"Katipunan notes"

"Katipunan notes"

(Or seeing those who trying to go beyond

 from their pampered settings)

Started on a balmy afternoon somewhere at Quezon City, students from various schools converged in the main throroughfare for a "deviant" kind of action.

That instead of "heartbroken"-driven monolouges and personal rants, these students rather voiced out a national opinion such as opposing the controversial burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the "Heroes' Cemetery."

Quite deviant for today's setting, thinking that not all students, or millenials care to talk about politics or national issues. And some would even shrug it off in favour of something that pleases them like parties or stormy relationships, what more of getting tired of seeing a flood of posts regarding the pros and cons of that goddamn burial to those of Martial Law and its questioned legacy.

But for this person and others concerned, the issue has to go beyond from the feud between the ones in bright reds* from Batac and the mellow yellows from Tarlac; that the burial has to do with the system and its treatment of those times given that they both scoffed and benefited from it. 

For in the end, all of them still represents the order deemed dilapidating if not rotting and has to be dismantled. Be it from the Aquinos, Marcoses, or even Duterte, they all swore to protect the old order while trying to accommodate those from the people, particularly those who voted as their presidents. But come to think that although one after another did spoke against the oligarchs or promised for agrarian reform, then how come names like Jaime Zobel de Ayala or Henry Sy dominated? Or how come haciendas like those of Luisita or Looc exist? These situations means a call for people from all walks of life to assert the alternative, and in it does not limited to ballot boxes nor press releases from elected officials; for today's democracy has to be laocratic in character, what more of becoming bayanicratic!

And also to thinj that having a youth that is aware from its surroundings meant an attempt for an awakening, if not a spring after a winter of almost forgetfulness, simply because they sought the realities of life and has to confront in the spirit of asserting a righteous and just society rather than moving on and think as if nothing matters to their hedonistic lives with some smattering of idealism that is, limited to their mere personal desires.

That in seeing them at those recent events, or perhaps at earlier ones such as upholding human rights to those of scrapping yearly tuition increases, isn't it nice that they voice out a societal rant in front of the streets far from the usual heartbreaking nonsense in front of those drinking coffee or beer? In fairness life, no matter one is trying to escape from it,  will always be affected by politics be it from the prices of goods at thr supermarket to those of cellphone load for some free data in Facebook; and also to think thsr if democratic processes is for the adult if not limited to those of suffrage, and worse, seeing same old bullshit, then will the youth remain contented in its apathy?

Perhaps soon an alleged "concerned citizen" will lobby that voting age has to be 35 or even 40. For 18 or even 25 is too young and meant to be in their fantasies.

"A vindicated nightmare that can never forget"

"A vindicated nightmare that can never forget"

Notes after the "Marcos burial"
and its surrounding protests against it

Amidst the silent setting at the "Heroes' Cemetery" at Taguig, the noise of the people continues to haunt the mourners.

Be it at Katipunan, EDSA, Taft avenue, and even near the cemetery, those protests against the burial showed that they chose not to forget, but rather continues to assert even more their desires for justice.

For as the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos has been buried at its intended burial plot, and with its apologetics stubbornly insist its statement justifying his burial as a "hero", most people rather sees its internment as a "big insult", as it opens the wounds brought about by its bloodied rule, known by its various terms like "Constitutional Authoritarianism" and the "New Society".

It may sound repetitive especially when people think about Marcos as Martial Law and his projects, of Plunder and his infrastructures, what more of Ninoy Aquino's death and political prisoners the late dictator at first denying it.

But with that burial if not the historical revisionism in its various forms, it is obvious that it relegitimise a bloodied legacy if not vindicates a horrible nightmare the way it opens the wound of every victim and is families, if stubbornly trying to debunk every truth that exposes the regime's integrity.

And perhaps with all these events one would say that the desire for reconciliation and to move on rather cannot succeed the way people desired to put an end to the rule of repressive oligarchs and corrupt  bureaucrats in that goddamn country called the Philippines.

By the way, since Marcos did also said those statements opposing the oligarchs and declared the entire country a land reform area, then how come there were incompetent cronies brought about by political favours besides existing rich personages? As well as seeing cash crops like Sugarcane and Bananas exempted from that same decree the dictator described as freeing the farmer from his bondage?

Whatever they say, the system remains rotten, and people wanted to put an end over it.

Or as what the song sung by Chickoy Pura said:

"Rage, against the dying of the light!"

