From MIKE BELTRAN

Incoherence by pseudo-intellectualism

A reply to one Prinechar and his blog entry “Mga walang batayang RTR at ang mga anti-student tibak”---revised edition hehe(harsh stuff omitted haha)

By Algely Comia of GABRIELA and my cohorts (ME) hehe

“When ignorance reigns life is lost”-Zach Dela Rocha



For the sake of the reader let us first show what “Mr. Charles” has against the student activism of UP manila. He mentions the lack of analytic ability fused into propaganda, the RTR he experienced during his ECON101 class with GABRIELA with his claims that their interpretation of the Human Security Act was incorrect, how the AS tambayan issue was meant to be beneficial in general for the college, he goes so far as to even cite the mistakes in grammar committed by the tibaks, how they also abuse the facilities in spite of campaigning against the ToFI, the illogical tag placed on individuals who do not unite in campaigns, and lastly he concludes with implying that we should not stick with the existing banter on issues and think for ourselves. Mr. Charles is certainly one who writes with good composition and structure in his arguments but fundamentally they are incoherent and based solely on his selfish vision of what education is and should be-passive. If I were even allied with him AND HIS COHORTS I would be able to come up with better arguments that put actual relevance into his stand. He writes with confidence yet his words do not pose any actual grip on the subject matter; it only seeks to focus on details that bother his already subjective mind rather than to actually demerit us. Mr. Charles views education as primarily an asset of the middle and ruling class, as well as something to be accepted by standard of academe. His repetitive stands on going to class as quintessential to the definition of learning and intellectual capacity, his blind acceptance of a grade-based intellectual hierarchy, and his insecurity to social reality and consequent cling to reactionary ideas causes him to delude himself into thinking he is coherent. In short it is laughable to even present these thoughts as something to be reckoned and put into consideration. We shall discuss why.

First his assertion that the tibaks do not emit enough analytic effort into their propaganda, given as his example is when a Gabriela member gave an example as to what terrorism could be in the HSA. The member of Gabriela illustrated that shouting “sunog!” in the theaters could constitute terrorism. Charles counters with presenting that nowhere in the HSA does it mention anything remotely like that. This is where he fails to make a BASIC political connection. Under the law, terrorism is defined as “thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism.” Thus implying with this extremely vague definition that yelling “SUNOG!” as an act creating panic among the populace could in fact be terrorism. The example was a play on the ridiculousness of the definition of a terrorist as basically a scary person asking for an unlawful demand or anything that is contrary to what existing provisions state terror has put into action (CPR, EO 464 etc). Given the ridiculousness of the government’s implementation of its laws, even “sunog” (even without the unlawful demand part) could be deemed as terrorism; since the implication of the law seeks to make terrorism as common a term as AIDS (widespread yet not many actually understand the effects and the protections it can bypass), to be used without the right context thereby justifying their abuse of power. Besides that, it was also a good icebreaker during the RTR; yet Mr. Charles devotes thought to focus on that point specifically, why? Probably because everything else in the RTR was too good to be countered, as he does not even understand the context that the remark was put in. Incoherence diba?

Regarding the tambayan issue, in the reply of Warrianne Torrente she clearly illustrated the main points to be considered in the issue, thus concluding that it is in no respect beneficial to the CAS. There may be many sides to the coin but it will invariably come down to the fact that every recognized organization needs to have a tambayan. The lines drawn between U-based and AS-based are not even that important when we think about it; they are all orgs with legitimacy to be achieved; whether it be a better tambayan (AS-based) or an actual one (U-based). We can relate the issue to many urban-poor communities facing demolition without substantial relocation precautions. Taking away their homes and not giving them any just because some government agency like TUCP or some business tycoon bought the land for his commercial endeavors. Get out and the hell where you end up was what the initial talks with the admin entailed; that is why the right to organization is what pushes the issue and unity. It’s not that we don’t want the college to be clean and spacious; it’s that that should not be at the cost of some of the most influential orgs in the university. C’mon, Frats, Soro’s and tibaks do generate more public opinion and relation to students than simple acad orgs. But yet again Mr. Charles takes this as an attack on student rights of others simply because we assert our own. He again misinterprets the situation as he himself does not even bother to show up at the all orgs meet. His insecurity shows his desire for monopoly of academics in student’s lives and disregard student participation in other relevant activities. I sense the fear in his confidence. His annoying slander seeks to console himself in his loss, pointing the finger at every little thing that pisses off his world of study first while social and historical can take a back seat. He parades through the grounds as if his self-righteous opinions of elitism and bragging are vital to the university. But in spite of this he calls activism primitive and essentially anti student, given that his definition of students are ones that get good grades and don’t complain when they are being kicked in the nuts; well because “the more educated person” said so. Those aren’t students. Those are drones if you ask me. Passive submissive, and defined by someone else’s rules, as if UP students haven’t proven throughout history that we are a fighting force who can put our fists on the table and make our own demands. He shames the memory of such UP greats: Laurie Barros, Monico Atienza, Lean Alejandro, Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan. I assume Mr. Charles has high grades but I can GUARANTEE that he is nowhere near rational. With all our primitive traits, we could just as easily kick your ass, but no, that would be too easy instead this will suffice. As I’m sure he prides himself on being one of the UP intelligentsia, but I can hardly see him actually wearing those shoes with lapses in analysis such as these. Hanggang aral ka lang minsan ata eh.

