasked to demonize the present government are as unscrupulous as the likes of de Lima, Trillanes, Drilon and Honasan among others. These are all weak links whose mired reputations are widespread. In other words, these senators are unstable politicians known to be liars and unprincipled and no THINKING Filipino will ever believe them.

In the case of Leni Robredo, it’s a pity that her naïveté has enmeshed her into this lousy conspiratorial scheme which will surely put her not only in a very inconvenient situation but more seriously in another tragedy which this time will be political in nature.

The US government’s involvement will never thrive in the political climate of the Philippines because of the social psychology of the Filipino. No movement which could be likened to the terroristic forces organized by the US government in Syria, Iraq and Libya will take the fancy of the typical Filipino whose showbiz mentality and “scared-cat” mindset are generally legendary.

The ONLY realistic alternative the US could resort to to “EXPORT DEMOCRACY” to the Philippines and derail the present Philippine government is to use externally organized invading forces. This will initially rock the national mooring of the Philippines. However, it will not take long until the invasion gets the attention of the new geopolitical formation of Russia, China and Iran. At least one of them if not all will get into the fray as this recently inaugurated alliance has committed itself to neutralize all US imperialist pursuits especially in strategic areas like the Philippines which is very crucial in China’s running clash with the US in the Pacific and the South China Sea.

If the Filipino people won’t be able to see the cogency of the critical points raised up here, we are heading towards disaster. It is therefore of the essence at this crucial point in time to be seriously aware of the proliferating toxic propaganda being peddled by the destructive media to promote the criminal agenda of YELLOW politics bannered by the Liberal Party whose leaders are fit for prosecution and incarceration because of the myriad of heinous crimes they have continually committed against the Filipino people since the time of the previous inutile administration.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 26 August 2016

But Why Only Now?

why only now

Extra judicial killing, as it is defined and understood on the basis of international human rights law, is a criminal act committed by the State against its perceived enemies. In this sense, killings in public that have happened since the inception of the new government can only be construed as extra judicial if proven to be perpetrated by State agents, prime and foremost of which are the police and the military. But in most if not all of the more recent instances that already happened, there was no police or military involvement. In fact, three possibilities that strongly persist are: 1) Broad daylight killings of civilians have been perpetrated by powerful political personalities who are enemies of the present administration as they aim to pin down and destroy the latter’s development platforms ; 2) The big drug lords themselves are into similar murderous spree to silence pushers and users that could implicate them once nabbed and placed under interrogation; and 3) Since many of the powerful political personalities against the present administration have been suspected to be in connivance with big drug lords, they are now into a grand conspiracy to demolish the government’s credibility by murdering civilians in public.

But why are there so many who “cry wolf” now as the new administration seriously gets into targetting with unequalled aggressiveness the mounting evil of illegal drug menace which has been destroying the fiber of Philippine society for so long? Why didn’t the same people display a similar passion when past administrations were extra-judicially killing lumads and religious, peasant and labor activists among others? In this connection, let me quote a lengthy portion of the introductory part of the paper, “THE DISPUTE OVER EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS: THE NEED TO DEFINE EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS AS STATE-SPONSORED ACTS” by Christian D. Pangilinan [Christian D. Pangilinan, The Dispute Over Extrajudicial Killings: The Need to Define Extrajudicial Killings as State-Sponsored Acts, 86 PHIL. L.J. 811, (page cited) (2012):

“The killing and enforced disappearances of political activists have long been part of modern Philippine life—certainly ever since the administration of President Marcos, during which period the Philippines was repeatedly criticized for the deaths of activists from the political left. More recently during the administration of President Arroyo onward, from 2001 to the present, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances reemerged in Philippine public consciousness as a drastic rise in their number was reported. Reports conflict on the number of victims. Some suggest that the number cannot be known. Most estimates, though, count them in the hundreds.

“Many credit an increase of killings during the Arroyo administration to its professed goal to eradicate the New People’s Army (NPA)—the Communist Party of the Philippines’ (CPP) armed wing. The NPA has been active since the 1970s and has engaged in on-again, off-again peace negotiations with the government since the administration of President Corazon Aquino. The Arroyo administration’s anti-insurgency campaign swept broadly, targeting not only armed insurgents but also representatives from leftist political parties in the House of Representatives and members of civil society organizations that the military and police labeled, largely without substantiation, as insurgent fronts. In apparent accordance with the administration’s determination that the political left was composed of enemies of the State, numerous organizers, activists, low-level elected officials, leaders of indigenous tribes, and even priests have been assassinated. Regrettably, extrajudicial killings have continued even after the end of the Arroyo administration and the election of ‘Noynoy’ Aquino.”