A blow to the establishment? Or a possible reorganisation?

A blow to the establishment? 

Or a possible reorganisation?

Notes on Donald Trump's victory 

as President of the United States

The rise of Trump has been a blow for Liberalism if not a renewed "return to normalcy" as what the late president Harding envisioned. That normalcy may have meant a break from interventionism both in international and in domestic life, or even a return to what they think as "American values" such as days without the thought of war or even "progressive reforms" (including welfare) that according to them as tainting the minds of the American people.

Quite "nostalgic" in its appeal, knowing that to those who have voted for Trump, be it white or even coloured, it meant restoration of "order". Some would even think that the president-elect would follow Reagan or even Harding in some domestic and international policies, of less interventionism and emphasising on domestic issues that probably resolved through "tax cuts" or "privatisation"; but come to think that with all the mudslinging and popular appeals resulting to his victory, it showed how that Trump had turned politics on its head through the radical idea that the issues that concern Republican voters should take priority over what the political consultants, pundits and insiders think of, and issues like "unemployment" and "government spending", or even "immigration" has to be prioritised thinking that the "average American" has to dealt over with than those of its interventionism like Iraq, Syria, or even the Philippines.

Admittingly speaking, Trump's victory does not immediately translate into major changes. Everything will be as it is except for some changes in words or reversal of policies. A possible reorganisation of forces is yet to happen knowing that Trump is still representing an order everyone is against of regardless of his populist appeal. Not all within the Republican Party would agree to his stances or policies the way Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives have to debate over which is "moral" and "just" for a national policy.

Anyway, as according to Augustus Invictus:

"Trump's election is a blow to the establishment, that much is certain. But soon - very soon - Trump will either compromise with the System [which is my prediction], or he will be set upon. I would advise all of you to prepare. The conflict between the nationalists and the globalists is far from over."

True indeed what that libertarian said in his Facebook post, knowing that amidst the victory does not mean an immediate realisation of its initial calls, and to think that he represents a dilapidated social order that has to be adjusted, then the conflict everyone knows or feels is far from over.

Perhaps, regardless of their assertions or statements, a Trump presidency will surely heighten domestic and international contradictions. In it, people will be made more aware such as the need for genuine social change, and in it requires continuous organising especially that Trump is setting conditions and policies as president-elect. And like all dilapidated social orders around the world, the system the United States has has been terribly rotten and cannot be changed by mere casting of ballots, but instead lies in continuous, collective struggle.

Sounds idealistic to think of that change lies in a continuous, collective struggle; but history has showed that through collective action comes changes that can't be realised by empty rhetoric or mere charity. And although the United States government has trying to appease all sectors with reforms or sound domestic programs, it does not guarantee the welfare of the people especially with conservative opposition ongoing. Trump's presidency may ideally trying to be like Reagan's or Harding's, but everyone knows that the present order is undergoing a process in pursuit of retaining the status quo and at the same time adapting what Trump, his retinue, and its brand of populism hath trying to convey. Tax cuts may happen, privatisation may proceed, so are the protests.

And like other past administrations whose interfere domestic policies such as those in the Philippines, expect protests against US troops and unequal economic and military agreements, that justifies decades old necolonial relations between Uncle Sam and its little brown brother. Everybody knows that the Philippines's President Duterte is trying to invoke a foreign policy that is independent, but on the other there are still "Atlanticists" like ex-President Ramos who is trying to keep relevance in Philippine society and politics.
But if this person may ask on these brown skinned "Atlanticists", that since there are those who still oppose their stand such as in case of the recent protest at US embassy, will they still adhere or agree on the policies brought about by an administration criticised as isolationist, racist, or even chauvinist?

This person disagrees on Trump and his moves, but the question lies more than just Trump and his stances, but also in the need to give up a third world country's usual Americanism in favor of standing up as a Filipino.

"To bury or not to bury?"

"To bury? Or not to bury?"


Notes on the recent decison by the Supreme Court
Over the burial of Ferdinand Marcos at Taguig

To bury? Or not to bury? Such a current and still controversial question especially on the issue such as the attempt to bury former President Ferdinand Marcos at the "Heroes' cemetery" at Taguig.

Voting 9-5, the Supreme Court has given the go-signal for the internment, citing on the regulations of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Marcos, who was once a soldier in the Commonwealth army, is qualified to be buried at the "Heroes' cemetery" with full honours.

