"Insurrection of Souls"

"Insurrection of Souls"

In an era where the revolt of the poor remains protracted, more and more people are kept on seeking ideas in changing a rotten society. Some tend to be too individualistic, as what commercials depicting people wearing dog tags and venting with their self statements, speaking of their "bourgeois" individualism and calling people to join for that commercialized cause; while others resorted in calling for a collective unity and one of which is to "smash" the rotten society what the majority originally speaks of, like the past we encounter then.

What is surprising is that in today's generation, there are people are also end up in the "contrary", of being apathetic, joining into the "flow" that's full of "flaws" with definite ends, thus, becoming slaves in an ever consumerist nonsense that sometimes sprinkled with some semblance of politics.

Somehow everybody are experiencing in this so-called "social volcano." Young and old may likely to share its nausea and anger, and thus likely to turn into an anarchy, like what Leon Degrelle (a fascist leader) who said: "...and so many older men who think like it, who share its nausea and anger have not turned into an anarchy."

However, those who joined the flow whose indefinite ends are the same people who also engaging in blind rage, smashing anything to pieces without any reason just because they joined the flow regardless of the risk. They see the world as a blank sheet that can be replaced for another, thus in regards to culture they are meant to be disposed and replaced by something that according to theirs as "fit" in their eyes. But who did benefit? Is it themselves? No, but the system who urges them to through a spree of consumption, and from that consumption lies the degeneration of values, the deterioration of structures, all because these people smashed those in the name of "trend".

But in general, this modern day era and the intransigence of the new generation would say that regardless of attempts to dissuade people, that these folks, in seeking truth from facts, will eventually turn themselves into rebels, arsonists and crusaders willing to destroy the old rotten system with all their strength, and never to tolerate much of the concessions that will benefit the ruling class and not of the majority. Unlike those who banner "acts" tuned "laws" that benefit the ruling class instead of the majority despite its popular themes. All of their actions carries the ultimate goal: A new society with a classless, egalitarian social order, a seamless system of people's justice, a genuine real fraternity amongst the peoples of the world, specifically the working class. And so is a society no longer based on physical degradation, of hatred and inhumanity, but of frankness, sincerity, of human dignity, profound values and lastly of peace which stems from the mindset of man.

This coming century will be in two basic paths: Be it a century of the "soul" or doomed to be turn into ashes after getting burned by eternal oppression and infamy around us. Somehow we will choose the former one and therefore we will try to do it, all of us are engineers of the human spirit, and so we need to do it totally. But in actual, we're in a century doomed to the flames that we need to save ourselves leaving the entire rotten society in the funeral pyre! In short: This is a revolution! find nothing wrong in non-violence, but this idea shouldn't mean limiting struggle to passivism and victimhood. For as Gandhi recognises that struggle as by all means, this means that in every front comes an opportunity for redemption-and in every redemption means a chance to prove how a person as capable of changing themselves as a nation.

How come this person said this in a post that speaks of an insurrection of souls? Perhaps in a time of systematised chaos one would say that there should be a systematised resistance. That in every man is a participant, that in every action is a weapon, that in every tool is an arm to take back the future from those who control it. For sure they can't just sit down, sipping tea, and waiting for themelves to die as a myriad of tragedy continues to arise that for sure some of them end becoming worry as these tragic events harms their supposed tranquility, that each and every truth thrown upon them outright has made them aware and thus willing to fight than continue standing by all thinking about their fantasies.

And to think that of what being seen, heard, taught, anything as going mad. This world is going mad, affecting every countries, communities, folk; mad with scandals, intrigues, scams, attempts, mad in total criticism, mad in their conditions, anything mad that to the point of getting mad against the heavens where the reaction stays and doused in booze? That's true! In this century where anything is totally based on the backwardness of the society, which is corrupt in its morality, debased in its faith towards the people, puffed up with individualism and commercialism (such as a "dog tag patriotism" happened many years ago), blind fanaticism (such as loyalty to a strongman regardless of its reactornary tendency) and of course, blind pride (through wearing three stars and a sun while disregarding living patriotism through supporting the people's agenda)! Somehow these events and actions one may see are trying to corrode the entire nation and its people, despite of its so-called modernity, waiting for the final blow to its untimely "death".

