𝙼𝙴𝚃𝙰𝙽𝙾𝙴𝙾 𝙰𝚁𝙲𝙷𝙸𝚅𝙴.|

/ᴍᴇᴛ-ᴀɴ-ᴏ-ᴇʜ'-ᴏ/ (ᴠ.) ᴛᴏ ᴄʜᴀɴɢᴇ ᴏɴᴇ'ꜱ ᴍɪɴᴅ ᴀɴᴅ ᴘᴜʀᴘᴏꜱᴇ, ᴀꜱ ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴇꜱᴜʟᴛ ᴏꜰ ᴀꜰᴛᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ. ◥✥◤ ｄｕａｌｉｔｙ　ｏｆ　ｈｕｍａｎｓ，　ｄｅｂｕｎｋｅｄ　ｉｎ　ｌａｙｍａｎ＇ｓ　ｔｅｒｍｓ． 【 ｗｒｉｔｔｅｎ　ｂｙ　ａ　ｔｗｏ－ｆａｃｅｄ　ｃｕｒｓｅ 】 —𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥—

[sukunakayo]

Iffy About Morality

> martial law sentiments and the modern anarchistic "activists"

IT HAS BEEN A WHILE, AND I AM BACK WITH A VENGEANCE. good day, folks. have a seat as i talk to you about how you are repeating the past, rather than changing it, and this time, you are the ineffable destroyer of humankind, from inside and out.

i often said that there isn't really any argument that is right or wrong, as everything has its own underlying factors as to why it came to a certain point, however, i was lurking around this one post at a group, and saw some rather distasteful comments aimed to "criticize" the owner of the said post which denotes the "good doings" of the former dictator president ferdinand marcos.

indeed, it's truly disheartening that there is a multitude of people humanizing a murderer, a dictator who stole lives from those who wanted to be the voice of the masses who are silenced by their own fear imposed by the government which was supposed to protect its constituents. but let me ask you this—tell me, what is a monster to you? why is that monster, a monster?

to me, monstrous is a being which silences a brilliant mind with a light so twisted that it burns rather than illuminates. monstrous is a being who feigns compassion, and argue with underlying slander. monstrous is a being who hides in a sheep's wool to rule in such a dysfunctional way, manipulating the minds of the easily controlled.

yes, in my eyes, marcos is also a monster, in the sense that he is a mass murderer, a silencer, a ruthless dictator whose rules only favored the rich and the wealthy, someone who is utterly off-kilter with his morals. however, god kills everyday, and aren't we all created in his image? but that's that. such monstrosity is already a detritus, nothing but a worm-feed.

"the sins of the father are not the sins of the son" is such a misused argument about bbm. that concept does not solely apply to politics, and it somehow makes those who try to create a better world and follows a path different from their parents irrelevant and just wayward by being linked to a person such as bbm. it's going to do nothing but create a domino effect, which would later on lead to being an argument regarding mental health and give the people who actually suffer from it a bad reputation, and create a new stigma. do not ever make it about that.

sure, it's somehow right, some arguments are, because it's not really bbm who did the laundering, he isn't the one who devised such plans. the thing is, he has his own sins he should be held accountable for, and it's not being macoy's son, making him take the blame for those things his father did. indeed, he was no longer a child when all of that happened, but it still does not justify the fact that you are making him pay for it. it will not change anything, it's just you reviving the past wherein macoy tortured the ancestors of today's activists. how true it is that history repeats itself, in the worst way possible, by unknowingly turning into the very monster you abhor in the name of vengeance and twisted justification of morality.

going back to the subject of today's commentary, yes, it's you, the commentors of that post—you are all repeating history, and in the darkest, most hypocritical way. i know a handful of people in that post, and most are "advocates" for mental health. what a shame to know you all, being the hidden villains within the society. your concept of vengeance and justice are so twisted and mislead, having never fully understood these things you claim you know of so well. there's so much that you had to see before you could claim that you are "putting it out there" again, exactly how it has been, in attempts of avenging the fallen freedom fighters. shouldn't you create something else than going back into a full circle?

bbm's sin is that he is an enabler. his mother was supposed to be in jail, but we all know where the old wench is. during his father's reign, there was a mapuan who told aimee marcos that she isn't fit to be a youth leader; that young mapuan never saw the light again. bbm knew things, but he did not do anything. that is what he should be crucified for. that is what you should hold him accountable for.

there is a shit ton of enablers in this country, yet i don't see you being just as pressed. i don't see you all doing so to your friends who do so in various ways and aspects. if you were to kill all enablers, you'd all die. after all, you cannot fully grasp the concepts of democracy, vengeance, and peace. you are all enablers in a sense. and yes, i am as well. we all die. isn't it in your best interest that we stand in equal grounds?

i saw a comment that said one does not need to prepare their mental health if you are open to criticisms and learning, especially that there are historical evidences presented. i kid you not when i say i cackled at that, because the person who commented it claimed to be an advocate of mental health. funny how you enable such distasteful arguments where your people diss the poster in the most humiliating way, calling them "tanga", "bobo", and the likes. is that how a student leader should act? you should be fighting for a proper argumentative debate. you should propose that.

