This would be the Right-Winger's real response:
"There is no such idea is DEMOCRACY!"
by Lualhati Madlangawa Guererro
During the last May Elections, more people are filing up the polls voting for their so-called "favorite candidate". These people, as they chose candidates ranging from left to right, or rather say right to far right, thinks that they are worth deserving, that they are imbued with the ideas of democracy, of empowering the people, of driving the nation into progress and ensure the well being of its constituents.
However,
Not all of these people are attributed to what the people thinks of. First and formost, these people ran and won are usually treating politics merely as an extension of their business entity, a profession, even a part of their mafia, a cult full of its adherents blinded by nonsense propaganda-especially its pseudo-progressive sentiment just to rival those from the left. Its like speaking "on behalf of the Nation" to counter those who speak "on behalf of the People." They even spoke of crimes made by their rivals, that they even exaggerated it and be part of its everyday sentiment that supersedes the platforms they've spoken about as politicians.
One organization, despite bannering "Freedom and Democracy" are also coddling with the murders famous for murdering those who are against the order what the left called "rotten". They even spoke of "terrorists" that in fact, rebels who are fighting for social emancipation and national liberation. These sentiments supersedes the platforms they spoke of as they ought to show "the democratic way" based on theirs as they said:
"...To improve the plight of the Filipino poor by enacting laws towards poverty alleviation and economic concerns."
"institutionalize barangay-based economy as a proactive community action in the national economic effort."
"seeks the reestablishment of a prosperous Philippines where the Filipinos live freely, peacefully and enjoying the blessings of democracy under the guidance of the Divine Providence."
But then, in actual, what they emphasised most is their hawkish attitude, of condemning those who are against the rotten social order, an order full of band aid solutions and the like, as terrorists-while their rivals are making pro-people laws and opposing the order's repressive views the wingnuts justified about. Speaking of their economic efforts, did they spoke of ideas that may uplift the workers? Of an economic scheme that those who guarantee are the toilers?
After all, the right wingers around us, venting rage against the left in the name of "freedom and democracy" are acting as if on behalf of an idea they spoke upon to, but their acts are far from what democracy is. How?
They may spoke of power to the people, but what kind of power the people emanates since these powers came directly from those who had money, guns, power? It is not the left-wingers so to say, as the wingnuts spoke of militants carrying guns-but they themselves also had the same what their enemies had too. How? The AFP, PNP, CAFGU, the Paramilitary groups and pseudo-cults rallying in the banner of "freedom and democracy?" But what kind of idea they are really emanate despite what they spoke of in front of the media?
I even remember a certain politician, bragging to the people that he will defend "Freedom, Justice, and Progress", of proposing fertilizer subsidies to the peasants, yet since he's a former military man notorious for killing activists and left-wing sympathizers and assailed as terrorists, he even don't know about an agreement regarding treatment of captives, of unarmed consultants, whilst calling those who are captured by the armed Left as Prisoners of War as "kidnapping" and the activists as "criminals?"
After all, most right-wingers, trying hard Libertarians of the Ron Paul kind didn't notice that Democracy is the power of the people as a whole to determine the course of their society, but in its most extreme form, Democracy becomes "majoritarianism," or "the dictatorship of the majority". It's like Having 60% of the people vote to enslave a 10% minority, and then enforcing an enslavement (for example), would be a type of democratic outcome. Democracy is even not limited in the government processes, even in the economy, in Industry wherein workers may control the entire establishment as they had the tools, the equipment and the know-how in regards to running the entire establishment as a collective, these ideas are in contrary to the bourgeois concepts of Democratic processes, that in fact they hijacked the essence of Demos Kratia to the people!
Free trade and trusts, profiteering and less emphasis on social welfare, privatization and deregularization, globalization and martial law-ism, all in lieu of internationalism and people empowerment, is the wingnut's Democracy? Or merely Polyarchism, Oligarchy within the sheet of people's power? If they spoke of people empowerment, does it really benefited the people? Or just trying to act a la Petain just to appease the people as they end up marching on the side of "traitors" like De Gaulle and the Communists?
I wonder these people, despite speaking and thinking through a Democratic viewpoint aren't really making something that is Democratic. Free flow of ideas? I doubt they'll do so for the don't tolerate it, secondly they are tolerating the system's efforts to curb those who are against the rotten social order and those who are controlling it-the way friars did against the Freemasons and the American soldiers against the Ladrones is the legacy carried over by those who banner "freedom and democracy"-this time against the ones who really fought for People's Freedom and Democracy.
The "anti-Communist" witch-hunts during the 1950s, despite its successful operations, caused great discontent amongst the people, especially intellectuals, workers, peasants who spoke of social justice and freedom. Even Claro M. Recto, being an ardent Nationalist, was assailed by those who spoke of "freedom and democracy" but aligned with the United States! Recto was assailed for simply being a progressive and a nationalist-and those ideas are condemned as "Left!". The trade unions supported by the CIA even spoke against protectionism and justifying free trade as they called the latter "Communist!" The legacy of the 1950s even continues to prevail until today-that most progressives are evenly assailed by the rotting supporters of the old social order.
