Sunday, May 30, 2010

"Pro-Democracy Peoples War": A hollow phrase for a Fascist play

"Pro-Democracy Peoples War": A hollow phrase for a Fascist play

A book Review and critique by Katleah Iskre Ulrike


Yesterday, I bought a book entitled "Pro-Democracy Peoples War" made by a right-wing militarist named Miguel Coronel.

Calling his idea and concept a "Battle for Democracy," the book spoke much of desperate actions trying to counter the Revolution, or according to his words that:
"Fighting for Freedom and Democracy though Participatory Democracy."
These words mirror a mere right-wing sentiment, of preserving the order, but then...

Not all things coming from his Idea are not been much implemented, or seriously undertaken by the Military. The book, made in the year 1990 also reminds of the last days of the Aquino administration and it involves the Low Intensity Conflict, an anti-Insurgency tactic, used and advocated by anti-Communist Right-wing groups and individuals, sprearheading militarism at all costs in countering the Left "at all fronts" as they say. As well as thinking that Socialism must be "wiped out" through force while at the same time offering "development" to the people.

AS according to the CPP's Ang Bayan statement last June 4, 1987:
"For whatever reforms have been instituted merely serve to deceive and divide the people. Serving as topping for state fascism."
True as what the statement said, as Coronel, being a right-wing militarist trying to defend "Democracy", also tried to experiment by using "Populist" and "Social Democratic" means, through his statement that:
"...shall serve as the original principle of the 'pro-Democracy' ideology can thus expressed through a simple slogan: Freedom from want and fear through 'Participatory Democracy'."

What kind of Democracy is he defending and talking about? Is it the Democracy of the Elite, Privileged classes? Who tried to act "serving the people" while in fact doing Reactionary, Fascist, Conservative means in socio-economic affairs?

Cornonel's statement, being praised by Right-wing anti-Communist personalities spoke much of handling the Left militarily and thinking Communism in general as a terroristic action, an authoritarian dictatorship and for abolishing the government and of the nation while theirs is Democracy and Freedom! How come these wingnuts spoke Democracy and Freedom since they did a "wrong job" like Forced Disappearances and the like? From Marcos to the present Arroyo and the upcoming Aquino administration?

And reading every word and understanding every verse, Coronel, now emulated further by the wingnuts like Palparan and Alcover, posing as "Populists", as "Social Democrats", seemingly spoke a smattering of "development" and more of "destruction", using it merely as a tactic to counter the growing Left-wing from the countryside to the urban as I may say. He even opposed Machiavelli's idea that "The end justifies the means." As what he said:
"...They have no fixed or absolute standard of what is right or wrong, just and unjust, good or bad and the like. To them, anything that promotes the success of the Communist movement or perpetuate the Communist party in power is just or moral..."
But contrary to his words, or rather say the Military's stand, majority of them do a Machiavellian way to end the "crisis" as they may say. All regardless of illegality, bad, unjust, only to say that do their job to protect the system. Forced disappearances, creating fabricated and exaggerated truths, collaborating with traitors for propaganda, imprisonment without trial, arrest without warrants, illegal detainment of political prisoners, or treating prisoners of war as bandits, all of these are evenly a tactic conceived to be Machiavellian, or even Draconian if torture or other extrajudicial kind of action is included. And thus their ends are to be justified as their means. So who's much Machiavellian then? The rebel or the bandit?

And in addition to that,
I really notice how these people "fighting for democracy" tried to speak off "God" or any kind of unseen being even in a secular, laicist state that also encourages "freedom of ideas" aside from "freedom of religion." And yet despite these they kept on "speaking", "invoking" of God" like our preamble, according to the 1987 constitution said:
"We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of almighty god..."
These words really negate the secularity, the laicity of the state founded by secular personalities of the Jeffersonian kind. And now seeing the government, or its personalities behind doing the contrary, telling us that an unseen being created man, the world and must believe and strengthen faith in it. And if that's the case, how about the Atheists? Will they force them to say?

I am sorry to say this to the reader, that after assessing things involved in this book, that Coronel, along with the rest of the wingnuts who think much of Socialism literally as an oppressive regime or state as narrow-minded. True that prominent Socialists of the Marxian kind are Atheists, that some of them did atrocities, mistakes, but not ALL to encourage to do so! And god forbid, that they even spoke off passages of the bible, a la Pat Robertson and to call Scientific Socialism, Marxism, Communism a work of the devil! If that's the case then so is Democracy, and instead advocate a Monarchical form of government a la Thomas Aquinas!

And personally speaking in regards to criticism of officials, personalities in using "God" or religion in their ideals, I am not a professed Atheist. I am a lapsed Catholic but at the same time trying to profess as a Deist of a Cartesian kind. In addition to that, to preserve the secular, laicist nature of the government, of the state, it would be better for the government act as if a theologian, or encouraging man to act "godly." -that in fact violates man's will and a tenet of democracy which is "not to interfere on religious affairs" just like what Coronel et al. did! He even spoke that the Policeman's creed be an oath as he said:
"The police creed is just expressions of belief in God..."
Then how about the policemen who are Atheists? Will he force them to worship god, pray than do something for the Philippines aside from defending the rotten system?