As more and more people are realizing about the plight of the society, of being semi-feudal and semi-colonial; of being enslaved by the imperialists and feudo-capitalist oligarchs, the hour is nearly approaching when all accounts will be virtually settled by the masses, same as more and more of them will rise up to become heroes and saints, and fighting to "save the world" by taking up arms and carrying out the total conquest against the tyranny of the few.

In the name of the market: thoughts on "middle way politics"

In the name of the market: thoughts on "middle way politics"

At first, it seems that this writer find it curious and ridiculous about those who venture in a third way kind of politics. Especially with people who wished for a realistic-driven kind of governance, one would say that their view has becoming a basis for neoliberal capitalists to assert their agenda of a "business-wise" kind of setting to the extent of an almost nightwatchman state kind of sorts using a distorted interpretation of free enterprise.

Ideally they would borrow ideas from left, right, and elsewhere, often melding it altogether to appear as their political view that's supported by realism and pragmatism rather than theories, ideas, and emotions.

However, reality becomes more like being exploited by interests as realism becomes like supporting the interests of the moneyed few while assuming to be for the many. Despite idealising the need to reconcile left-and-right wing politics, it turns out to be an attempt to appear capitalism having a "human face" by what Anthony Giddens saidth about achieving a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism through providing social welfare and other policies.

But despite their appeal to pragmatism and realism, it turns out to be a frustration of being an "objective scientists" especially in trying to break the left-right paradigm. But internally, they turned out to be the least supportive of democracy and favours an apolitical yet authoritative form of governance, making compromises as much as possible to sustain an order even at the expense of the people- and this reminds of Porfirio Diaz with his "less politics and more administration" particularly his administration that's based on action, while letting the economy be at the hands of foreign interests via concessions and agreements.
Is it true? Maybe yes, maybe no, but in their desire to create their perception of order would say that it requires to reduce democracy into a figment of populist imagination and on its place a purely administrative framework that for them be like "professionalism" at its by and large.


Compromises that turned out to be capitulations

Speaking of that compromise, one example would be the idea of limiting people's aspirations to those of just "welfare packages" while leaving the rest to market interests. At one time, this writer read a kid's post about the "Nordic model" that for him an ideal economic and social policy if not a "good example" of a "mixed economy" with a "perfect balance" between social and business interests.

Quite strange that view the kid babbled about that model for an example, but, to think how Scandinavian countries had a combination of high living standards and low income disparity, the Nordic Model, which is a "unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits" has been cited as a role model for economic opportunity.

Interesting at first tho especially on those who desire for economic and social empowerment, but, this social democratic venture isn't really a fantasy of what some capitalist oriented third way-ists do, but according to its creators, part of a view that constitutes a "people's home" with the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another.- and initiators like Per Albin Hansson adopted a planned, rather than a mixed economy where businesses were controlled through regulations, if not having a  government that hath more control over the individual, however, to the extent required to increase the wellbeing of its citizens.

However, For those who happenens to intepret it as a "third way", "centrist" venture would say that they reintepret this as a variant of "welfare capitalism" with emphasis on "100% foreign direct investments or FDIs, and higher tax increase for the rich, especially to the super-rich" to finance those welfare packages. Sounds like mellowing further as neoliberals tend to reduce interventionism on the basis of tax issues if not an outrught favouring of a free market economy. Strange but to think that this venture meant capitulating to the free market, and sadly to say, Scandinavian countries did encounter those compromising issues that at times making people complain about it.