Now that we have dismissed he more prominent statements in his blog entry, let us move to the more “low-blow” remarks towards Gabriela and our cohorts. Again he seems to disdain it when classes are sacrificed for the sake of the organization. This begs the long enduring saying that “not every important thing is learned in the four corners of a classroom.” But again the apparent obsession with academic performance as the most important basis of credibility becomes the contention of his anger towards tibak activities. He thinks that what we do defeats the purpose of our struggle, but actually we already hold that this education, state provided it may be is not for the people. We are not wasting taxpayer’s money when we struggle to empower those taxpayers, and if it requires not getting uno’s in every class then so be it. We do not yield to academics, it yields to our struggle. This mis-education of the Filipino people has already done much to impose the colonial mentality and suppression many our thoughts abide by, and its not their fault this is the existing environment presented to them by the system. That is why activism provides the alternative and goes against the flow; contrary to your belief that we are the purveyors of popular culture and thought. We effect alternative insight and empowerment to the student body. You my friend may not be part of the reactionary state but are already embracing their anti-progressive line of thought, with the obvious stand to be a drone for the mass mind rape. With this type of mentality it is obvious why he values his middle class heritage, completely disregarding what is beneficial for the Filipino people, as in previous entries he equates nationalizing education as solely for middle to ruling class only. Nationalization without the largest percentage of people (workers and peasants) seems a little off-base. See what I mean by incoherent? Freedom means development and this will not come fundamentally from the classroom. Our sacrifice is for future generations and not just trying to get by fast enough for a degree and a lousy government job. It becomes increasingly evident that Mr. Charles does not understand what individual and social development means, not complaining or submitting to authority, but to legitimize democracy in concrete social sectors (students, women workers etc). Democracy doesn’t come from reading about it but by a succession of human assertions. And if you believe that there is democratic space in the country well then pasensyahan nalang. Your rhetoric is eloquent bet unfortunately they have no place in the essence of enhancement of concepts and empirical truths.

Supposedly we have tagged many students as anti-student, apathetic, etc. Neutrality only exists for those who refuse to be part of the solution right? Not everyone is like that, I agree not everyone prefers to spend their time with effecting change. But the likes of you and your cohorts, these are the forces of moderation and irrelevance to the necessities of the times, and thus reactionary or impediments to change. Hence, their definitions of change are nothing more than the thought play of elitism. Has this reply already proven that we are not a bunch of emotionally driven town criers? Mind you, you do not know who you are dealing with.

Let us give particular mention to Mr. Charles resentment towards Rainier Palogan, pointing out that he has not completed the subject PS 160. Utterly laughable as this is the best he can come up with. True credentials are important in entrusting leadership but this does not become the source of knowledge and skill. These thoughts only naturally came to him since he, as we have already discussed is one that equates competence with academic standing, thus making him the apparent higher ups on almost any subject. Yes we make mistakes, forums or for a, condone and condemn, we are only Filipinos naman diba? The basis of judgments comes from standards that Mr. Charles himself has not even met entirely. Graduate ka na ba? Are these the requirements for good leadership? Or is to rely solely or chiefly on them as selective basis a bureaucratization of what right and wrong are? It is right that we should complain about the crap that has been happening, mind you there is no peace in silence. Do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting that anybody can lead, I am saying that academics are the defining point of leadership. Compare Arroyo (educated) and Estrada (well errr…ahem hehe) both lousy and anti people. It is truly ironic that Mr. Charles standardizes many little things based on academics yet his intelligence hardly shows any actual merit, given the level of aptitude of his arguments. Such as the charging of cellphones in the old NEDA building, natural ano ba masama dun? Parang napakalaking kawalan ang makicharge? It is wrong to think that we are the only students who do this.

I have said too much already and I apologize. Durugan lamang ng linya ito. Therefore to conclude, we can say that Mr. Charles blog entry is one that has sparked much reply from various students. Essentially the entry is one of one-sided and unintelligible mud slinging. It goes without saying that the opinions and convictions of Mr. Charles and his little clique are in no way relevant to the pressing matters the student sector faces today. Evident of course in the current widespread anti-TOFI sympathy (ahem), this means that the true progress of development has not come from an ECON101 class and foolish angst-ridden propaganda. What I have done is simply to expose him in that light, he has neither merit nor coherence in his criticisms. And as Mr. Charles seems to appeal to promoting intelligent thought and discussion, he appears to have not much of it while advancing his own personal interests. The basis of all this wasn’t learned in a classroom, just so you know.

“Violence frees the native from his insecurity complex and from his despair and inaction: it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect”- Franz Fanon