Rolling Up Sleeves for the Nation's sake: Treating Trump's MAGA as a Challenge to the Philippines Amid Tariff Changes and Geopolitical Tensions

Rolling Up Sleeves for the Nation's sake: 

Treating Trump's MAGA as a Challenge to the Philippines

 Amid Tariff Changes and Geopolitical Tensions

In an era marked by shifting global power dynamics, U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of a 17 percent tariff on Philippine goods starting April 9 presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the Philippines. The move, part of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff policy, is designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and protect American workers. While this policy may initially hurt Filipino exporters, it also serves as a wake-up call—a challenge for the Philippines to chart its own course and reassess its place in the world, especially amid rising Sino-American tensions over the Pacific. 

At a time when the U.S. and China engage in saber-rattling, and the Philippines finds itself caught in the crossfire, the country can no longer afford to be passive. It must take ownership of its future—economically and geopolitically—and consider Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) principles not as a doctrine to follow but as a challenge to adapt and apply. Trump’s policies offer a unique opportunity for the Philippines to reassess its reliance on foreign powers and consider how it might carve out a path of self-sufficiency, independence, and resilience in the face of global uncertainties. 

Trump’s MAGA: A Challenge, Not a Blueprint 

Trump’s MAGA agenda has focused on economic self-sufficiency, seeking to rebuild America’s manufacturing sector and reduce its dependence on foreign imports. This vision, while understandable for the U.S., is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every nation. His approach to tariffs—designed to protect American industries at the expense of foreign trade partners—echoes the protectionist rhetoric of President Warren Harding in the 1920s and the nationalist sentiments of President Ronald Reagan, who championed American strength during the Cold War. However, Trump’s policies diverge from both Harding’s and Reagan’s approaches, especially in terms of their underlying motivations. 

Harding’s “Return to Normalcy” aimed to bring stability after the First World War, while Reagan focused on global leadership and spreading American values. Trump’s policies, in contrast, are more transactional and focused on securing short-term victories. His “America First” agenda often sacrifices long-term diplomatic relationships for immediate economic gains, particularly in terms of trade imbalances. As such, while MAGA may provide some useful lessons for the Philippines, it is not a model to follow blindly. Instead, the Philippines must view it as a challenge—an opportunity to reassess its own economic policies and forge a path that is suited to its unique circumstances. 

The Philippines’ Path to Economic Independence 

If Trump’s policies push the U.S. toward economic self-sufficiency, the Philippines should consider how it might adopt similar principles to fortify its own economy. While the tariffs may hurt Filipino exporters in the short term, they also expose the fragility of an economy heavily reliant on external markets, especially the U.S. The Philippines cannot afford to remain dependent on a volatile global marketplace or a single trading partner. Now is the time for the country to focus on building a more resilient, self-sustaining economy. 

Dindo Manhit, president of the Manila-based think tank Stratbase ADR Institute, highlighted that the relatively low tariff of 17% imposed on the Philippines “presents both risks and opportunities for the country.” While this move could make Philippine products less competitive in the U.S. market, it also opens doors for new trade and investment prospects. “The Philippines, with a comparatively lower tariff rate, could position itself as an attractive alternative for businesses looking to diversify their supply chains,” Manhit said.

This presents an exciting opportunity for the Philippines. The country could leverage the 17 percent tariff as a way to entice businesses seeking alternatives to China or other regions that may be facing escalating geopolitical risks. By positioning itself as a viable and cost-effective trade partner, the Philippines could draw new investments and diversify its export markets beyond the U.S. and China. This not only mitigates the risk of relying too heavily on any single trading partner but also allows the country to solidify its position in the broader global economy.

The Philippines’ economic structure has long been shaped by trade, with a significant emphasis on raw materials and basic manufacturing exports. However, this dependence makes it vulnerable to global market fluctuations and shifts in foreign policy. To foster true economic independence, the Philippines must invest in advanced industries such as renewable energy, high-value electronics, and defense manufacturing. By focusing on sectors that are not only resilient to external shocks but also competitive in the global marketplace, the Philippines can build an economy that stands strong on its own—much as Trump aims for the U.S. to do. 

