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