Thursday, April 28, 2011

Is repression sacral?

Is repression sacral?

Is repression sacral?
To the people it is not, but to those who insist on order, it is.

Being a witness in the daily doings of the society, state-sponsored repression nowadays remained pervalent, that despite criticism both here and abroad, their actions are rather justifying their means to restore order to a rotten, dilapidated society, even at the expense of killing innocents for their worthless reason.

Most Right-wingers tend to do so, Pinochet, Batista, Papadoulos, even Ferdinand Marcos and its succeeding Pilipino Presidents like Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo emphasised much of "Order" that obviously, caters to the few and not for the many, regardless of their sentiment speaks of like "Development."

And speaking of "Development" in a rotten, dilapidated society, does it created much opportunities for everyone? Especially to those who are victims of those who impose "Order?" It's like this, having a "Counterinsurgency operations", of "Hamletting" and "Concentration" while at the same time creating farm to market roads and other infrastructure just to "appease" the people. To an ordinary man, which is worth describing to that order who done both things? The former or the Latter?

I even think of it confusing that the system pulls us backwards all in the name of "Order" over "Development." That most of these people, composed of Right-wingers and opportunists, joined in the "Change caravan" just to grab the scene and putting everything back on a track "that pleases to their senses." Inquisition, "Book burning", "Total Censorship" and absolute imposition of so-called "Morals" in a "Democratic society" everyone?

To a right-winger, their aloof for change (despite bannering it) perhaps, are taking it in an irrational context, that revolution, or any kind of change contrary to their wishes are generically serves the Devil, with a particular emphasis upon two of them that have a special hatred for the prevailing order of things, or in an ultramontane idea, the Church and state entwined. As what Corrêa de Oliveira said:

"If the Revolution is disorder, the Counter-Revolution is the restoration of order. And by order we understand the peace of Christ in the reign of Christ. That is, Christian civilization, austere and hierarchical, fundamentally sacral, anti-egalitarian and anti-liberal."

Corrêa de Oliveira, a feverent ultraconservative Christian, opposed modernity both in the church and in society, and its ideas somehow putting much Christian rhetoric just to justify his stances yet some of the verses in the Bible, even the actions made by the early Christians are contrary to his or other similar individual's ideas. If Revolution is disorder, how come Christ called for change using a sword according to Matthew 10:34? As well as of distributing wealth according to Luke 22:35-38? Isn't it contradicting for a worshiper, especially to a Conservative one thinking the former and not noticing the latter?

I even remember some of my earlier writeups concerning repression and social crisis in the society. And one Right-winger admitted the fact that he, himself is anti-democratic, citing the Athenian Democracy as its example:

"...The word democracy is a big joke on humanity. Remember that the first victim of democracy was Socrates, who was condemned by the people of Greece to death because of his influence on the young people. Democracy simply means mob rule..."

Indeed that "Democracy" is a big joke, especially if it is ran by a clique trying to protect the rotten order than of creating certain changes. That they wanted a "Government on high" and unleash a series of terror to justify their existence. Like Chiang Kai-Shek for example.

According to my writeup, it said:

Chiang Kai-Shek, like those of the conservatives who "hijacked" the revolution and of the Guomindang itself "museumified" change while step-by-step reviving the age-old, neo-Confucian, ideals what the majority of Sun Yat-Sen's followers shunned, from the faction led by Chiang Soong Ching-ling to Mao Zedong, who, also a soldier of the 1912 revolt and a communist who joined the Guomindang after the Sun-Joffe manifesto before becoming a leader of the communist party and the whole China itself-and opposing Chiang's measures that seemed contrary to the ideals of "freedom, democracy and social justice" as the late Sun envisioned, and according to him, referring to the Guomindang and Chiang:

"There are many stubborn element, graduates in the specialty schools of stubbornness. They are stubborn today, they will be stubborn tomorrow, and they will be stubborn the day after tomorrow. What is stubbornness (huan'gu)? Gu is to be stiff. Huan is to not progress: not today, nor tomorrow, nor they day after tomorrow. People like that are called the stubborn elements. It is not an easy thing to make the stubborn elements listen to our words."

And thus,
It also shows how wingnuts are, as what Mao said, "stubborn" and yet bannering the words like "change," "innovation," "freedom," "democracy," and the like, using it for cosmetic purposes while in fact disagreeing it, stubbornly disagreeing it to the core as what they do so with the cause of defending their concept of "tradition" and "order."

Such sentiment made by those who "defend order" rather fuels anger especially those who endure hardship and repression both temporal and spiritual. The system may have parroted everything progressive but in practise they simply done the contrary-that justifies its own "Sacrality" over "The will of the people." And since Counterrevolution is sacral, is Repression also sacral?

If so, then whatever their sentiments justified, it makes rebellion justifiable, liberative, and sacral, especially to an oppressed being yearning for justice and righteousness.