The Case for a Shift Toward Domestic Industrialization 

and Agricultural Development

However, the right response to these tariffs must go beyond simply chasing new trade deals or relying on foreign investment. Sonny Africa, of the IBON Foundation, stressed the need for the Philippines to focus on domestic-based development, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing, instead of further deepening its dependence on foreign imports. “The right response to Trump’s tariffs isn’t to yearn for a bygone world of lower tariffs nor to fall over ourselves to please foreign investment,” Africa argued. “Doing this for the last 45 years just made PH manufacturing and agriculture fall to historic low shares of the economy, worsened our import-dependence, and made cheap labor our biggest export.”

Africa’s comments underscore a critical truth: the Philippines’ past approach of relying on foreign markets has led to systemic weaknesses in its domestic industries. The country must pivot away from a model that has placed cheap labor and import dependency at the forefront. Instead, Africa calls for a return to “real agricultural development and national industrialization.” Filipino farms and industrial firms need protection and support—not the fairy tale of free markets that has, in effect, undermined local industries and deepened dependency.

“The right response is to deal with the looming inflationary pressures, but also to look far beyond to real agricultural development and national industrialization,” Africa said. The Philippines cannot afford to let its industries wither while competing in a global market that favors efficiency over local resilience. Supporting domestic industries—especially agriculture and manufacturing—will be key to securing long-term economic stability and reducing vulnerability to global market fluctuations.

The Need for a Stronger, Independent Foreign Policy 

Geopolitically, the Philippines finds itself caught between two superpowers—the U.S. and China—as tensions over the South China Sea and the broader Pacific region continue to escalate. In this environment, the Philippines cannot afford to remain passive or overly reliant on any single ally. As the situation unfolds, it is clear that the country must adopt a foreign policy that is grounded in its own national interests, one that asserts its sovereignty and independence rather than depending on an external ally to dictate its actions. 

To do so, the Philippines must look beyond the traditional East-West divide and explore diplomatic and economic partnerships that align with its own interests. While the relationship with the U.S. remains vital, the Philippines should consider diversifying its alliances with countries such as India, Japan, Russia, and other ASEAN members. In doing so, the Philippines can better protect its territorial claims and assert its independence in a region where competition for influence is intensifying. 

By fostering stronger ties with emerging global powers, the Philippines can avoid the risks of being caught in the middle of a U.S.-China rivalry. This strategic diversification will allow the country to play a more active and influential role in shaping regional security, ensuring that it is not beholden to any one nation for its defense or economic wellbeing. 

Military Self-Reliance and Sovereignty 

In the face of growing regional tensions, it is increasingly clear that the Philippines must prioritize military self-reliance. While the U.S. remains a critical defense partner, the country can no longer afford to solely depend on external powers for its security. The Philippines must take steps to modernize its military, particularly its maritime capabilities, to protect its territorial integrity in the South China Sea. 

Building a more self-sufficient military force does not mean severing ties with traditional allies, but rather enhancing the Philippines’ ability to defend itself. By investing in defense technology, infrastructure, and personnel, the Philippines can ensure that it is prepared to protect its national interests without waiting for external assistance. This approach is in line with Trump’s MAGA principles, which emphasize self-reliance and reducing dependence on foreign powers—lessons the Philippines can adapt for its own defense needs. 

A Call for Action: Embrace the Challenge 

Trump’s MAGA policies may have driven the U.S. toward economic self-sufficiency, but the Philippines should view these changes not as a threat, but as a challenge to rise to. The country cannot afford to remain passive or wait for its “ally” to intervene when the stakes are high. Instead, it must take proactive steps to build a more resilient economy, assert its independence in foreign policy, and strengthen its defense capabilities. 