On the other hand, compromises can be a measure to retain order.  Again by using the atmosphere of inclusivity would say that orderists would do some bread and circuses to evade people from seeking truth from facts. In Hiterite Germany for example, Hitler had to make compromises between the workers and the junkers all for the sake of order within the third reich making his so-called "national socialism" reduced into a populist sentiment in the name of "volksgemeinschaft" (folk community) and its desire for unity if not cohesion. Other leaders did a much straightforward stance, such as a "frijoles y fusiles" kind of approach with an emphasis in silencing people from dissenting- and this did happen in developing countries such as the Philippines whose people usually encounter those approaches that sometimes used to gather votes than promoting a national agenda- and supposed "middle way" adherents end like any other populists in making those ventures whose obvious intent was to upheld the old order's stability than meeting the people's demand, although most of which failed to and hence aggravating a situtation. And it is the same order that accommodates direct foreign investments through deregulation, and at the same time depriving the masses chances of development, all despite the programs and services which politicians dare to brag about.


Of nations replaced by markets, leaders turned vassals

Other than a compromise-filled economic policies, there are those who reduce an idea into a populist venture. Knowing that as they emphasise markets to the extent that they replace the polis with those of the mall, thoughts of depoliticising the society means efficiency such as the mainline view of technocrat as an apolitical initiator and enactor of socioeconomic policies. True to the word "technocrat" would say that they are decision-makers who are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.- and most of them are coming from the sector they accustomed to, especially those from the financial sector.

For sure apologists would either partially agree or disagree about this, that in replacing politics with those of markets, of letting commerce replace politics as center of democracy, today's order would again usher "prosperity" as what Hoppe idealises the Industrial Revolution that enabled mankind to achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity- but that same era would say was the time where Capitalism as much idealised, in its full strength with commerce filling the socioeconomic void that's intentionally left by politics.

Quite strange, for knowing that in an era where people supposed to be desiring for an inclusive kind of development, there are those who rather take that idea as an opportunity to assert their view of de-demoratising, depoliticising, and of commercialising governance. By using the word "technocracy", "pragmatism", and other similar terms they simply wished to fill the void with those from the private sector, whose policies may meant stressing their interests either by diluting those from the commons or by omitting it altogether.

And to think that they wished for an "enlightened elite" to take over government functions and transform into those similar to private institutions, then unsurprising that they're creating a Jack London-like dystopia of sorts, thinking that in the name of capitalist "efficiency" means the continuity of their foothold, as if they're there appointed based on a certain grasp of "technical skill", rather than democratic mandate, and that skill meant providing legal and infrastructural frameworks that is, conducive to business enterprise and the accumulation of capital; much better if having state affairs be limited to the provision of public goods and safeguarding private property rights.

But on the other hand, they have to appease the folk through what been saidth earlier- making package deals whose intent is to suffice a problem rather than promote a really national agenda like Attlee or Albin Hansson did; and from there they would invest for a time being, thinking that they should appear themselves "all for the people" when in fact trying to upheld the order to the extent of making "capitalism with a human face" in it. Quite ridiculous tho knowing that in the guise of unity would say that they make means to mitigate the unjust effects of the order they enjoy with; but to what extent?

Anyway, there are leaders in which they would cite as example of their pretentious,  "inclusive view". Ranging from their idealised Lee Kwan Yew to Macron, they would say that they used pragmatic moves all in pursuit of stability if not development- including those perceived as "unpopular" particularly those of economic reforms that obviously, benefited the profiteer at the expense of the commoner.