And true to what I may expect from this regarding the attempt to unite "faith and governance," as well as thinking that Marx and the rest of the Socialists are atheists, then so are the thinkers of the democratic and other philosophical and literary ideal-like Voltaire, Rousseau, De Sade, even the religious like Charles Kingsley, who saidth:
"We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable's hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order."
And I being a Cartesian Deist, who believed that god created anything then left to man for its own 'creation', as well as analyzing the ideas of the wingnuts in trying to put religion into political affairs, thinking that it is their "will" no matter it contradicts to the Democratic ideals to do so-of putting God in a laicist state.

Furthering in reading his statements, foolishly acting as a "Populist" or a "Social Democrat" as he do so, as well as trying to concoct strategies that further emulated and yet trying to be improved by modern-day wingnuts like Palparan and Alcover, as well as others, including Ayn Rand worshipers and the like, that they didn't really notice that their enemy also improves a lot through modifying, if not changing their actions and tactics within Armed Struggle to intensifying propaganda out of the enemy's inhumane actions and the like! That the enemy of the Reds is the chief propagandist who instigates more atrocities than their enemy, who, if they do inappropriate actions then apologizing it to the people fully, but they? Perhaps denying it or blaming it all to the Reds like the disappearance of Jonas Burgos, whom the Military blaming it instead on to the rebels.

And on the reals of propaganda and political warfare, I really notice how the wingnuts, like Coronel in his book really emphasized much on Military means while taking "development" as secondary. Not noticing about the problem that causes insurgency. Like ANAD, who instead blaming it to the rebels by saying:
"Insurgency breeds poverty and not the other way around, In provinces where CPP-instigated insurgency is pronounced, poverty incidence is also high. The stronger the communist insurgency, the higher is the poverty...The CPP is partly to be blamed if the Philippine economy is stagnating all these years.
The vicious cycle of ignorance and poverty, and vice versa, is the very situation that the CPP is feeding on since the inception of the communist insurgency movement on Dec. 26, 1968.
Many Filipinos are ignorant because they are poor. Conversely, they are poor because they are ignorant."

The message shows the narrowness and extreme anti-Communist sentiment regardless of the concrete problem behind insurgency.

In addition to that, they may have spoke of atrocities and the like while clandestinely doing the same alleged acts while desperately trying to emulate the enemy's tactic like long marches and demonstrations, as what Coronel said "Sponsored by the Private Sector." Meaning to say it may involve paying them to do so, then calling it "a product of grassroots organizing." Paid demonstrators as I may say to them, or being obliged by some private institutions aligned with the Right to join their "rallies" followed by listening to their "Fascistic" ideas in a guise of "pro-Democracy," as what Coronel said:
"These 'pro-Democracy' Private sector, political forces will lobby for the legislation of laws enhancing our National security; like increasing the reglamentary
period and penalty for the insurgents, identification system, more budget for counter-insurgency, protection of 'pro-Democracy' and 'pro-Government' activists and supporters and the like."

Good to say, but then, despite of these, are there any laws they lobbied, especially for the well being of the people? Like intensifying agrarian reform? Of modernizing and mechanizing agriculture? Of increasing wages and salaries for workers? Of massive industrialization focusing on the heavy industry and utilization of resources for domestic consumption? Of free education up to College as well as an active fiscal social policy?

Coronel hath nothing to think of productive means while insist on destructive, totalitarian, Fascist ones in a guise of 'pro-Democracy' tactics like what he think of: the ID system, and so forth. He even not included outlawing the studying of Marxism as a philosophy, of advocating of burning books, of arresting members of study circles, collectives and extreme censorship like McCarthy! So what is his struggle all about? Thinking all Socialists of the Marxian kind as murderers?

Unveiling the Fascist "Defense of the state" against the "Red menace" as they may say, the book Coronel hath made spoke of various half-truths and fabricated ideas, perhaps courtesy of himself or with a traitor, eager to counter-Propaganda made by the rebels who, made their propaganda, based from facts made by the enemy like "Atrocities, anti-people activities" and the like. That in fact, Coronel, Alcover, Palparan et al. Creating a series of inadequate thoughts seemingly based much on rabid fanaticism and narrow mindedness simply just to discredit Socialist thought, the Revolution, and even assailing it even the person(s) involved in that idea!

And like the book, or rather say the objectives of his book, calling a Reactionary regime he've defended, as well as his disciples from the late 1980s, or earlier till today a "Democratic Republic" is a farce. For anything they've supported is same as we expected: "Rotten beings desperate for power, calling Autocracy "Democracy" and their actions as "just". Remember the days Russia being ruled by Tsars? They favor "Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality" as their guiding ideology, and so here, substituting Autocracy for Democracy, which in fact Autocracy in itself. Worse as the system they in favor is semicolonial and semifeudal!

Noticing every passage given in that counter-propaganda material, somehow makes the struggle, whom their "enemy" is fighting, can create also a "counter-propaganda" using theirs, from strategy and tactics better than the enemy itself.