The Philippines stands at a crossroads. The path forward will require both bold action and strategic foresight—rolling up sleeves to create an economy and defense system that is not dependent on external forces. By embracing the challenge of self-reliance and sovereignty, the Philippines can emerge as a stronger, more independent player on the world stage, capable of navigating the complexities of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. 

Duterte’s Lawyer’s ‘Kidnapping’ Claim: A Distraction from the Real Issue?

Duterte’s Lawyer’s ‘Kidnapping’ Claim: 

A Distraction from the Real Issue?

Nicholas Kaufman, the lawyer for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, recently claimed that his client’s arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC) was nothing more than “kidnapping.” This absurd assertion, framed as an “extrajudicial rendition,” distracts from the real issue: Duterte’s role in a brutal war on drugs that left thousands dead. Kaufman’s argument isn’t just legally weak, it’s an attempt to sideline the serious charges against Duterte, ones that demand accountability on the global stage. 

What’s even more telling is the broader question this legal maneuver raises: If Duterte’s supporters truly believe in his innocence, why are they not helping him face justice in a legitimate international forum to clear his name? Why is their concept of justice so narrowly confined to a broken local system, riddled with corruption, impunity, and “hoodlums in robes,” as critics of the government would put it? Why does it take an international body like the ICC to investigate, prosecute, and possibly put Duterte on trial, while local courts—where this battle should have been fought from the start—have been complicit in turning a blind eye to the thousands killed in Duterte’s drug war? 

Instead of supporting Duterte’s defense in a proper legal setting, his defenders are playing this distraction game, seeking to undermine the international process that could provide the impartial examination of the evidence that the local system failed to do. This is not about procedural technicalities; it’s about accountability for the systematic, state-sponsored killings under Duterte’s orders. Whether the death toll is 6,000 or 30,000, the ICC’s case hinges on proving that Duterte endorsed and encouraged extrajudicial killings, that his government turned a blind eye to atrocities, and that these actions amounted to crimes against humanity. It’s about powerful figures being held accountable when local systems have failed to do so. 

Kaufman’s claim of “kidnapping” has already been dismissed by legal experts, including Atty. Joel Butuyan, an ICC-accredited lawyer, who called it a “rehashed” argument with no merit. Butuyan pointed out that Duterte’s arrest was in full compliance with the law, following valid legal procedures, with a warrant issued, and with Duterte’s rights respected. The ICC maintains jurisdiction over the case, as the crimes allegedly took place while the Philippines was still a member state. Kaufman’s attempt to discredit the ICC’s authority has already been debunked and will likely fail to prevent the trial from moving forward. 

So why does this matter? It’s not just about the technicalities of international law. It’s about the fundamental question of justice: if Duterte’s supporters truly care about his innocence, why are they not pushing for him to face justice head-on, instead of playing this charade of resistance? Why are they trying to deflect from the clear evidence of wrongdoing that has led to Duterte’s arrest and international scrutiny? If they want to show they’re serious about justice, why not embrace the legal process that could clear his name rather than undermining it? 

It’s striking how those who now rally to Duterte’s defense were the same voices that dismissed calls for justice during his reign—when victims of the drug war had nowhere to turn and the government refused to even acknowledge the deaths. These defenders now question the legitimacy of the ICC’s jurisdiction, despite it being backed by both the Philippines Supreme Court and international law. Where was their outrage when local calls for accountability were dismissed as “jest” or “nonsense”? They now speak of “dura lex sed lex”—the law is harsh, but it is the law—yet fail to apply it when the law might actually bring justice against Duterte. Does their understanding of justice stop at the local level, where powerful figures like Duterte could escape accountability? Or is justice only serious when it’s being handled by international bodies, and not the very same local systems they once disregarded? 

This is a moment for the Philippines to truly examine its commitment to justice. Duterte’s defenders may be quick to claim he’s a victim of international politics, but they’re the ones avoiding the real question: Why, when it comes to serious allegations of extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity, does it take the ICC to get to the truth when local courts have failed? If they really believe in Duterte’s innocence, they should help him face justice, not continue with this narrative of evasion. Because in the end, justice is not about protecting powerful individuals—it’s about ensuring accountability, no matter how high up the chain it goes. 