But remember, not all pragmatics are bootlickers whose drivel was continuity of the rule of market and finance capital. In fact their idols Lee Kwan Yew, Park Chung Hee, hath been utilising economic freedom for so long, but the interventionist stances of these two leaders contradicts what liberals think of- especially those of the former whose economic policies controls foreign investment, and at times intervenes in the economy in general. Lee's economic planning board did prioritise economic directing as part of their cameralism including those of their sovereign wealth funds to support their programs and projects; while Park invested in import substitution industrialisation by utilising its natural resources in order not to depend on remittances and international capital

But again, they don't see that interventionist, dirigist view either because it was passé in favour of a neoliberal economic order that requires sober, vassallike beings like those of Macron and Pinochet. Macron, the posterboy of third way politics has snared people on the basis of a capable leadership that at times claiming himself to continue his once social democratic stances, yet his tax cuts and austerity programs rather fueled discontent amongst middle and working classes, leading to the recent yellow vest protest actions in Paris; what more of their chaotic evil Pinochet who almost transformed his country into a nightwatchman state by letting capitalists run affairs on the basis of free enterprise as suggested by his "Chicago Boys" while keeping firm in his perceived order on the other as supported by De Guzman and his "Gremialism". And to think that there were initial "developments" being bragged about, it turned out to be a bubble bursted! So how come there are those who think positively on them? Just because unpopular decisions sometimes create "good" results? Or will only fuel discontent as these people are actually vassals of international capital?

Anyway, regardless of their idols, their internal thoughts would still yearning for an "elite" to take its place as if trying to create a modern-day Athens, ruling every sphere at the expense of the people's trust. They call it "enlightened" simply because they are "capable of promoting development" but reality shows its contrary knowing that theirs as elite brought by materialism, self interest, and profit than those of the "spirit" and "sacrifice" (thanks Evola). And to think that failure and aggravating discontent brought about by unjust policies its apologists would remain amazed at that their feat- is it because their idol as trying to restore order while let the invisible hand decide? Or perhaps because they see how democracy does not end the depredations of the old order but in fact increases it? Well, these same apologists are as same as court intellectuals of feudal Europe who helped their tyrants gained the absolute power they sought.

What more that since they claim themselves to be patriotic or nationalistic, then perhaps the "nationalism" being talked about by themselves isn't a dynamic, active one that's brought by Hamilton and List. Given that these people apologises for globalisation and neoliberalism, then the "nationalism" they knew is but a sober one, limiting their national view to those of culture and the arts while leaving the rest, including those of politics, at the hands of interests closer to international capital. The oligarch, despite being local, is a compradore by nature who not just seeking rents, but also invests in enterprises that benefiting them, especially those of trade and commerce; it is also a landlord by right, given its centuries-old view of property as divine right, and by monopolising it would say as a part of their investment, even at the expense of the working and the middle class.

But since these apologists asserted more international capital to pour over as if capable of breaking the dominance of the few, sadly, in an order that's dominated by these few rich people would say that these oligarchs are capable of playing games in pursuit of keeping their foothold. The Ayalas used to be in the field of commerce and trade, but they do also engage in manufacturing and in the services sector; so is Gokongwei, Razon, Cojuangco whose background dealt with the soil, Lopez, and others capable of playing with foreign capital. They would claim themselves as patriots or nationalists as they wore barong tagalog or occasional speaking of Filipino in certain events, but like the foreigners who can able to bring 100% Direct Foreign Investments would say they are both flying flags for a convenience. With this, also come to think that their liberalism is the superstructure/underpinning ideology of capitalism; that even an orderist states recognises that kind of idea just like one commentator who limits it to those of an economic one- and that includes the way property rights are conceptualized etc. and not what is otherwise nowadays often implied with term.


Accelerating the situation

Anyway, since these people insist much about globalisation as inevitable, that neoliberalism and the rule of international capital as their end of history, then this writer isn't surprised that they themselves are accelerating a situation contrary to their expectation. On the first place, their perception of a society is more like an attempt to revive full strength capitalism by first using the word "freedom" from being regulated by the hands of the state, then trying to merge state and corporate power with the latter predominates the former in the name of self interest. This kind of absolutism would say that it distorts so as to continue its repression, such as distorting the word internationalism in attempting to atomise or otherwise pervert communities into plain simple demographics the market needs.

