Too much credit

Some people in the university occasionally make the mistake of association. For example, I've encountered such lapses in the scholarship associating me for admiring much in the United States' rise to power as to being (1) a Zionist, (2) a neorightist and (3) someone who kisses Bush's right hand.

Admiring an entity for its history and its rise to power does not make one admire how it conducts its business in the present nor its character in all aspects. Surely, when I make statements I am biased by my vision of America and its roots in Tocqueville's works, more in Paul Bunyan's Pilgrim Progress. Just a tragedy that even Americans themselves fail in the discovery of their glorious past (having considered the payback). However, much of the United States' history can be painted in black after their romantic independence and when they began expansionary actions into the West. Let's admit it, their occupation tactics were not always well-conceived nor well-received. Then there is the Civil War and the inhumane discrimination of the minorities which until today puzzles me. The World Wars were more or less some way for them to spin the wheels of mass production and gain in the end being the outright "victor". Then there's the Cold War and the present-day campaigns.

In these events in history, I find the flaws of America and the materialist American dream. And yet, can I entirely blame their leadership? Argument being, no one is exempt from the spoils of power. How can these haters of capitalism and the concept of the West based merely on historical account call themselves scholarly? They have passed judgment and have rendered the world irreparable. If you hate someone solely on what he has done to you in the past or how he looks in the present, then you are either not thinking your position over or you are simply being biased.

I am no pro-West, pro-capitalist reign, man. What I am is someone attempting to bring about revolutionary change. This is not something that is dreamt of and won't last in the end. This is real change and real revolution. And to have even the ability to whisper of this ideal of the world, you have to consider as many goods to as many bads in anything.

You therefore can not make claims that the US should be brought down simply because this administration is very much a follower of US dictates out of practical reasons. Hey they're just being Macchiavellian. Don't give them all the credit.

The fatal flaw of some of people who shout in the streets (I am not generalizing) is their uncanny sense of wanting things to be seen their way, done their way, led by them and for them. Uhm, hmmm, the people have spoken. Where were you in EDSA 1 and 2? And oh yeah, why is it that the people have reservations when the opposition align themselves with your people's army and your personalities? So you now call the middle class dumb? And why do you now include the middle classes in your rhetoric? Are they one with your cause? Oh come on, ELITE RULE??? BACKWARD SOCIETY??? FEUDAL ORDER??? Geesh. Glad I acknowledge pluralism as a way to be.

Glad to acknowledge multi-perspective activism. As I said in an earlier blog, don't blame someone who has a prick in his eye when you have a logjam in yours.

I long for the activism of the past, when it was real and the methods employed then were relevant to the times. Now, activism could not connect. The youth are preoccupied with something else, and it shows. Oh shoot blame capitalism and the fast way of life. Haha, it's never about you, it's always about capitalism, the West, the indifferent people.

The challenge of relevance stares us in the eyes and we choose to go for convenience. People of that sort get left out. Then they want to pass the cross to those who want to make a living.

Our beloved Council brought to discussion China being a hegemon in the near future. Scholars say no. Some members of the Council say no. However, I put to question a la Ms. Joya : What if? Realism isn't dead folks. Once you accumulate nukes, you impose your will on the South China Sea, you veto because old ally up in NoKor thinks otherwise, once you rule the economy...who's to stop you?

They can preach about the US bullying them and all, but hey, they're time hasn't come yet. What if, what if.

The United States waited for a world war. There's no telling when someone like China will position themselves vis-a-vis a "declining US hegemony" (which I also challenge).

Am no Sino-hater and US-lover. I admire traits in their cultures that I think our Philippines needs to choke up.

Am often asked about my stand on the Charter Change. To me, matters of perception and construction are important. Furthermore, motives always have a place in my analysis. Benefit of the doubt given, ceteris paribus, I still don't think Parliamentary government will click here. Federalism to a certain extent may. My point is simple, the preconditions for any shift do not point to the desired variable---stability and progress. Our institutions are weak, our parties are big jokes, our leaders are on some other politician's paylist (at least not all). And as for the Philippine society? Simple point as well. We are fragmented. We are region and ethno-centric. We have no long-term vision, no platform, no collective ideal. Out of this frustration, I chose to study politics and scheme for that future.

In the course of my short shallow pow-wow here, I have laid my cards on the table for what I think is a viable world order. Oh yeah, I advocate a world order. I think regions are not enough. I think the buck doesn't stop there. And I'd gladly tell someone who thinks normative study is a load of crap to screw himself to the library hall doors. Screw people who think of the present only in exchange of the recognition of their past and the hopes of their future. Rhetorics? Damn, that's what these geniuses keep on telling people who want change. Lunatics instead of prophets. Madmen instead of pioneers. Well, history will decide.

My world order vaguely put is strong, driven by force and the rule of law. It is both bottom-up as it is top-bottom. It needs no killing of those who have more. It is progressive. It is pluralist. Yet it is strong and decisive. It is grounded on human lust for power and satisfaction. Yet it is also grounded for human lust for achievement and the good life. Equality is not only in the ends, but also at the beginning of the game friends. How can you attain such conditions when you have corrupt rulers? Power should be a catalyst. In the hands of benevolent leadership, it can be. Vague right? Yes. Impossible? Hell no.

So don't brand me a Zionist for being Christian and someone trying hard to live a life based on its hardest of hard demands. Don't brand me a neorightist for I only am advocating for a stable and progressive order. Don't brand me an American-lover for I only love my study of the better things to this world. If the United States be part of my list of icons, then shoot me for being me. Defend your side of the coin. If I question the motives of any new power in the world vis-a-vis America, I do it with bias I openly admit. But I do it with reasoning not emotion easily stirred. Because when the Philippines conquers the world and gets to the top, other people will wonder the same.

No one is perfect but the true benevolent right and charismatic left---God Himself.