How wonder these people acted much like that, they may condemn the rebels, the peasants for poverty but it is they, those who coddle the rotten social order are the ones who intensify poverty-to the fact that they preach Ayn Rand, Hitler in a third world country? They're just scared of the outcome what Democracy becomes Majoiritarianism is, especially whose majority comes from the toiling, laboring people resisting against the reactive, ignorant minority!
However,
Not all of these people are attributed to what the people thinks of. First and formost, these people ran and won are usually treating politics merely as an extension of their business entity, a profession, even a part of their mafia, a cult full of its adherents blinded by nonsense propaganda-especially its pseudo-progressive sentiment just to rival those from the left. Its like speaking "on behalf of the Nation" to counter those who speak "on behalf of the People." They even spoke of crimes made by their rivals, that they even exaggerated it and be part of its everyday sentiment that supersedes the platforms they've spoken about as politicians.
One organization, despite bannering "Freedom and Democracy" are also coddling with the murders famous for murdering those who are against the order what the left called "rotten". They even spoke of "terrorists" that in fact, rebels who are fighting for social emancipation and national liberation. These sentiments supersedes the platforms they spoke of as they ought to show "the democratic way" based on theirs as they said:
"...To improve the plight of the Filipino poor by enacting laws towards poverty alleviation and economic concerns."
"institutionalize barangay-based economy as a proactive community action in the national economic effort."
"seeks the reestablishment of a prosperous Philippines where the Filipinos live freely, peacefully and enjoying the blessings of democracy under the guidance of the Divine Providence."
But then, in actual, what they emphasised most is their hawkish attitude, of condemning those who are against the rotten social order, an order full of band aid solutions and the like, as terrorists-while their rivals are making pro-people laws and opposing the order's repressive views the wingnuts justified about. Speaking of their economic efforts, did they spoke of ideas that may uplift the workers? Of an economic scheme that those who guarantee are the toilers?
After all, the right wingers around us, venting rage against the left in the name of "freedom and democracy" are acting as if on behalf of an idea they spoke upon to, but their acts are far from what democracy is. How?
They may spoke of power to the people, but what kind of power the people emanates since these powers came directly from those who had money, guns, power? It is not the left-wingers so to say, as the wingnuts spoke of militants carrying guns-but they themselves also had the same what their enemies had too. How? The AFP, PNP, CAFGU, the Paramilitary groups and pseudo-cults rallying in the banner of "freedom and democracy?" But what kind of idea they are really emanate despite what they spoke of in front of the media?
I even remember a certain politician, bragging to the people that he will defend "Freedom, Justice, and Progress", of proposing fertilizer subsidies to the peasants, yet since he's a former military man notorious for killing activists and left-wing sympathizers and assailed as terrorists, he even don't know about an agreement regarding treatment of captives, of unarmed consultants, whilst calling those who are captured by the armed Left as Prisoners of War as "kidnapping" and the activists as "criminals?"
After all, most right-wingers, trying hard Libertarians of the Ron Paul kind didn't notice that Democracy is the power of the people as a whole to determine the course of their society, but in its most extreme form, Democracy becomes "majoritarianism," or "the dictatorship of the majority". It's like Having 60% of the people vote to enslave a 10% minority, and then enforcing an enslavement (for example), would be a type of democratic outcome. Democracy is even not limited in the government processes, even in the economy, in Industry wherein workers may control the entire establishment as they had the tools, the equipment and the know-how in regards to running the entire establishment as a collective, these ideas are in contrary to the bourgeois concepts of Democratic processes, that in fact they hijacked the essence of Demos Kratia to the people!
Free trade and trusts, profiteering and less emphasis on social welfare, privatization and deregularization, globalization and martial law-ism, all in lieu of internationalism and people empowerment, is the wingnut's Democracy? Or merely Polyarchism, Oligarchy within the sheet of people's power? If they spoke of people empowerment, does it really benefited the people? Or just trying to act a la Petain just to appease the people as they end up marching on the side of "traitors" like De Gaulle and the Communists?
I wonder these people, despite speaking and thinking through a Democratic viewpoint aren't really making something that is Democratic. Free flow of ideas? I doubt they'll do so for the don't tolerate it, secondly they are tolerating the system's efforts to curb those who are against the rotten social order and those who are controlling it-the way friars did against the Freemasons and the American soldiers against the Ladrones is the legacy carried over by those who banner "freedom and democracy"-this time against the ones who really fought for People's Freedom and Democracy.
The "anti-Communist" witch-hunts during the 1950s, despite its successful operations, caused great discontent amongst the people, especially intellectuals, workers, peasants who spoke of social justice and freedom. Even Claro M. Recto, being an ardent Nationalist, was assailed by those who spoke of "freedom and democracy" but aligned with the United States! Recto was assailed for simply being a progressive and a nationalist-and those ideas are condemned as "Left!". The trade unions supported by the CIA even spoke against protectionism and justifying free trade as they called the latter "Communist!" The legacy of the 1950s even continues to prevail until today-that most progressives are evenly assailed by the rotting supporters of the old social order.
How wonder these people acted much like that, they may condemn the rebels, the peasants for poverty but it is they, those who coddle the rotten social order are the ones who intensify poverty-to the fact that they preach Ayn Rand, Hitler in a third world country? They're just scared of the outcome what Democracy becomes Majoiritarianism is, especially whose majority comes from the toiling, laboring people resisting against the reactive, ignorant minority!