The Second Trump Administration: a possible MAGA Divide?

The Second Trump Administration: a possible MAGA Divide?

An analysis by Kat Ulrike

Introduction: The Post-2024 Ideological Crisis of MAGA

The re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 marked a critical juncture in the evolution of the MAGA movement. While his first term (2017–2021) blended populist rhetoric with traditional Republican policymaking, his second term (2025–2029) exposed deep ideological rifts within his political coalition.

Hypothetically, there are two competing tendencies emerged within the MAGA movement:

1. Neo-Hardingism – A brand of economic nationalism that emphasized industrial revival, protectionist trade policies, and isolationism, yet often favored corporate interests over working-class concerns.

2. Neo-Reaganism – A fusion of MAGA’s cultural populism with corporate conservatism, maintaining Reagan-era economic principles such as tax cuts, deregulation, and a strong interventionist foreign policy.

However, rather than resolving these tensions, Trump’s second administration saw a decisive shift away from economic reform and toward cultural battles. This transition transformed MAGA into a movement more concerned with combating “wokeness” than with restructuring the economy, effectively turning it into a form of right-wing identity politics. The result was a reactionary force rather than a coherent governing ideology.

The Rise of Neo-Hardingism in Trump’s Second Term

During the 2024 campaign, Trump’s promise to “Rebuild American Greatness” centered on economic nationalism. This stance was a direct response to the economic instability of the early 2020s, including inflation, supply chain disruptions, and persistent deindustrialization.

Consider, for instance, these remarks of Harding in 1918 and the obvious parallels with Trump’s message today- that situates him resolutely in the tradition of American nationalist protectionism: “The theory of banished barriers is beautiful, the practice is destroying. American labor will never consent. We must have protection to hold us to what we are, and send us to greater eminence.”

A. Policies and Approach

Neo-Hardingism reflected the influence of the early 20th-century policies of President Warren G. Harding, who advocated for high tariffs, economic protectionism, and an America-first approach to industrial growth. In Trump’s second term, this ideology took form through several key policies:

• Increased Tariffs & Trade Wars – The administration expanded tariffs on Chinese goods, targeting industries such as technology, automobiles, and pharmaceuticals. While intended to bolster domestic industry, these measures led to retaliatory tariffs that increased consumer prices.

• Revival of the American Industrial Sector – Trump’s government introduced new tax incentives and subsidies to encourage domestic manufacturing. However, many of these policies disproportionately benefited large corporations rather than small businesses or workers.

• Reduced Immigration for Labor Protection – The administration implemented restrictive immigration policies under the pretext of protecting American jobs. While these measures appealed to the working-class base, they also led to labor shortages in key industries, particularly in agriculture and service sectors.

Through a Neo-Hardingite lens, Trump’s rise is also routinely viewed as a backlash against the globalisation of the current economic order. He will oversee a regime committed to an active policy of de facto de-globalisation, even including a renegotiating of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on ‘America First’ terms. 

B. Key Figures in the Neo-Hardingite Faction

Several prominent figures within Trump’s inner circle championed this economic nationalist agenda:

• Peter Navarro (Economic Advisor) – Navarro remained one of the most vocal advocates for protectionist policies and a more aggressive stance against China.

• J.D. Vance (Senator and Political Ally) – Vance supported economic nationalism while simultaneously critiquing Wall Street’s role in economic inequality.

• Josh Hawley (Senator and Conservative Firebrand) – Although an advocate for trade protectionism, Hawley also increasingly aligned with cultural conservatism, diluting his economic focus.

Despite these efforts, Neo-Hardingism ultimately failed to challenge corporate monopolies. Instead, it functioned more as a pro-corporate industrial policy rather than a worker-centered economic revival.