When past administrations were killing activists and government critics, very few raised their voices and “cried wolf” to prosecute the extra judicial murderers. Now that the present administration is hell-bent to liberate Philippine society from the scourge of heinous crimes perpetrated by big-time illegal drug syndicates, many sectors are aggressively pointing accusative fingers towards government as they raise the issue of “extra judicial killing”.

In the final analysis, it is the grand conspiracy instigated by the old political network mired with corruption and in constant partnership with big-time criminal syndicates that is actively operating now to discredit the new maverick government and destroy its good intentions for the nation.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 23 August 2016

libingan ni macoy

Why do my fellow progressive Filipinos make a big fuss over the issue of whether Ferdinand Marcos, Sr.’s remains (Note: Nobody knows if the “corpse” displayed at the Marcos Museum in Ilocos Norte is really Marcos’ remains. It could be a wax figure, no more no less.) should or should not be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB)?  Do they really believe that the LNMB is a hollowed ground for authentic heroes whose exploits during their lifetimes were extraordinarily acclaimed  for their exceptional achievements, unequalled valor and fortitude, or virtuous and honorable distinctions?

On the contrary, many, if not most, of those interred at the LNMB are NOT heroes but rather VILLAINS in the general landscape of the Filipinos’ long-running struggle against neo-colonialism (a.k.a. imperialism), neo-feudalism and fascism. In other words, the LNMB is a cemetery for minions and vassals of fascism (viz., soldiers, etc.) and bureaucrat capitalism (government officials) who worked during their lifetimes in the service of neo-colonial overlords based in Washington DC. In this sense, Marcos was no different from them. If Marcos’ remains get interred at the LNMB, will the place be desecrated? No way! The single entity which has made it an official cemetery for heroes is the Philippine government and hence, it is this government’s  standards that define what a hero is. Thus, looking at this specific context, the so-called heroes interred at LNMB are heroes only from the point of view of the Philippine government.

Progressive Filipinos do not–and are not supposed to–toe the line of government. We are one in the commitment that the Philippine government has never been an ally of the poor Filipinos, specifically the peasants and the proletarians. We can enumerate (but not this time) myriads of government programs whose basic trajectories are against the general interest of the Filipino people.

Vehemently arguing against the plan of government to allow the interment of Marcos’ remains at the LNMB is tantamount to barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. What is implied in doing so is the acceptance of the notion that the LNMB is truly a hollowed ground for genuine heroes. If such is really the case, a corollary issue emerges: Why haven’t we ever tried to strongly demand government to consider the matter of letting the remains of our very own fallen people’s warriors be interred at the LNMB? And I am not only talking of people’s warriors like Lorena Barros and Gregorio “Ka Roger” Rosal among others but also the remains of nationalist leaders like Claro Recto, Lorenzo Tañada, Jose Diokno, Edgar “Edjop” Jopson and Lean Alejandro among others. The answer is simple: People’s warriors and true nationalist leaders are AUTHENTIC heroes whose exemplary deeds we don’t want blemished by burying their remains alongside those whose lifetimes had been spent against the interest of the Filipino people.

In conclusion, the better stance for us now is to remove ourselves from the heated bickerings about the issue. The more creative attitude for all progressive Filipinos is to further strengthen the integration of our united movements and start planning on putting up a genuine heroes’ cemetery which we can call LIBINGAN NG MGA TUNAY NA BAYANI NG SAMBAYANANG PILIPINO.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 18 August 2016

FACT vs TRUTH

square-circle

This is the classical dualistic ontology in basic philosophy whose last vigorous defender was the Cambridge absolute idealist philosopher, F. H. Bradley whose magnum opus, Appearance and Reality was heavily criticized by both Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore who incidentally were Bradley’s students. The meme is not quite philosophically accurate because that which is pointed as “This is Truth” is actually “The Fact” to which no truth-value is imputed because the fact is the basis of the truth. What makes a statement true is the fact but never do we say that the fact is the truth or vice versa.