what was that? oh, right. you lost. good riddance, because if i were to be someone forced to follow you for your advocacies, i'd be damned, being an enabler regarding the factors of deterioration of mental health. do you even know how the human mind works? i think not, because for you to say it, you seem to think that the slightest snide comments will not affect the mental stability of a person. enabling such a diss-filled argument is such a hypocritical move for a "mental health advocate".

anywho, you know what you all should focus on? your concept of "change". because the change you wanted to bring is a roundabout of what marcos did—silencing without a proper fight. if you wanted absolute change, you have to stray from the path that has made it that way. what you have to do is pay your ancestors forward, focus on helping those who were brutalized than yapping at those who does not give two cents at what you are fighting for. there was a tweet that said "sa lahat ng ibinabato nyo sa mga marcos, ni isa wala kayong narinig pabalik sa inyo." exactly. they do not care. focus your energy on something else. something more worthwhile.

your ancestors' sacrifices are meant to open the eyes of your generation to the fact that the cycle will never stop if you retrace the things exactly the way it was, as if turning tables. you are to see that there is so much more to be done, because those killers have a linear path. those who haven't tasted blood have a myriad of choices on what steps to take. blood is powerful, blood is binding. it is dark and addicting. no, i am not saying that their deaths are to be taken as a lesson, but rather clues to the path that should be taken and steps to be done.

you aren't meant to "turn tables". you are supposed to create new tables, because if you just turn it, it will just keep on turning. it is a round table in the world of politics and morality—it does not have any relation with each other at all, thus it is a circle, and has no corners to cut whatever's out there. you're the ones supposed to do the cutting, not turning it—it's never gonna cut anyone.

do not just turn the tables and trap yourselves in a history loop. cut it. destroy it. create a new table where you hold all the aces. that is where the change you want is at. that is where the revenge you seek is. do not touch the table where your ancestors' dreams were butchered on.

one does not heal in the place they were hurt and defeated.

[sukunakayo]

Chillin' like a Kitten

> csg's miting de avance 2021 TONIGHT'S EVENT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT A HITCH, if you'd set aside the ckn's running for csg president's absence in this year's miting de avance. both parties have presented their ideologies proudly and with conviction; it surely was a spectacular event to observe. however, despite the regulations of the csg comelec, there have been incidents of mudslinging, smear campaigns, and personal attacks—and as someone who's morally grey, i do not condone such behavior, thus, i shall grant you an eye-opener to a new window facing a reality that has been ignored for who knows since when. "mudslinging ba talaga? o kritisismo?", one of the comments i have seen circulating the comments section of the live broadcast of the 2021 mda in the csg comelec's official facebook page. if i am not mistaken, these commentors show a different vibe of "criticism" rather than it being purely constructive. criticism without being constructive is just fancy judgement. so assuming it is how it was, riddle yourselves this: "kritisismo ba talaga? o mudslinging?" because given the fact that theories were presented with logical reasons, why, pray tell, would these people still doubt and raise brows due to difference in perspectives when it should have been clear that both sides are reasonable, and yet, one still had to be the truth and the other is nothing but a pretentious ideal? i just don't get it why it had to be that way. these people pass pretty much everything as something beneficial for the greater and common good, but it really isn't—it's just a thought being forced into another individual's mind as THE thought, just like how the legitimate government does with its sad mob of supporters. little proofs here and there, bits of good deeds, yada, yada... suddenly, everything is fine; all is well. it reminds me of a rather gruesome story ascribed to the former soviet leader, josef stalin, where he said, "this is how easy it is to govern stupid people. they will follow you no matter how much pain you cause, as long as you throw them a little treat once in a while." after he tore all the feathers off a live chicken, placing it a few feet away from him, and then tossed some wheat and grains towards the chicken, and it followed him around, regardless of its pained state. going back to the topic, isn't it uncanny that the way they present themselves are just as how the wounded chickens are to stalin? the difference is that they are actually against an anti-democratic regime, and yet, there are more consequential chains to all of the statements they feed the minds of people than it is liberating. even themselves are slaves to thoughts and principles that aren't theirs, but rather are inherited from their predecessors who have believed that it is the only right thing to do, rather than it is one of the many truths. just because one chooses to criticize, does not equate to being righteous. just because one does not criticize, does not mean that they are inhumane, or privileged. the weight of both actions are equal—they are both slaves to notions they see fitting. returning to the discussion of individuality that i've mentioned in the last parts of my previously published article, another possible reason why they strongly disagree—or dare i say—denounce, attaining a balanced stand is because they see meeting in the middle with the administration would mean betraying the student body to them. looking into how they reason with things show that they have this preexisting notion that if they "side" with the admins, they would be betraying their constituents, when it isn't like that at all. they have entered political grounds—campus government or not, politics will always be politics. you will be forced to use and use and use other people for your own gain, for the good, or for the bad—you have to do it, in order to attain the desired absolute. "siding" with the admins is politics. they have a lot to say about that matter, however, they can never hit the exact, or desired outcome, and it is because of being blind towards the true, dark nature of politics. it is much more than being in the right or in the left—this is where niccolo machiavelli's quote "politics has no relation to morals" strongly apply. they believe that once they stand up for the masses, it only had to be consistent. no. there's a lot more to consider and take into account to be an effective advocate of democracy. how can you fight for freedom when you are bound to and by your own ideologies? you have to let go of it in order to be enlightened about what's more to what you see in your current perspective. as shakyamuni buddha said as he took seven steps after he was born, "in heaven and earth, i alone am the honoured one." everything is a journey of drastic changes; of birth to death, of ruin to damnation, and of containment towards liberation. (see 'Basic Buddhism: Exploring Buddhism and Zen by Master Nan Huai-Chin' for the entire text.) in order to achieve far greater things, you have to make and demand sacrifices, conspire with enemies, and decide with equally-weighed aspects of the same cause in order to ensure growth not only for one's self, but also, for those who decide to follow your path voluntarily. articles coming soon: > principles of command and control > the philippine "triumvirate" > bureaucracy and its flaws