The Resurgence of Neo-Reaganism: Corporate Power Under a Populist Mask

While the Neo-Hardingites pushed for economic nationalism, another faction within Trump’s administration sought to maintain the economic orthodoxy of free-market fundamentalism. This faction, labeled Neo-Reaganism, blended Trump’s populist rhetoric with corporate-friendly policies that aligned with the traditional Republican establishment.

           A. The Economic and Foreign Policy Approach

The Neo-Reaganite approach prioritized policies that benefited corporate interests while using cultural populism to maintain support from the MAGA base:

• Tax Cuts for Businesses – The administration’s second-term tax policies mirrored Reagan-era supply-side economics, disproportionately benefiting corporations and high-income earners over workers.

• Global Military Engagements Under Economic Justifications – While Trump’s first term included isolationist tendencies, his second term saw a shift toward military interventions framed as protecting American economic interests.

• Deregulation for Big Business – Environmental, labor, and financial regulations were rolled back under the banner of “freeing the economy,” further solidifying corporate power.

B. Key Figures in the Neo-Reaganite Faction 

This faction included established conservative figures who sought to maintain a pro-business agenda:

• Larry Kudlow (Economic Advisor) – A champion of corporate tax cuts and Wall Street-friendly policies.

• Nikki Haley (Secretary of State) – Advocated for strong U.S. global involvement under the guise of economic security.

• Mike Pence (Traditional Conservative Figurehead) – Maintained a corporate-friendly economic stance while aligning with MAGA’s cultural populism.

By co-opting MAGA’s populist energy, the Neo-Reaganites effectively preserved the same corporate economic structures that Trump initially campaigned against.

The Turn Toward Cultural Politics: MAGA Becomes Right-Wing Woke

By the midpoint of Trump’s second term, economic issues had been eclipsed by cultural battles. This shift marked the transformation of MAGA into a movement more focused on symbolic victories against “wokeness” rather than substantive economic change.

A. The Prioritization of Cultural Wars

Instead of addressing structural economic challenges, the MAGA movement became fixated on cultural grievances, including:

• Eliminating DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs – State and federal efforts sought to remove DEI initiatives from corporations and universities.

• Battles against “woke” corporations – High-profile boycotts and legal challenges targeted companies perceived as too progressive.

• State-level education reforms – Laws restricting progressive education policies emphasized nationalism and patriotism in school curricula.

            B. The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism

MAGA’s cultural turn mirrored the left’s identity politics, prioritizing symbolic victories over material change:

• Social media culture wars – MAGA figures spent increasing amounts of time engaging in online battles with progressive activists.

• Legislation targeting cultural issues rather than economic concerns – Many new laws focused on banning progressive policies rather than addressing systemic economic problems.

• Outrage politics as a mobilization tool – MAGA leaders used perpetual grievance narratives to maintain political momentum.

C. Key Figures in the Cultural Pivot

• Tucker Carlson (Media Firebrand) – Repositioned MAGA as a cultural, anti-elitist movement rather than an economic one.

• Ron DeSantis (Governor & Conservative Hardliner) – Led efforts to push back against “woke” corporations and progressive education policies.

• Elon Musk (Tech Billionaire & MAGA Ally) – Used his platform to challenge left-wing progressivism while benefiting from MAGA’s deregulation policies.

Conclusion: MAGA at a Crossroads?

By the end of Trump’s second term, the MAGA movement had fractured into competing factions with distinct priorities:

• Neo-Hardingism failed to produce meaningful worker-focused reforms, despite its economic nationalist rhetoric.

• Neo-Reaganism successfully co-opted MAGA’s populist energy to sustain corporate economic power.

• Cultural politics overtook economic grievances, transforming MAGA into a reactionary movement centered on identity politics.

Without a coherent economic direction, MAGA risks becoming a purely symbolic movement—one that is loud in rhetoric but ineffective in governance. The key question for the future of the American right remains:

Will MAGA return to its economic nationalist roots, or will it remain a cultural reactionary force, fighting symbolic battles while leaving economic power structures untouched? 