The courts also stated that Marcos had not been dishonorably discharged from active military service nor had not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. Amidst the issues surrounding his regime such plunder charges and human rights violations.

These basis may have meant a go signal for him to be buried with full military honours as a former soldier if not as the "Commander in Chief", regardless of the controversies surrounding his administration particularly during martial rule.

And in it may sound victorious to most loyalists thinking that he deserves a burial with full military honour due to all his "contributions" to the country both as soldier and as president. But to its victims, it meant a. betrayal of earlier promise to attain justice especially that the government itself has recognised the régime's atrocities during the "New Society", especially those who had endured imprisonment, torture, and some even their deaths all because of their beliefs.

Both wish granting and nightmare provoking in thinking indeed as that the courts has given its go signal, and with various messages of thanks and curses be overheard from Padre Faura to social media, this person thinks that the controversial decision is out of the system's, or rather say the government's desire for reconciliation, to which loyalists care to agree with regardless of the fact that the régime did its dirty work all in the name of restoring order, or even a reaction to the past administration's negligence (as most people cling to Marcosian nostalgia).

Struggle rather than Sobriety,

Dealing instead of Moving

Amidst clamours for acceptance, sobriety, or even the desire to move on as any other part of history, there are those who convinced that neither closure nor reconciliation, but rather continuing struggle for political and economic liberation besides those of attaining justice for the victims of the dictatorship.

As shown by the protests from Supreme Court to those of UP Diliman, those who opposed Marcos's burial at the "heroes' cemetery", mainly victims of Marcos and its succeeding regimes, insist that the late dictator remains guilty of both the atrocities as well as corrupt practises during his regime. 

And in speaking of atrocities, not all those who imprisoned and endured pain if not death were subversives, some of them simply questioned authority in case of Archimedes Trajano, or saidth truth in case of Primitivo Mijares over the dictator's acts. To bury Marcos at the "heroes' cemetery" means their pursuit for justice is deemed useless.

And to think that those who insist acceptance if not describing the burial as healing by those in social media, coupled by decisions from the supreme court about the burial yet failed to put end to the repressions of the order towards less fortunate peoples, neither rhetoric called reconciliation, interpretation called law, nor illusion such as heaven will avert the reality that creates conditions paving way to a possible catharisis in this continuing past.
How come he said so? Simple: the Philippines remained under the hands of self-centred despots and oligarchs, and both of them are interest-seeking plutocrats whose century of repression makes hope rather an illusion if not turning an aspiration into an irony. Duterte may have tried his best to create conditions for change as President, but given that the system is still dominated by these plutocrats, Duterte has to deal with them the way he talked madly about their "dominance", otherwise, it may end as mere rhetorics as his predecessors do talking about the need for "reconstruction" to those of "righteousness" and other word meant to sneer people through the ears as Marcos and his successors did for decades.

And also to think that with those statements demanding society to move on and reconcile as what Marcos loyalists insist or even those of the Supreme Court judges? Not even all would speak those sentiments for some of these loyalists even wanted "blood and iron" flow against "subversives" and other "enemies of the state" the way they say "deal with it" as any other issue to "accept" as any other conclusion. One example is Jovito Palparan, who is currently in prison and also an unrepentant loyalist, and still justifying his atrocities as necessary like his predecessors.

Prefering to be buried in Ilocos

On other hand, there are loyalists who rather abide by the decision burying the late dictator in his province of birth.

For as according to former Vice President Salvador Laurel, he was called to meet the ailing dictator to his deathbed in Hawaii, that he wanted to just die in the Philippines and to be buried beside his mother. However, then President Cory Aquino refused to allow Marcos to be buried not even in Ilocos citing security reasons.

However, years later, the late dictator's body was returned through an agreement. For as according to Rafael Alunan III,  a deal between former president Ramos and the Marcos family was signed in 1992 that states the following:

• The Philippine government will allow the return of Marcos' remains to the Philippines on the condition that "it's flown straight to Paoay" in Ilocos Norte, from Hawaii 
• Marcos "would be given honors befitting a major of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, because that was his last rank in the Armed Forces"
• Marcos' remains "will not be allowed to be paraded in Metro Manila" because the wounds of the Marcos regime "were still fresh in the minds of many people, and we could not afford bloodshed and instability during our watch" 
• "Because the burial will have to be done in Ilocos Norte, there will be no burial in Libingan ng mga Bayani"

The idea behind burying in Ilocos seemed pragmatic, if not based on a personal account that happened to be less political and more of familial matter. Besides that, there are other dead presidents who were buried in their respective plots such as Aguinaldo near his residence in Cavite or Roxas in Cemeterio del Norte.