1.0 Assumptions

1.1 Let A be construed as a concrete object in physical reality called “fact”.
1.11 Facts are not mental constructs but real objects in the world that constitute states of affairs.

1.2 Let x be the image of a square which is a perspectival reflection of a particular side of A.

1.3 Let y be the image of a circle which is a perspectival reflection of another particular side of A.

2.0 Truth-valuation

2.1 Truth-valuation, i.e., truth or falsity, is applied only to statements or propositions that (1) correspond or not to facts; or (2) cohere or not with other statements logically.

2.2 Truth-valuation cannot apply to A since A is the reference point that determines the truth or falsity of statements that correspond or not to it.

2.21 Truth-valuation cannot apply to x and y since x and y are not statements or propositions but images of A’s perspectival reflections.

2.3 However, we can formulate statements about x and y in relation to A as follows:

2.31 “x which is an image of a square is a reflection of A which is a square found in the world.”

2.311 This statement is false since A is not a square found in the world.

2.32 “y which is an image of a circle is a reflection of A which is a circle found in the world.”

2.321 This statement is false since A is not a circle found in the world.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa

paradox

Classical dualistic ontology (the objective-subjective divide)—tilted to the axiological primacy of the objective (objectivism) over the subjective—advances what it holds as a   truism   that objective reality is basically consistent within itself. If we find inconsistencies in it, these are not in reality but in the way we look at and describe reality in human terms (the subjective).

However, looking at reality is not a unilateral act; it is perspectival in a situation of innumerable perspectives. On this basis, a specific description of reality is actually that of a perspective of reality. In other words, what is out there (the objective) is epistemically well-placed and the things that constitute it cannot in anyway contradict themselves. It is what is in one’s mind (the subjective) that creates contradictions . . . stultifications. . . clashing notions . . . contrasting opinions . . . irreconcilable differences . . .

But what is reality in this sense? What is the meaningfulness of things “out there” which are said to be constitutive of the so-called “objective reality”?  How do we get to the point of tentatively determining   that   those   things   “out-there”   are   epistemically   “well-placed”?   What   ontological agency has determined once and for all the “consistency” of reality within itself?

Hence, “objective reality” qua objective is meaningless. Reality as a general notion becomes meaningful only via the operation of the subjective: the human mind whose   “reality” is characterized by a continuous stream of consciousness that interacts with what is “out there” and   in   the   process   makes   reality   a   world   of   experiences   in   all   their   varied   forms   and substances . . . at times consistent . . . at times contradictory . . . at times harmonious . . . at times clashing.

This is the true, genuine Reality that transcends and dissolves classical dualism—an epistemological realization of the dialectics of the subjective and the objective where a contradiction is elevated to the more philosophically distinguished level of a paradox.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa

brussels

The most recent terrorist attack in Belgium left more than 30 people dead and almost a hundred wounded after multiple explosions at the Brussels international airport and metro subway station. This tragic event happened some days after Belgium officially recognized the State of Palestine. In this connection, critical observers have unanimously opined that it was another  false flag after Daesh/ISIS/ISIL immediately claimed responsibility.  Relative to this event is a warning issued by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu: If you recognize the State of Palestine, you will suffer serious consequences. Besides, we all know that Daesh/ISIS/ISIL is a western-imperialist creation supported by US, Israel, Turkey, Saudi and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These are the “puppeteers” who supply Daesh/ISIS/ISIL  with munitions and manage their logistics and finances as well.

It was a false flag–no more, no less. Western European countries and their leaderships have been “tragically” and consistently subjected into  a dilemma which in reality is “self-negating” (for a lack of more appropriate term at this point in time). The Belgian government didn’t actually “operationalize” this false flag attack (as the French government didn’t likewise do some months ago). However, the government knew it very well beforehand because of so many warnings and circumstantial analyses on the impending risk of a massive “terrorist attack”. But in every instance of similar nature, the more powerful forces in control of all these systemic activities demand that the government ought to stand helplessly on the sidewalk and do nothing while destruction is heinously perpetrated on its people.

The most recent terrorist attack in Belgium and those that already happened in the most recent past as well as those that we expect to happen sooner or later in major cities of Western Europe are all parts and parcels of a grand global scheme to weaken the political substructure of Europe with the objective of perpetuating its subservience to US hegemony. With this in mind, it is subsumed that the US will continue to maintain its vantage point over Europe and hence impose its political will over the continent through the instrumentalities of the NATO. These terrorist activities have been perpetrated in preparation for the inauguration of the “Greater Israel Project” which will include Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iraq.