"COUNT ON US"

"COUNT ON US"

English version of “Računajte na nas” by Đorđe Balašević
By Kat Ulrike

We’re not born in the 60s, 70s, nor 80s,

But their voices still echo and teach us what’s right.

They told us of battles, of loss and of glory,

A torch we must carry through the night.

For life lies ahead with its trials and its fears,

And shadows still fall like the waves of the sea.

But through every struggle, through doubt and through tears,

Their strength lives in you and in me.

- So you can count on us

Chorus

For the world thinks we’ve forgotten or we’ve lost our way,

Dancing through the darkness, and chasing the lights.

But deep in our hearts hopes are burning like flames,

A passion that guides us to the fight.

- And you can count on us.

Our voices will rise in the face of despair,

United by dreams that the future can bring.

No chains can contain us, no fear can divide,

Together, we’ll stand and we’ll fighting.

Through rivers of doubt and the mountains of pain,

We’ll carry the hope that they passed in their name.

The blood of the fighters still runs in our veins,

And we’ll keep the promise the same:

- That you can count on us.

Chorus 

From News Providing to Content Marketing - an Erosion of Journalism as a Craft?

From News Providing to Content Marketing
- an Erosion of Journalism as a Craft?

The digital age has fundamentally reshaped how information is consumed and valued, and in the process, it has brought with it a troubling decline in the trustworthiness and integrity of journalism. Once revered as the cornerstone of democracy and accountability, journalism now finds itself competing in a chaotic information ecosystem where truth often takes a backseat to engagement metrics and emotional resonance. The proliferation of fake news and half-truths has transformed many supposed news providers into mere content creators, pandering to an audience that increasingly prioritizes confirmation over truth.

The Decline of Credible Journalism in the Digital Age

The transition from traditional print media to digital and, more recently, to social media platforms has ushered in a new era of information dissemination. On one hand, the ability to access news instantly from anywhere in the world is a triumph of technology. On the other hand, the speed and accessibility of digital platforms have made it alarmingly easy for falsehoods to gain traction. In this race for immediacy, the traditional journalistic values of accuracy, verification, and depth have been cast aside in favor of producing content that grabs attention.

This decline is compounded by the rise of algorithms that reward sensational, emotionally charged, or divisive content over thoughtful, investigative journalism. The economics of modern media prioritize clicks and shares, leading outlets to pursue stories that cater to trends, outrage, and entertainment rather than serving the public interest.

The Role of Backers and Agendas

A darker side of this evolution is the growing influence of hidden backers and vested interests in shaping narratives. Many seemingly independent news outlets are supported by political entities, corporate sponsors, or ideological movements that use them as vehicles for propaganda. These backers often promote fake news or biased narratives, not to inform or educate, but to sway public opinion, reinforce political agendas, or drive specific outcomes.

This transformation turns journalism into a tool of manipulation rather than enlightenment. In many cases, the public is unaware of these hidden influences, leaving them vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation campaigns. The end result is a widespread erosion of trust in media institutions, with genuine journalists and credible outlets often swept up in the backlash against those who have compromised the integrity of the craft.

The Justification of Falsehoods as Copium

Interestingly, the proliferation of fake news and half-truths has become justifiable to some audiences—not because it is right, but because it serves as a form of copium. For many, consuming narratives that align with their beliefs, no matter how false, provides comfort in a world where the truth often feels inconvenient or even threatening.

In this sense, fake news becomes more than just misinformation—it becomes a coping mechanism. A narrative closer to one’s worldview, even if it is demonstrably false, can feel far more palatable than facing a reality that challenges deeply held beliefs. This phenomenon is especially evident in polarized political climates, where opposing sides cling to their preferred version of events, facts be damned.

For instance, a person who feels disenfranchised or marginalized by the truth might gravitate toward a false narrative that paints them as the victim or positions their side as the hero. The narrative, no matter how contrived, offers validation and emotional solace. Over time, this creates echo chambers where individuals reinforce one another’s biases, further deepening divisions and mistrust.