With this preferential option for the rich, coming that they preach about an "enlightened" elite or any other fantasies to justify rule of capital, then perhaps better what Zachary Miller, in his bluntly straightforward tone, said:

here are only two choices in government: overt or covert authoriatarianism. Everything else, including republic, is fiction."

But in the end, regardless of what they insist, Adam Muller's statement in "Die Elemente der Staatskunst" continues to resonate for the nation-state as more than ever, that the state as more than just a factory, farm, or an insurance agency, but an entity to unite material and spiritual wealth, of sustaining moral needs, all to create a healthy living whole.

This time, the question is: How will the concerned stop this modern day oligarchic tyranny? Will the concerned take back the words future, freedom, liberty, justice, democracy, progress, and prosperity from the soiled hands of this ever prevailing pseudo aristocracy? Is there any way for the people and their communities to really sustain in this ever progressing world?

"No wonder there's a revolt that continues to persist."

"No wonder there's a revolt that continues to persist." 

It is unsurprising that this president, who despite babbling the words change and development is actually making a thermidor for a venture. By revisiting the Marcos era and claiming to it as best would say that he did truly admire his fellow despot, whom he called once as his idol, while peasants and majority of the Filipinos continue to languish in poverty as prices of basic commodities and services rise, with regressive taxes continue to burden, not to mention the filth the military and the police continues to aggravate in the country.

For in this commemoration of Martial Law this September 21, would say that expect both Marcos Loyalists and Duterte Apologists would again speak positively about this kind of matter, be it the dictator's "golden age of infrastructure", "nutri buns", "love bus, and various cultural feats; or even justifying the bloodied atrocities as a necessary act to control the spread of what they call "red menace" that harmth a landlord-compradore led "democracy."

Worth ridiculous these people indeed, especially as they churn their Marcosiana all over nostalgia pages, of sharing conspiracy theories and a myriad of half and "alternate" truths, a concerned would think that these apologists, who yearned about their youth that's full of orderism and of Potemkin stability would again be revived-is it because of existing poverty as compared to their youth that's full of "development"? Or the view that benevolent despotism as better than those of chaos that's democracy?
The irony is this, these people who thinks about that benevolent despotism also preaches that word "democracy."

But despite all what they called "achivements" this didn't stop the struggle from growing. No infrastructure of semblance of social services brought by an interest-seeking regime outweighs the bloodied atrocities done by its attack dogs particularly those in the countryside: where peasant leaders killed, communities razed, concerned citizens be cowered by fear, all in the name of "order" that benefits exploiters. As in the past, various forms of developmental aggression being undertaken as the regime takes pride in its delusions of a growing economy, let alone infrastructure building, and the use of state security to intimidate those who stood against their perception of progress-particularly in communities whose life and traditions outweighs those of the order's. The controversial rice tarrification law and its free flow of imported rice aggravates problems no matter how the order tries to justify such as "its proceeds be allocated to agricultural development", when in fact failed to appease the farmers but instead forcing them to sell their lands to developers like in the case of Villar and its desire to deagriculturalise the countryside.

Pardon if this note becomes more than just a message to commemorate that event, for the fact that the refuses of that horror continues to haunt Filipinos, it becomes a duty for the Filipino to seek truth and condemn, if not resist. Apologists may still deny that there are no horrors during their cherished period as shown by various nostalgia pages and instead promoting its wonders; but even today, as in their cherished era would say that landlords dominate agriculture, compradores in the industry, landlessness as widespread, prices of commodities and services increased, landgrabbers more brazen, agrocorporations wrestle farmers to servility, and the order who supposed to protect these vulnerable folks rather continue being deaf and dumb in the matters meant to be addressed. From these somehow would say that martial law and its succeeding regimes failed to create an atmosphere of justice, regardless of the decrees being taketh pride upon, as well as those of the infrastructures  being bragged about. 

And also from this, again, no wonder there's a revolt that continues to persist. 

More than "Never": Oppose! Resist!