Furthermore, he was least given a decent, Christian burial but without the priviledges as a late head of state, in an attempt to make it less political.

Or in case of Jose Maria Sison, also an Ilocano, said:

"My bottom line is that the Marcos family (including the supporters) keeps the remains of the fascist dictator Marcos in Ilocos Norte to better guard them against the wrath of millions of people severely victimized by the Marcos dictatorship,”

A Jacobin fervour 

to attain Freedom and Justice

To those who may think this post as offensive, remember: even Marcos recognise the growing Jacobinism he thinks as a threat to law and order, but people thinks that same Jacobin fervour as what the late dictator described as "liberal or democratic."

And that Jacobin fervour is nonetheless manifested in a form of what that dictator called as a revolt of the poor. The clear and present situations which makes a social volcano dormant may turn active as long as repression and injustice prevail. The system may continue deny every allegiation, but with those truths happened ranging from harassments towards Farmers, Workers, and even Indigenous folks, words like "social concord" are rather empty phrases in both paper and in oral statement.

And since there are those who also afforded to make façades in pursuit of development if not progress in a still repressive and disenfranchising kind of setting, no infrastructure nor "reform" can avert those tremours knowing that these are treated primarily to impress, creating an "atmosphere of hope" that's obviously marred by corruption and various forms of self-interest. That again, intensifies discontent as what happened in Iran during Pahlavi or in Korea during Park Chung Hee and Dun Choo Hwan.

The infrastructures, however, did benefit the people as taxpayers thinking about responsible use of people's money by the government, but it does not mean forget the atrocities the system has brought against the people, for again, those infrastructures were also meant to create an impression yet failed to stop the fervour that is pointing against them. Besides that, why should still cultivate a culture of patronage when in fact it is a duty for the government to ensure the well being of the people regardless of its idea? 

Anyway, that fervour is not just brought by its conditions, but also by the principle that underscores service to one's people amidst hardship, sacrifice, or even death. No infrastructure like those streets, bridges, or even the cultural center and other forms that constitutes a "legacy" can block the desire of most people to reclaim freedom and justice especially those who endure the pain in every stockade or the brutality in every thoroughfare.

For in fact it became the way for people to insist further the unfinished struggles since time immemorial. That even the tombs of every tyrant may feel its unlikely tremor.

That's all.

"Blessed are those who struggle..."

"Blessed are those who struggle..."

“One day, a man of religion wished in a prayer to God that he wanted to see heaven and hell. The same day, God sent an angel to the man to tell him that his wish was granted. The angel took the man by the arm to a salon in a faraway land. In the salon, the man saw a long table laden with delicious food. Around the table he could see thin, unhealthy people getting ready to eat the food. A gong rang and the people began to eat. The man noticed that the people could not eat the food properly as they were forced to eat with metre-long spoons. Trying to eat, the people would spill the food from the spoons to the floor. The angel said to the man: ‘can you see? This is hell’.

Startled, the man of religion said: ‘what kind of a hell is this? I thought that hell was a place full of flames and screaming people. I want now to see what heaven is like’. The man and the angel went on their way again, eventually arriving at another salon. Inside was the same scene. A long table laden with delicious food. This time, the people around the table were young, beautiful and healthy. However they also held one metre-long spoons with which they were to begin eating the food. The angel turned to the man and said ‘this is heaven’. The man replied ‘what kind of a heaven can this be? I thought that heaven was a place full of beautiful virgins, green trees and fragrant flowers… what is the secret behind this heaven?’ The angel said: ‘watch how these people eat their food’.

The gong rang once again and people began to eat. Unlike the other salon in which everyone was trying to eat by themselves, the people in heaven were using the spoons to feed the people around them. Eating this way made them happy and healthy.

The angel added: “in the previous salon there was only ‘I’ [nefs] and selfishness. Every place in which ‘I’ reigns supreme is hell. In the second salon there is not ‘I’, the people sitting across from you come first. Here there is love, mercy, sacrifice and friendship. Every place with real love, equality, fraternity and sacrifice will eventually turn into heaven’.”

– A parable from the teachings of the anti-capitalist Muslims

At first, this person is ought to say that in an era where society has been dictated badly by markets, if not sensing man's consciousness having been tied to interests, it all seems that the yearning for a just and humane order has still continue to be asserted as such.