The Role of Social Media Platforms

Social media platforms play a critical role in this cycle. These platforms are designed to maximize user engagement, often by feeding users content that aligns with their preferences and beliefs. In doing so, they create an environment where misinformation thrives, as users are continually exposed to content that reinforces their biases. 

This feedback loop is not accidental—it is a direct result of algorithms designed to prioritize engagement over accuracy. The more a piece of content resonates emotionally, the more likely it is to be shared, regardless of its factual validity. In this way, social media platforms become enablers of fake news, amplifying its reach and impact.

Consequences for Society and Journalism

The consequences of this shift are far-reaching. Journalism, once tasked with holding power to account and informing the public, has been relegated to the status of "content-making." This not only diminishes the value of credible reporting but also undermines society’s ability to make informed decisions.

When truth becomes secondary to narrative, the very fabric of democratic society is at risk. Public trust in institutions erodes, polarization deepens, and misinformation becomes a tool for division rather than enlightenment. The proliferation of fake news as copium exacerbates these challenges by encouraging individuals to retreat into their own realities, where the truth is whatever feels most comforting.

Toward a Solution

Despite these challenges, there is hope for the restoration of journalism’s integrity and purpose. Achieving this will require collective action from journalists, media organizations, social media platforms, and consumers:

1. For Journalists and Media Organizations:

    - Recommit to the core principles of journalism: accuracy, accountability, and investigative depth.

    - Diversify revenue streams to reduce reliance on click-driven advertising models.

    - Resist the temptation to chase sensationalism and prioritize stories that matter, even if they are less       "marketable."

2. For Social Media Platforms:

    - Take greater responsibility for curbing the spread of misinformation.

    - Adjust algorithms to reward credible, well-sourced reporting rather than engagement at all costs.

    - Promote media literacy initiatives to help users discern credible sources from unreliable ones.

3. For Consumers:

    - Support independent and credible outlets through subscriptions, donations, or advocacy.

    - Practice critical thinking and verify sources before sharing content.

    - Challenge misinformation in personal networks and encourage open, fact-based discussions.

4. For Educators and Institutions:

    - Prioritize media literacy as part of educational curriculums to equip future generations with the              skills to navigate the complex information landscape.

Conclusion

The proliferation of fake news and the transformation of journalism into mere content-making have profound implications for society. While the decline of print media and the rise of social media have made information faster and more accessible, they have also made it less trustworthy. For many, consuming fake news offers a comforting narrative that aligns with their worldview, even if it contradicts reality—a phenomenon that, while understandable, is deeply dangerous.

 Reversing this trend will require a recommitment to the principles of journalism, as well as a concerted effort to rebuild trust in credible reporting. Journalism’s ultimate mission is not just to deliver information, but to deliver the truth—even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable. The future of informed society depends on our ability to distinguish between the two.   

"Through the Crosswinds"

"Through the Crosswinds"

Composer: from the song "Rruga e Marshallit"
by Tomor Berisha, Vinçenc Gjini
Lyrics by: Paul Smirnoff

Through the crosswinds, through the dark,

I was guided by your spark,

Shining bright, you lit my way.

Clear the skies, oh, let me stay,

In the warmth of your embrace,

Where my heart has found its place.

Every dream of you takes flight,

Like a starburst in the night.

Chorus:

𝄆 What we’ve built will never falter,

Though the storms may rage and roar.

Every moment draws me closer,

Forever yours, forever more. 𝄇

Through the winds, I hear your song,

Pulling me where I belong,

Every step brings you to me.

Like the waves that meet the sea,

Every whisper, every sigh,

Draws me closer, by and by.

In your light, my heart’s alive,

With your love, I will survive.

Chorus:

𝄆 What we’ve built will never falter,

Though the storms may rage and roar.

Every moment draws me closer,

Forever yours, forever more. 𝄇 

Modern Tools, Ancient Rage: Voices from the furnace in the Age of Numbness

Modern Tools, Ancient Rage:

Voices from the furnace in the Age of Numbness

In an era saturated with digital noise, brand campaigns, and performative outrage, the words of old revolutionaries strike with unexpected clarity. Andrés Bonifacio, José Rizal, Mao Zedong, and Eduard Limonov—figures separated by geography and ideology—speak across time with a shared urgency. Their voices challenge a generation conditioned to consume, to conform, and to call silence “peace.” 