[sukunakayo]

Embracing Gray

> red-tagging? or misplaced rebuttals? IS THIS HOW THIS CONCERN SHOULD BE SEEN? given the situation, it was stated that ms. pricia abella was visited for a "pagpapangaral", which means a casual advice-giving. however, in the eyes of someone outside of internal turmoil concerns, it would seem like a blatant oppression of expressing one's ideals. allow me to give a conceptual analysis of an outsider's perspective: there is nothing wrong with the subject of concern that lead to ms. abella's summons, she is only presenting her ideas as a student running for a position in leadership--she had to be strong given the controversies and issues surrounding the partylist she is in. it is an open ideology, and it is her right to think like so. it is her way to present her iron-clad mindset in order to protect her fellow students and future constituents from being called out by the governmental forces for the alleged retaliation to authority, standing with the fact that it is our right to use our freedom of speech in all forms. now that it is out of the way, let's delve deeper and reconstruct the mindset of those who are inside the authority's business in layman's terms: the group/s that ms. abella is/are in have shady (?) backgrounds. to think that she is a candidate to lead the student masses is alarming, not only due to them being affiliated/allied with groups with objectives beyond common knowledge, but also having students join a movement just because it is "right" or it is for the greater or common good without having their own, unbiased criticisms and decisions. it is the duty of the authority to uphold superficial integrity and honor to an extent, and it is being breached. we ought to impart the intel that we have so that we could prevent more dispute within the authority and the constituents. it is our duty to control, not to command (yet they can't seem to grasp the difference, but that's another story) the people of concern. this is our sworn duty, this is our stand. we are to talk about it in order to negotiate and meet in the middle. however, the stigma of the matters between the authority and the civilians are at play, the principles are always colliding with one another, ideals clashing against ideals. As long as that is not settled, the cycle of the rise and fall of these warring factions will never end—the legitimate government will never snuff out the perfectly distributed triumvirate pawns completely, just as the triumvirate itself will stay out of the legitimate government's grasp due to the blind spots that their archenemy have strategically placed. in the light of settling things, settling is not the right term, but rather a generalization for trashing unnecessary things and coming to an agreement that both parties have now a united thought. i wouldn't say settled because in my understanding, saying that things are "settled" would mean that a certain topic or discussion will be dropped, never to be discussed again. humans have this innate characteristic of uniqueness, no matter how similar they seem. that is how they are referred to as individuals, with the pretense of having individuality. thus, things will never be completely settled due to certain things that will still have connections to the supposedly "settled" matter because each human has their own way of perceiving things. one might be done with the topic and is capable of setting it aside without seeing another matter as a causal result of the past discussion, the other might see it as a remnant of the latter. going back to ms. abella's case, it is a definitive example of that stigma in action. i'm not insinuating that it's not wrong, nor it is right; in my opinion, nothing is ever perfectly right or wrong, only reason—it is more like something that had to be seen in a wider scope. they have their respective reasons, and it really isn't what you think. it goes beyond that—why did she say things that expresses her disagreement with the legitimate government's ideals and principles? why did the legitimate authority approach her for a talk? those questions must be posed in order for these two sides of the same coin to at least meet in the middle. after all, they are humans who can create and present reasons before they came to be in their respective positions in the state. with that being said, it's true enough that it seems to be quite hard to understand when you've got a predetermined set of principles, and that is exactly why a utopian concept of a state will never be attained. as long as these factions stay in the cage of their own principles despite being "open" for negotiations, the cycle of dispute that has been spun for almost half a century will never stop spinning—as long as the scions of these respective factions stay within the binds of their invisible chains, as long as they see meeting in the middle and setting aside morals from politics as a form of betrayal, the notion of attaining utopia must be forgotten. articles coming soon: > csg's miting de avance 2021 > principles of command and control > the philippine "triumvirate"