With the story above as an example, this person sees how humanity passed in a hell-like existence amidst idealistic impressions and hopes of a coming heaven. True it may be that mankind yearns for that heaven, and that the future they seek is full of real love, equality, fraternity, and liberty; but reality and its varied interpretations rather reduces all these into rhetorics, or even aesthetics so as to impress people and sneer both ear, mind, and heart only to found themselves bound with the illusions and lives being unconsciously exploited. 

Obviously, it may also sound badly and madly offensive especially when today's people and its culture has becoming consumerist with all their lives, living in a cycle that has to do with work, earn, buy, and consume things may or may not matter, and those who care to question (particularly those of policy as well as authority) be as if willing to be deprived of its sustenance or survival since today's reality of things be summarised as "to live in order to work just to live" and that includes depriving man of questioning, seeking truth from facts, or even the desire for changes that is, in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

And thus, it makes everyone felt trying to escape yet still trapped in a gilded cage, for the continuous exploitation and alienation of people be like still deprived of real hopes despite having an appearance of "satisfaction" brought about by an unjust order. Or in case of this day, turning people into ghosts in need of reclaiming their bodies, their sanity.

And if to look back at the recent issues that most people chose to disregard, it showed that although there are protests or disturbances against rising costs of oil prices to those of American interventionism in domestic policies, one can argue that they eventually evolved into a revolt against the policies brought upon by a neocolonial order; a combination of neo-liberal economics, pervasive consumer culture, semi-authoritarian politics and populism meant to retain the status quo. 

And in speaking of that "consumer culture" that has becoming part of contemporary "neoliberal-oriented" cultural policy if not the present idea behind man's soulless cycle, is that when combined with neo-liberal, post-Fordist capitalism,  makes the very essence of life into a source of profit extraction, turning society into a ‘social factory’ as what Antonio Negri stated.

Strange isn't it? For as this person and others concerned sought the almost soulless state of humanity has ever been in the present, it has nothing to do with development nor emancipation, but rather a continuous exploitation of man by man if not retention of interests. And at its worst, rather aggravates social tensions especially within a clear and present socioeconomic crisis (unemployment, rising costs of goods, corruption, etc.) 

And like the parable, perhaps it is becoming a duty to create another world that is just, where there is love, mercy, fraternity, equality, sacrifice and friendship.

And in that ideal society will eventually turn into heaven that everyone has longed for. Blessed are those who struggle, for theirs is the kingdom called "heaven". 

Assertion of aspirations? Or betrayal of ideals?

Assertion of aspirations? Or betrayal of ideals?

Another "Heneral Luna" afterthought

At first, it seemed to be disenheartening to read about Jerold Tarog's Twitter post about his movie.

That with his post trying to negate the movie's antiimperialist nature and rather stressing its nihilist side, this person thinks that the director who happened to studied Antonio Luna and the Malolos Republic, "turned back on his shadow" as he insist his movie as simply "pointing against his fellow Filipinos" or even treating patriotism aesthetically as any other marketing ploy: selling tickets especially to students and those who seek some fresh air after seeing frustrated ripoffs of Asian and Latin American dramas on movie houses.

The statement may seemed partially true that Luna becoming nihilistic in his anger blaming the Filipino "self" rather than its "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant" occupier, but if one may ask, was it really the Filipino in general? Or the system that ruled over Filipinos who chose to keep their interests than putting efforts in defending the country against its newly-arrived occupier?

Anyway, to most people, it's nothing but a movie, plain and simple. A mere dramatisation of sorts in a way the director afforded to tell that “[t]here are bigger truths that can be reached by combining the REAL and the IMAGINARY”. 

And in it shows that in this so-called "cultural capitalism" of sorts, anything meaningful is either reduced to meaningless aesthetic as any other fashion statement or being distorted as it becomes a mere trend as any other music being played.

Worse, to see it both. Especially to see how the director created a meaningful movie such as Heneral Luna, having it researched as possible besides putting some artistry and realism (especially in combining what was real and fictitious), and yet he rather treated it altogether as if just an aesthetic (via apolotical or non-partisan approach) amidst its political significance, or no matter how truly madly good that movie invoked as such.

And in it somehow made people treated that effect brought about by that movie as a short term fad as any other movie they had watched in a cinema house. Thinking about country above self or for reality's sake, the "Ensaymada" Rusca ate and how handsome Roman was.