More than "Never": Oppose! Resist!

Just like his idol Marcos 47 years ago, blessed by its foreign masters, and supported by a camarilla of militarists, despotic landlords, and interest seeking compradores, President Rodrigo Duterte continues to be hell-bent on imposing his own dictatorship.

That by using peace and order as its basis, he continues to condone and encourage the widespread and systematic use of extrajudicial killings against suspected drug users and pushers, and the widespread maligning, threats, illegal arrests, and in filing of trumped-up charges with the planting of evidences all towards activists, critics, and the ever aware and concerned masses alike clamouring for social justice.

And in an attempt to codify such repressive policies, Duterte and his camarilla are pushing its legal basis such for a more draconian Human Security Act through the return of the Anti-Subversion Law, an attempt for a mandatory Reserve Officers Training Course (ROTC) in senior high school, the reimposition of the death penalty, lowering of the age of criminal responsibility, and other forms of repressive and anti-democratic measures.

With these bloodied measures and actions, this orderism outweighs its ever-bragged achievements and reforms as it continues to aggravate social injustices with supported local officials, despotic landlords and comoradores, ever exploit this kind of venture. By using the war on terror as its pretext, the regime continues to hold Mindanao under martial law while imposing its de-facto military rule in Negros Island, eastern Visayas, and in the Bicol Region through his Memorandum Order No. 32. The recent Executive Order No. 70, coupled with the appointment of more than 60 former military officials to high civilian posts, further intensifies fascistic orderism wiyh the regime effectively subsumes most civilian agencies under the military’s counterinsurgency program.

His supporters may still condone this regime's bloodied venture. That through its coterie of propagandists and supporters it tries to justify ever its actions as well as peddling false reports both in news outlets and in social media. And similar to his predecessors, the regime still clings to its continuing vassalage, having abandoned its initial promise of an independent foreign policy, and is clearly beholden to both China and the United States through its unequal treaties and agreements, ever continuing its mendicant rule despite both of whom competing to be the dominant force in the West Philippine Sea.

But despite these this doesn't stop the people from becoming aware, from opposing, and in resisting a regime synonymous with repression and injustice. They hath all enough with the regime's delusion and its pretentious version of change. That by any means, the people will continue to committ regardless of the risks and repercussions, willing to sacrifice against this ever continuing past.

Thus, with this present and coming challenges surrounding under Duterte, this calls on the Filipino people to join in opposing dictatorship and to assert freedom for the people. That in an ever continuing seeking truth from facts, this comes the need to continue the struggle, all for genuine people's democracy, national sovereignty, and a lasting peace that's based on justice.

On Duterte's DA, NFA to buy all rice from Local Farmers: An act driven by compulsion due to farmers affected by Rice Tarrification

On Duterte's DA, NFA to buy all rice from Local Farmers: 

An act driven by compulsion due to farmers affected by Rice Tarrification

It's been an act driven by a compulsion as president Duterte ordered the National Food Authority to buy unhusked rice from local farmers "to help them cope with the effects of the Rice Tarrification Law."

For as farmers have been complaining of low buying prices for rice due to that said law, such as those from Ilocos and Central Luzon regions who hath earlier complained that the price dipped from P21 to only P7 per kilo- and they all blamed the implementation of the Rice Tariffication law, which they said impacted heavily on local prices.

With this issue would say that Duterte seems to be compelled in doing it so despite insisting that the law "served the greater interest of the majority", all despite that the NFA "would be at the losing end" if it buys unhusked rice at a rate above the prevailing market price of 7 pesos per kilo, hence urging a need for a compromise if not letting the authorities subsidise a portion of the buying price.

“As the NFA engages in palay buying spree, farmers cannot demand a price,” Duterte said. “You arrive at a compromise of how much you are willing to lose a little bit. Buy at a rate that compensates their labor.”  

