|
|
 29 May 2008 @ 13:27
I will substantiate today the thesis I made in a previous article about the effects of breaking of vows. Vow-breaking is the working of one’s ‘inner demon’ (see my article “Inner Demon, Doppelganger”), it is as demonic as any criminal act. Vows pledged to certain Orders are particularly those that will be dealt with heavy penalty by the Karmic Board, and the neutralization of effects is something I have no idea about for now. Let me meditate on that later.
Meantime, just to show to you what the deleterious effects of vow-breakage can do, let me cite some cases of brethren of my libertarian-service Order, the Phoenix. As I said in a previous article, to my own shock, I found out that Leviathan (Satan, Ahriman, Belzeebub, Anti-Christ) was himself actively involved in fragmenting Phoenix, and is likewise doing the same to many fellowship groups here and in other fallen planets. Right now I see the same pattern happening in the charismatic fellowship Couples for Christ, and pity this huge brotherhood it is fragmenting at a time when it has been showing great strides in its social development campaign (via the socialized housing Gawad Kalinga). More >
|
|
|
|
26 May 2008 @ 03:21
In a previous article, I wrote about an Inner Demon that works hard to destroy you from within. This time around, let me right some notes about how Leviathan resides in your organization, seeking ceaselessly to destroy devotion, commitment, and vows to the club. The Fellowships or Orders (fraternities) are particularly the most vulnerable to Leviathan’s relentless attack from within (the organization).
As I’m writing this piece, I am particularly very bewildered and bothered by the fragmentation of my own fraternal Order which I will simply dub as Phoenix. From the inception of this Order or fellowship (mid-70s) , it was already embroiled in so much polarity. The brethren particularly, more than the sisters, are the most vulnerable to the polarity game. As soon as the Phoenix took off with its core of four (4) youth brethren, there was quarrel inside, leading to the departure of two (2), in other words there was breakage of vow and treachery on Year 1 alone. The vibration of treachery had since dogged the fraternity, till now the contagious effect of its vibration is seemingly unstoppable. More >
|
|
|
|
23 May 2008 @ 13:07
I will substantiate today the thesis I made in a previous article about the effects of breaking of vows. Vow-breaking is the working of one’s ‘inner demon’ (see my article “Inner Demon, Doppelganger”), it is as demonic as any criminal act. Vows pledged to certain Orders are particularly those that will be dealt with heavy penalty by the Karmic Board, and the neutralization of effects is something I have no idea about for now. Let me meditate on that later.
Meantime, just to show to you what the deleterious effects of vow-breakage can do, let me cite some cases of brethren of my libertarian-service Order, the Phoenix. As I said in a previous article, to my own shock, I found out that Leviathan (Satan, Ahriman, Belzeebub, Anti-Christ) was himself actively involved in fragmenting Phoenix, and is likewise doing the same to many fellowship groups here and in other fallen planets. Right now I see the same pattern happening in the charismatic fellowship Couples for Christ, and pity this huge brotherhood it is fragmenting at a time when it has been showing great strides in its social development campaign (via the socialized housing Gawad Kalinga). More >
|
|
|
|
22 May 2008 @ 09:54
I have always supported a ‘social capital’ framework for advancing the interests of marginal sectors in resource extraction industries. Particularly affected are the indigenous peoples and the slash & burn planters. The New Nationalism article emphasizes this point clearly.
I also had advanced this contention in some other articles. In a speech before environmentalists held in late 2004, I advocated for co-stewardships of mining sites with the same marginal sectors. As an official in the presidential palace, I also wrote a policy paper that stipulated the possibility of such agreements which, to my own surprise, can be legally supported by the Mining Act. This Act, to note, met enormous flak from civil society groups here. More >
|
|
|
|
21 May 2008 @ 12:08
As one can observe from my previous articles, New Nationalism supports a continuous entry of investments to the domestic market from overseas. This article articulates the specific contention about the matter.
Autarchy is bad policy and practice to begin with. If it worked for the Habsburg Empire for a while, it worked only because there were draconian measures employed to make them work, and that the territory of the Empire was large enough for autarchy (also autarkie). This empire is long gone, autarchy is ridiculously obsolete, but Old Nationalists abound who still tend to be autarchic in their discourse. They are among our living dinosaurs, come to think of it.