Today’s society encourages complacency, cloaking passivity in the language of wellness and productivity. Youth are lauded as the “hope of the nation,” yet taught to fear discomfort more than injustice. In this environment, the writings of these men feel more than radical—they feel almost forbidden. Their refusal to sugarcoat, their unflinching clarity, threatens the fragile illusions of modern life. 

Bonifacio, the katipunero, warned against a passive trust in systems designed to oppress. “Reason teaches us not to waste time hoping for the promised prosperity that will never come,” he wrote. His call was not for optimism but for action—for the uniting of will, thought, and purpose. Bonifacio did not merely critique Spanish colonial rule; he demanded it be overthrown. For him, hope lay not in institutions but in the organized will of the people. 

Rizal, less fiery but no less incisive, understood the deep sickness of indifference. “The people do not complain because they have no voice,” he observed. He warned that society often fears the honest more than the criminal, for the honest reveal truths that institutions seek to bury. Rizal’s critique cut through hypocrisy; his was a rebellion of intellect and moral clarity. 

Mao, in another context, defined the revolutionary with ruthless precision. “If [a youth] is willing to integrate with the masses of workers and peasants… he is a revolutionary,” he said. His words leave no space for abstraction. Revolution is not a fashion statement or a viral campaign—it is immersion, labor, and loyalty to the oppressed. If one turns from the people, Mao believed, they become part of the machinery of oppression. 

Limonov, the provocateur of post-Soviet disillusionment, gave that rebellion an existential weight. “I have remained a radical. I have not become an adult. I have not betrayed my soul,” he said. Limonov’s suffering was not a symptom of defeat but proof of resistance. In a world that equates maturity with selling out, he saw staying radical as a moral choice—one that demands pain, alienation, and exile. 

These voices, though distant in time, carry a dangerous resonance in today’s hyper-connected yet spiritually fractured world. One hears them and is reminded that contentment, when enforced, is simply sedation. And those who resist this sedation are quickly branded: too much, too angry, too radical, subversive, terroristic. 

But beneath the accusations lies something harder to erase: truth. These words are not empty slogans. They are not aesthetic rebellion. They are warnings. Lamentations. Challenges. 

Detractors will say: “You benefit from this system. You use the tools of modernity—phones, Wi-Fi, luxury.” But this misses the point. These tools were made for man, not man for the tools. One can participate in modern life without submitting to its ideological straitjacket. To live within this world does not mean endorsing how it works. 

The problem is not modernity itself—it is the idolization of it. It is when consumption becomes identity. When spectacle becomes reality. When silence becomes virtue. In such a climate, to speak of revolution, of suffering, of moral clarity—becomes an act of resistance. 

What these thinkers share is not a single ideology but a shared conviction: that society must not numb itself into oblivion. That the people have a right—perhaps even a duty—to demand more. Not more luxury, but more dignity. Not more convenience, but more truth. 

Bonifacio, Rizal, Mao, and Limonov did not offer comfort. They offered confrontation. Their words are a mirror held up to a society that fears discomfort, yet is rotting from within. They suggest that the answer to decadence is not decoration, but purification—the burning away of all that is false, until only steel remains. 

This is not nostalgia for a lost past. It is an appeal to the present. A call to remember that a nation cannot be saved by hashtags, nor healed by contentment campaigns. It must be reshaped, reawakened, tempered. That process will be difficult. It may even be violent—spiritually or otherwise. But it is necessary. 

The choice is not between left and right, or tradition and progress. It is between numbness and awakening. Between complicity and clarity. 

So call it what others will. Call it rebellion. Call it extremism. Call it naïveity. 

But do not call it fake. Because in a world that sells illusions for profit, truth is the final subversion.