A monopoly making multiple killings at the expense of the working folk

(and how apologists would dare to justify it amidst the problem)

But despite this statement, reality shows like this: that despite its alleged benefits like increasing rice supply and providing funds supposedly for the development of rice production, rice traders especially those who are close to the administration have the monopoly in regards to the trading of both local and imported rice and grains. These make a multiple killing at the expense of the working folk, particularly the peasant and its communities by flooding them with imported rice, thus driving down the price of its local counterpart, and by buying it at its diven-down price and selling in its far-higher part together with the imported ones. 

For sure apologists would either deny or mum about it, especially with the price of local rice as expected to increase one, two, or three-fold with traders exploiting this kind of venture- all with cahoots with the administration and its "National Food Authority." At one time there was an apologist who insisted that then-opposing NFA should not oppose the Rice Tarrification Law but instead support it and help in its effective implementation as if the law can  help lower the price of rice here in the country and to allow unimpede stocks of rice in the market from imports abroad while as if seeing a government authority able to many stocks of rice from the Filipino farmers directly in a right price.

Still, a dismayed farmer, the urge to oppose Rice Tarrification, 

and the demand for genuine support for farmers

But instead of seeing developments what people see is this: a dismayed farmer, of seeing prices of his produce gone lower due to cheap imports, and corrupt officials benefiting from its venture, and to think that apologist commenting would say that the law may able for the farmer to "work hard" as it competes with its imported counterparts, sadly it isn't. As rice watch groups Amihan and Bantay Bigas said through a Philstar article that the P15,000 loan that the DA offered to farmers is not even enough to help farmers get out of their predicament. 

“Fifteen thousand is just 22 to 33 percent of the entire cost of production for a hectare of land which is at least P45,000 to as much as P68,000 that included farm inputs, rental equipment, post-harvest facilities, land rent and interest in farmers’ loan,” said Cathy Estavillo, Amihan secretary general and Bantay Bigas spokesperson. 

She even pointed out that the low palay buying prices resulted in a loss of P25,000 to P31,000 to farmers.

“How will they be able to pay their debts? If we are to divide the P1.5 billion, only 100,000 from the 2.4 million farmers or four percent will be reached by the government’s SURE Aid (Expanded Survival and Recovery Assistance Program for Rice Farmers),” Estravillo also said.

With this reality would say that the state who supposed to protect them chose not to by letting the market prevail-forcing them to sell cheap their hard-earned produce to the market. And Duterte's reaction to this matter, particularly the order for the NFA to buy local rice from affected farmers may consider it as a compulsion knowing that news outlets regarding this agri issue has the potential to cost his support from the farmers still demanding agrarian reform and genuine rural development.

***

Anyway, regardless of these mums, denials, or justifications surrounding this law and its effect on farmers, the concerned would still express opposition knowing that the law failed to support these folks and their communities, if not seeing how that law as actually a blueprint to a capitalist agenda such as forcing to give up arable land to multinational agrocorporations, what more of land developers particularly those of Cynthia Villar and her real estate venture. 

The idea of rice tarrification may sound nice to some peoples ears especially by taxing rice imports to "support local farmers", but to see flooding cheap rice at the expense of local farmers, what more a reactive government in seeing such matters surrounding its own agriculture would say this kind of law and other related laws as a mockery of agricultural development- by fending the farmers for themselves and not by seriously supported by the government, all despite the rhetoric of concern as shown by pictures and of press releases. The rice watch groups said that the damage of rice liberalization they warned about as now evident, especially in the farmers’ situation and the local rice industry, hence the urge for various sectors and rice stakeholders to defend the Filipino farmers’ livelihood and the local agriculture sector as necessary-one of which is to oppose and junk that unjust act.

"Still, the need for preserving heritage against an ever deteriorating world"

"Still, the need for preserving heritage
 against an ever deteriorating world"

For as rapid urbanisation continuously takes place in Philippine society one would say that the city's known image is as also fast deteriorating especially when its urban fabric being strained by the emergence of various structures that mostly cater to the demands of an ever growing metropolis.