Obviously, Luna's question between "country or self interest" pertains to the fact that the country known as the Philippines has been enslaved by interests for centuries; and most if not all people rather admit it "least they survive" in that "goddamn hell" if not telling that "life goes on" with all the typical acts like trading or farming in that period (as shown by another perios movie "Amigo"). And although may sound true that Luna's anger rather appeals to Filipinos in general and its inherent negative character than those of the system that tolerates being "misfits", Luna's radical patriotism (as also carried by activists and revolutionaries alike) meant hindrance by those who rather keep their personal interests especially those who talk about "peace" with the Americans like Paterno and Buencamino; furthermore, Luna's appeal to patriotism had becoming populistic rather than elitist in character the way he insist that "there are no one who is above the law including those of the president" if not rallying his men amidst Gatling gun and cannon fire.

But again, with that message, one would think and say how truly that the director turned back on his shadow regardless of his supposed "intentions". Especially in an era of patriotic, if not national resurgence.

And also to think on the scene how Luna stated that the Filipinos themselves (or as what he said "ourselves") as a "bigger enemy" than those of the Americans (as what Tarog insisted), one may reinterpret that phrase into something nihilistic, in a way Captain Rusca referred that line as to address the whole of “Filipino people”, noting that “we are the ones who killed him.”

That in turn blaming the Filipino of betraying the revolution, of devouring its own children like what happened at Bonifacio, Jacinto, Sakay, Montalan, and others who had died for their struggle. Nihilistic that in order to save the landlord-led "ilustrado republic" from the “misery” of their betrayal: is to rechannel their own obvious mistakes to those of the common people, who were mostly victimised by both Spain, America, and worse, by the "republic" meant to serve.

And by extension, as what Epoy Deyto stated from his post, that "to blame “ourselves” of the country’s mishaps (regardless of class, ethnicity, and your degree of participation to the revolution) has rather "became the tool of those in power to place guilt over everyone of us, like a good old catholic priest’s sermon."

"This, in effect, deters us to shift our critical eye on structural oppression of the bourgeois compradors, landlords, and corporate owners, and to rather mind our own businesses, to point our fingers back to our own chests." Deyto added.

Truly a same old interest-driven betrayal that has to be corrected. The director for sure did seriously read Vivencio Jose, Teodoro Agoncillo, or even Renato Constantino prior to making that film and its idea of merging both real and imaginary.

And like Deyto, this person's afterthoughts on the director's remarks is brought out of the idea that "Cinema is the most important of all arts" and how that director took an element from his film and cultivated it into something that invokes nationalist feelings if not the desire to rectify the wrongs.

And in it, "almost agitprop" films like Heneral Luna is obviously a vehicle to instil nationalism in its various forms to the people, hence, it has an agenda that has to be recognised! Quite wondering though why that director belittled patriotism in his creation the way he put emphasis on both nihilism and betrayal? Or was he really treated patriotism in that movie as either reduced to meaningless aesthetic as any other fashion statement or just being distorted as it becomes a mere trend as any other music being played?

Anyway, all despite seeing a director dickriding history for fame and the rest treating the appeal brought about by that movie as a fad, a few did really get the movie's message, and that is far from what the director said in his social media account.

And still the profiteer who initially shunning it out of unprofitably really profits from it as in any other box office hit.

"A trip to the Grave"

"A trip to the Grave"

A picture-poem

All is but silent and solemn in those hollowed grounds
As everyone visits their loved ones buried in those sacred mounds
If not trying to reflect with all their memories from those graves
And marred by nightmares called truths crying to be saved

Quite nice to see others with all their flowers
Candles and snacks to be with their departed others
As they're reminiscing cherished memories
That sometimes almost forgotten like old melodies

While on the other side with all their final grief
As the casket of their loved one whom with the lord to meet
Be buried along with flowers strewn in a six feet under pit
Like all the othets rested waiting for the final feat.

And here I am, along with strangers
Looking at the graves of these buried earthlings
Died whether in peace or in pain
While their families and friends offering flowers and candles
Incenses whose scent fills the hollowed place again

And as I stood up from where he sat,
Seeking their advices as he enters their abode
Where life is all but an analog mode
There are no routers full of wireless fidelity
Just me, them, and the almighty
With prayers if not reflections
Enough to redeem from thy delusions.

There to mourn, to remember, to think, and reflect,
Knowing that time comes they will resurrect;
And I, trying to be at peace is asking on these silent ones:
That will hopes be true when the lord comes?