Just because capital investments come from the outside shouldn’t make them necessarily suspect or deleterious to the national interest. As already previously articulated, there should be ‘safety nets’ or institutional and policy mechanisms, such as fair trade –based regimes, that can mitigate the deleterious impact of globalization. More >
|
|
|
|
21 May 2008 @ 12:06
In a recently written book by me titled Fair Trade and Food Security: Framework and Policy Architecture (Kaisampalad, 2004), I was able to gather clear evidences of the failures of free trade policies. Not only free trade but the whole policy regime of economic liberalization—that paved the way to globalization—had downgrading effects on our currency, agriculture, and industry here in my home country.
I argued right then for a policy reform in the direction of fair trade. The totality of policy change should be the re-crafting of the entire policy architecture, which if commensurately followed can become fitful guides for foreign policy and diplomacy.
In the light of the massive acceptance of liberalization policy frameworks in the 80s and 90s, I gave their advocates a chance to prove the potency of free trade and laissez faire in general. In the long run, free trade is unsustainable, and can only be perpetuated, as shown by the experiences of the previous centuries, by imperialism. More >
|
|
|
|
19 May 2008 @ 10:47
The antiquated debate regarding which domain should be the main source of national wealth—whether domestic or overseas—is still alive today. In the article of New Nationalism, I argued that in the emerging context of post-industrialism, this debate has become futile and unproductive. Instead of stressing a domestic versus international mindset, I argued for a both/and frame.
Admittedly, the overseas domain as a source of wealth is as palatable as it used to be during the era yet of the city-states of Northern Italy (Venice, Florence). This has become the backbone of mercantilism, which in turn became the backbone of nationalist economics. Old Nationalism henceforth carried the pro-mercantilist banner of seeking wealth primarily from international operations. But this time around, this position has to be revised in the light of import-substitution success.
New Nationalism, to my mind, should rather have it both ways, as culled from this and other parallel experiences in emerging markets. At this time particularly, Foreign Direct Investments or FDIs by Philippine-owned or controlled companies has begun to take off and contribute to our national coffers. Add to this our exports worth 40% of GDP, and remittances from labor export of worth 10% of GDP, and one can see the broad picture of the potency of the overseas domain as source of national income. More >
|
|
|
|
19 May 2008 @ 10:45
Globalization is not only destroying the nation-state. It has also been destroying the ‘physical economy’ that is the economic foundation of the nation-state. All in the name of the greed of the financier oligarchs, who bred the monstrous ‘virtual economy’ founded on predatory finance.
The New Nationalism, as contended in my meaty article on the same, argues strongly for a restoration of the physical economy of affected nations. The USA, which produces 22% of the world’s gross economic output, is now in the phase of advanced decay as its physical economy had been looted and eventually destroyed by predatory financiers. There is now way that we citizens of the global community can’t be concerned about this, as the eventual crumbling of this megalithic economy will redound to global economic turbulence that can lead to global war.
In East Asia we all witnessed the horror of the economic meltdown in the late 1990s. Though the impact of that meltdown is hardly felt today, we saw the horror of it just the same. We peoples of the region simply felt so helpless as the contagion smelted the mightily growing economies here, beginning by destroying the currencies and ending with the crash of the physical economies. More >
|
|
|
|
17 May 2008 @ 08:35
As already exacerbated in my previous articles, this development expert strongly argues for dirigisme (state intervention). Even in the yogic-mystical terrain, I strongly argue for interventionism in the physical plane, though this paradigm may hold water only here and not necessarily in other dimensions or trans-physical spheres where money economies are absent.
Incidentally, we now have emerging models for dirigist paths to sustainable development. For lack of a better term, the model is simply called ‘social market’. It is an integration of state intervention and market-driven economy. Extremes of socialism and laissez faire have both proved as flops. These extreme forms are beyond salvation and are both being junked today. They have become junkshop models.
Asia is the best laboratory today for the conscious evolution of ‘social markets’. China, Vietnam, and India are the countries to watch. I just hope that the original ASEAN 6 (Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei) will move towards their respective version of social markets. More >
|
|
|
|
17 May 2008 @ 08:33
New Nationalism, as I argued in the foundational article of mine, must also reckon with people as the most important assets of economy and society. The contention cogitated from the vantage point of human capital.
I already elucidated in the portion on ‘basic needs’ that people matter most. Interestingly, in Maoist China, this human capital contention was elevated to the level of cult: the cult of the masses. Mao Zedong himself declared as an adage that “people not things are most decisive.” Many poems and songs were written by the youth vanguards of Mao’s revolution, and this literary-cultural explosion centering on the populist adage spilled over to other developing states as well. More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 ... 111 112 113 114 115 ... 119 Older entries >> |