It is also a well-known fact that Russia is operating in aid of the said disadvantaged Middle Eastern countries. Breaking and weakening the political will of European countries and in the process increasing the control of US hegemony over Europe through the NATO will dissipate all possibilities of getting Europe into closer ties with Russia. In the present European political scenario, the major modus operandi is the sustained demonization of Russia. The whole geopolitical state of affairs reveals the fact that the US is right now “between a rock and a hard place”: The task to “possibilize” the “Greater Israel Project” on the one hand and to put an impenetrable barrier between Europe and Russia on the other.

On the issue of a European country’s act of recognizing the State of Palestine, it is actually the majority of the people who want it and such is passed through their representations in the parliament. While such a demand is voiced out in the hall of the parliament, the executive leaders are however placed in a very uncomfortable situation. But majority pressure pushes them to such a demand and hence gets them into a “no-alternative point” wherein they have to issue an official recognition of the State of Palestine. This is where the dilemma becomes real as far as the executive leaders are concerned: On the one hand is the Zionist pressure while on the other is the citizens’ demand.

In the final analysis, we get to the point of identifying now the ultimate and absolute puppeteers in this whole state of affairs and they are not really the US imperialists but rather the Zionist Israelis operating in the US and Israel–the powers in control of the global banking system and big business enterprises in the Western world and in those countries where the Western powers exercise their omnipotent clout.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 24 March 2016

new historicism

To understand “anti-historicism” and “new historicism”, it is first and foremost a pre-requisite to understand fully well what “historicism” is whose most prominent theorists are Hegel and Marx.

Hegel’s historicism is fundamentally grounded on Reason. It affirms to us  the basic  element of reality called “The Real” which is the universal essence that guides the material process of world history to go through  a periodization that generally began from the physical phase to the biological phase until reaching the point of the human phase. At the human phase of development, social progress has gone through the evolutionary process that has passed from ancient tyranny toward freedom where Universal Reason ultimately becomes the dominant factor. The whole principle constitutes Hegel’s doctrine of Dialectical Idealism whose thesis is Reason which afterwards primes the anti-thesis of Material History and in the end creates the synthesis of the triumph of Universal Reason. In simple terms, Hegel’s historicism gives us the notion that human history is a guided one on a pre-determined trajectory. The Universal Reason is the guiding principle that brings humanity from one historical phase to the next until history ends with all social contradictions finally resolved in human history.

Marx’s historicism is the diametrical opposite of Hegel’s for it begins with the thesis of humanity’s material experience of the world which is basically grounded on economics or the production of material wealth. Such thesis brings forth the anti-thesis which constitutes the formulation of practicable theories and the perfection of reason-based principles. This dialectical trajectory leads to the synthesis where such theories and principles lead to the enhancement/enrichment of human experience in the material components that drive history towards a classless society. Marx’s historicism which is known as Dialectical Materialism is the dynamics that spark the mechanics of his Historical Materialism.

In New Historicism, there is no such thing as universal human essence (which is Universal Reason in Hegel and Economic Determinism in Marx) that guides the historical trajectory of human affairs in society. Neither is there a principle of absolute objectivity that gives us a general understanding of human states of affairs irrespective of socio-cultural context which in the process undermines both subjective and intersubjective realities.  In this sense, New Historicism is also known as Anti-Historicism.

New Historicism applied in literary criticism is based on the notion that the study and interpretation of literature are contextually dependent on the historical contexts of both the author and the critic. Foucault’s influence in New Historicism is seen in his acknowledgment of the fact that a literary work is not only influenced by the author’s cultural apparatus and personal circumstances within the context of her/his time but also the critic’s critique of such a literary work which is likewise influenced by her/his milieu, belief system and prejudices.

In New Historicism, a literary work is analyzed and evaluated in the writer’s cultural context. In this sense, an in-depth study of a literary work opens up a cultural landscape that reveals in the process power structures in social classes, both mainstream and marginalized. Digging deeper into the essence of the literary work under study–which Foucault symbolically described as an “archeological task”–brings us to its historical mooring that further enriches the text which in turn likewise enriches history.

–rfp

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 214 other followers