And these structures, as far as this person concerns, is heavily concentrated on districts which mainly serves as its centre of development. And because of its nature and its limited land area, it is unsurprising that along with its deterioration, sudden in-fill developments and demolition of existing once-known structures hath been seen throughout.

Because of this, coupled by apathy and lack of awareness coming from various sectors would say that this meant loss of sensible spaces, reduction of open areas, and a potential loss of sociocultural heritage.

For a heritage conservationist the latter is much a serious issue meant to be addressed as part of keeping a district or a community's identity. Knowing that with those structures carries an art that's visible, tangible, and enduring, would say that it's character brought by its physical features reflect its era when it was built and the socioeconomic state of the area during those times- and from there this meant how these structures been part of a community's history, be it significant or ordinary.

But as a ContemporAntiquitarian, these structures are more than just carriers of its art and history alone, but gives an identity meant to upheld amidst this so-called modern world. Call this person Evolan in invoking a revolt against the modern world, or a Fayeite in the need to merge modern technologies and cherished cultures and traditions; but in preserving cultural heritage, irrespective of its era and purpose is driven by its innermost tradition such as an inherent progressive view that's meant to be continuous in an ever changing world.

However, this view is increasingly meaningless in this very present time. That every structure, regardless of its historical or cultural significance, is being threatened by chaotic trends particularly developmental aggresion in these urban and suburban enclaves. The process of heritage decay is inevitable due to postindustrial urban constructions in one hand and the time dependent nature of heritage in the other, that again deemed unsurprising and seriously concerning for this.

Thus an outmost urgent need for conservation and preservation is much considered, involving a need for adaptive reuse, of spreading awareness making it relevant in an ever changing times.

If not as foundations for a future that is, rooted. Admittingly speaking, from traversing prewar edifices of Escolta and Binondo to the idealised structures of Pasig and Makati one would say that these structures carrieth a "soul" that promoted progress and development, but, that same progress and development makes one forgots the significance of the structure, or the district.

In fact, Escolta did face the demolition ball, one of which was the former Philippine National Bank head office, that despite its future-driven appearance made by National Artist Carlos Argüelles didn't escape from the wrecking ball that's approved by former Mayor Estrada and his moneyed camarilla. The former Capitol theatre and the old Hamilton building didn't escape from the demolition ball despite the justification such as "façadism" brought by the developer (and not even discussed by heritage conservationists who brought the idea of adaptive reuse), what more of the former American Chambre of Commerce which thankfully, not been destroyed altogether due to the efforts of the conservationists situated in its neighbouring Perez-Samanillo.

But as for this person would say that this isn't enough. Sometimes in discussing about heritage conservation would say that they're just limiting to things aesthetically pleasing to them, but did they lament over the demolishing of the power plants at Isla de Provisor or at Sucat Parañaque? This did create an identity not just because of their familiar chimneys, but these did promote science, industry, development, all despite the nature of those buildings that's "plain and dull" as opposed to the "grandiose" nature of the church or house of a known personality, but again, these did contribute to the development of a society, and thus quite wondering the apathy as opposed to other countries' stressing importance the role of industry in nation building, thus, the idea of conserving industrial structures.

But again, regardless of what they are these didn't escape the wrath of the demolition ball as interest seekers shrug its significance for their perception of development. This modern version of systemisation used in Romania decades ago hath been done even in this present setting all in the name of progress. This person was also surprised that the Ayala, known for its adherence to heritage hath demolished Locsin's edifices like the Mandarin Oriental and Hotel Intercontinental in Makati, all for another possible glassy edifice to take place of these iconic structures; isn't it that an expression of irony?

Anyway, as time goes by it becomes a duty to spread awareness in making the old relevant in this modern times. The problem is this: "are they understood and willing to take part in this venture with heritage?"

For time lost is forever lost.