Let me be honest. I'm afraid of the way I think about everything, not because it's explosive; it's because I'm so insistent in being neutral. Specially against the ever titular almost NO grey footing political battle. I've grown to view like this because to me there will always be sides of the story that one must be aware of. Yet, that kind of idealistic thinking will always end up killing one for either the ignorance or naivety it shows especially to the aggressive monotony of people and their beliefs as they end up focusing on things in pursuit of their hardened established principles.
There is honesty in this when I say that being neutral is almost the equivalent of being a coward, as if you aren't facing the "reality" or the "correct" truth that's already slapping you on/in the face; considering every kind of situation it can be applied and, on a note, specifically related to political genre's. Of course, I guess this is subjective description of MY experience and definition of MY neutrality. I definitely find nothing wrong about it, and at the same time (as I said a sentence ago, at least in similar context by creative description in a wishful stance) find it depressingly ignorant or naive.
These thoughts rose in regards to the latest issue concerning the anti-US protesters against the US embassy (link to the Feb. 2016 article I read where I kind of discovered "when" it all started, or when the first protest actually happened), where everything became a question of authoritative power and morals because of the violence that happened "especially" in the regime of the current president (link to a local news about it). By no means am I not going to deny the aggressive and "kalye" like actions of president Duterte, but it never pulled my hope and admiration at his skills to govern, yet these activities I cannot help but pull away from his method of governing and completely and utterly base the judgmental thoughts towards only the concerned party. The police managing the rally and the anti-US protesters.
Clearly this will be unconsciously blamed unto "the man in the throne", who in the few months had the chance to "show" what he can do, has clearly shown complete support and true interest to raise the power of our local defense forces. Or mayhaps there will be a majority that will just truly roast or grill the police force. Knowing the situation and the people of this country I currently reside in, whatever excuse or act of self guilt and apology the police will declare or do; those who handled the job, and probably every single police in the country, will never be truly respected in a level that which is not higher than anyone but fair to the people they so "promised" to serve and protect.
To me being neutral helps me face all the possibilities and conspiracies that can and might've actually been the true cause. There will never be a time for me to know true evidence except for what the news truthfully say, no matter how click bait or misleading anything is composed in their article or title. Yet, in situations like these, like a jury in court, there will always be a heavier burden to lean on. That burden falls completely to, in all honesty of my accepted analysis towards "authority" and pledged responsibility in a societal standard in accordance to oaths towards the government of a democratic reign (or just the law, established circa I cannot remember but I'm sure it's around the time of the American stay, and when I mean established completely imposed and agreed upon cause it could've sounded quite appealing to the then people who sat in the political chairs), the police.
Here comes the rock that hits me hard. I can never, ever, not mention in my point of view that the protesters has at least a high percent of fault as the police who retaliated in complete aggression to the protesters actions. Never, can I not state and remind that those people (excuse me, in a douche like opinion) "had it coming".
See, not a really popular opinion. Well now, how do I tread on this? Say I was given the mallet to judge who should be scourged in the results of the events, I will say this and will not regret it, both sides. If they do not accept such a decision or opinion, then none. No one was at fault in the end. No one will perish, only have their self inflicted guilt driven into their minds.
Clearly an unacceptable mind set, because I am aware for the fact that in reality only one, who's responsibility and actions is weighed more by their oath through the government's moral codes, should clearly say they are sorry, accept they we're at fault, and pay for their actions. Such inhuman actions must be scorned and pulled into a gutter, punished for their misdeeds by clear societal judgment and blight of severance equal to an unfair cross examination of their psyche and trauma.
Now we all know these are hypocritical statements, nothing short of obvious? Violent judgmental thoughts, all for an ending that is completely passive aggressive. I'm not a very silent person with my point of view, but I always find a way to keep my tongue from lashing. Especially if I end up seeing that their is a clear fault to both sides and everyone else just blames one side. I find it unfair, but I'm not denying the truth of the greater responsibility.
To this I end my self inflicted pains and tell that this doesn't mean that I do not have black and white thoughts of judgmental blaming, blind to the injustice and simply irresponsible of my own frivolity. There will always be a side like that in one person, I just personally choose which of them I should allow to prevail. Or, just as confusingly accept them like a lost child who doesn't really need a house because they're clearly rich in secret.
No comments:
Post a Comment