"A Promise of Hope or a Veiled Betrayal?"

"A Promise of Hope or a Veiled Betrayal?"

Or how everyone has seeing sugarcoated remarks

and obviously real intentions

(And how the concerned chose to counter them)

"Fuck Off and Die". 

These may be the innermost remark from the system and its pampered apologetics masking behind innocent words like "peace", "stability", and even "prosperity".

For as years since the country has "regained" its independence, most people carried mixed reactions towards messages meant to be tempered with actions, especially that leaders and its retinues were "at its best" trying to stress the idea that the welfare of the people be its priority besides those of building a better society especially after centuries of being a colony and hence, gaining borrowed thoughts that perhaps meant to use productively in setting one's own foundations of a promising country.

However, as time goes by, such profound aspirations as reduced to just plain statements, wholly rhetorical ones meant to be spoken rather than transformed into action, or if there is, rather half-baked if not having its essence be diluted in the name of compromise and accommodation. And many people end being fooled knowing that there are words meant to be taken seriously yet end half-baked or wholly rhetorical ever since it was invoked to appease them. In a way peace as meant to be based on justice but obviously a term for a deafening silence, and stability as more of enforced contentment over those of the struggling needy.
Quite strange isn't it?  That there are messages of change that rather reinterpreted as a message of continuity. The system who had afforded to babble it as such did some but not enough to ensure the well being of the people, but with its apologists may ought to say that least they did something "no matter how allegedly little or not enough it is least it is reforming."

But that so-called reforming has becoming less to do with renovating nor innovating but rather retention of interests. Be it since 1898, 1946, 1973, 1986, or even im the present day what everyone sees is all but as it is with some external infrastructure. Franco did that decades ago in Spain just to appease foreign investors and the "modern, democratic world" how improving Spain was despite allegedly stucking itself up in the ideas of the inquisition. So is the Philippines that even until today its policies remained pegged to those of compradore-landlord interests hiding underneath the veneer of democracy and freedom.

That somehow made the concerned sought how that goddamn system brought about by landlords and compradores obviously created an atmosphere of betrayal the more they favour personal interests than seriously realising peoples hopes in creating an atmosphere where hope is realising and change as truly ongoing.
But reality would say that change and hope are opiums for the desperate, what is truly changing in a continuing past are those meant to be consumed be it food, tv shows, anything meant for a person to escape from reality itself, or as what Letov said:

"The plastic world has won."

Yes, the plastic world has won over a world of ideas and aspirations. But the more having a system trying to cultivate its nonsense, its sameness, then may as well the concrned will turn these into conditions for struggle till turning a still degenerated society into something worth called a place in the sun.

Anyway, this rambling brought about by yours truly has led us to the conclusion that most from the so-called bourgeoisie, the highly educated and propertied gentries, the ones who steadfastly trying to keep the so-called order of things, all in pursuit of just keeping petty interests and perhaps as if clinging to the illusion of a "peaceful transition" such as same order yet "renovated with reforms" - betrayed the cause that as if there are chances of making moves with less radicalism or rather say "bloodshed." And in it somehow made themselves rather at the side of the system than those of the people. By their actions it obviously made themselves broke away when the going goes tough so as to prove that personal interests be emphasised over those of the nation.

The lower middle bourgeoise, however, despite sharing some thoughts with the upper ones, clings to the principle strongly as those of the masses. Being learned yet gained consciousness by realities, has more firmly rooted in the idea of national and social liberation that is, more than just persecuting the corrupt and of the wretched. Mabini, in a way, typified that attitude of being a principlist so was Bonfacio whose Bourgeois Liberal thought had been indigenised to the extent of becoming almost "Filipino" in order to make it palatable with the masses.

In fact, it is quite noticeable that in an era wherein idealism been substituted with consumerism, of awareness with apathies, it is obvious that as in the past, they have nothing to think upon except self interest unless some or few afforded to open eyes and go beyond the usual impressions of life. And perhaps, as in the past one would state that:

"An observation of Latin American Society might be applied to the Philippines with the same weight in the statement that each class felt contempt from those below, and these in turn often looked upon their social superiors with envy often mixed with hatred." (Mary W. Williams et al. The people and politics of Latin America, p.230)

Or at its worse, in an era wherein apathy and shallowness has been consolidated further as any other cultural cultural policy brought upon by interests, it appears that having a renewed commitment in a struggle for social change appears to be "impossible", save the word change itself for a statement, an aesthetic that sneers the people through eyes and ears.

It may still sound idealistic though to see such enthusiasm such as people rallying in the word called change, but as what this post said, that word, that save for its aesthetic statement, the idea or the word "change" has less to do with practise as today's generation been devoid of sociopolitical awareness if not apathetic in actually existing matters that is, beyond the parameters of enforced safe spaces.

And as in the past, or perhaps in the coming future where everything goes "as it is" by the present social order, the system again may have greatly benefited from that apathy brought about by a commercialised culture everyone accustomed to.
That most of the interest seeking bourgeoisie, save those who are Sociopolitically aware, rather tolerated the hedonism, the escapism, the prevailing nonsense of today's degeneration of sorts if not supporting it as if "it benefits the community" with all the bread and circuses and at the same time putting order with those of "rewards and punishments." The era of consumerism and frustrated pursuit of a non-political kind of "politics" (as insisted by those who assumed to be "aware" but not creating concrete conditions for real socioeconomic changes) has rather consolidated the system by having a contented working mass and an apethetic, interest-seeking middle class, but the inconvenient truths such as corruption, disenfranchisement, repression, injustice has brought to the conclusion as what Williams hath stated particularly those of lower class hatred towards the ruling elite and to some extent the urban bourgeoisie.

Sounds too hardcore isn't it? That in seeing full scale degeneration as well as injustices makes the concerned assert what is just, and to do by any means necessary to create conditions for real societal kind of change. The statement brought by Williams, if not the ones from Marx or even Mao Zedong's perhaps expresses what everyone called "real talk" for there are still those who expressed disgust in an order supposed to be stable and yet ridden by its corruption. The system, however,

Hence, if people wanted to have politics and various forms of inconvenient realities be totally out of their lives in favour of their idealised form of "enjoyments", then may as well insist that their shows in television, radio, to social media be about showbusiness, heavy dramas, and personality-based sports; that national sentiment should be more of for aesthetics sake meant to appease tourists; that history and national awareness be the least priority and more of those whose reason emphasises on "trade"; that politics is for the old and of the dying if not those who willing to take interest on it (yet accepting that they are meant to be judged), better if to abolish or privatise state affairs altogether with "efficiency" as its alibi; and lastly, making others lives as less of an issue to tackle in favour of keeping one's safe spaces, feels, and good vibes.

Sorry for the thoughts but these rather came from those who seek that kind of suggestion. Obviously it is a reaction so to speak that people themselves who are tired of hearing political affairs wanted to replace politics with consumerism the way they wanted to replace parks and plaza with shopping centres and air conditioned supermarkets. The consumption driven bourgeois of the present-day setting wanted that way, that as if all these will ease the problems of the society such as bread and circuses, all forms of escapism that makes people forget the inconvenient truths such as corruption, repression, and various forms of disenfranchisement.

After all, "it is for the economy's sake so why not to miss that idea anyway?"
That's all for now.

***

Pictures from the movie Baader-Meinhof Komplex and Paulo Alcazaren