August 27, 2016
The Jews are in crisis-mode over the elected leader of a third-world country which is otherwise virtually completely irrelevant on the international scene.
The reason is that Rody Duterte is blowing open the whole liberal “human rights/democracy” hoax.
He is showing everyone on this planet that it is possible to simply murder the enemies of society on the street, and not apologize for it, while having the overwhelming majority of your people behind you (officially, Duterte has a 92% approval rating at present).
As such, regardless of the fact that the internal political developments in the Philippines have no direct effect on anything at all really, there is a need to shut it down.
And if they can smear Donald Trump with comparisons, all the better. Of course, maybe they are a bit confused as to what such associations mean for the people these days.
Today, The New Yorker has a top story on this crisis. The Pulitzer Prize-nominated author of the piece, Barbara Demick, may or may not be Jewish, but this is an entirely Jew-run publication (heir editor, David Remnick, is a super-Jew, who was the WaPo lead correspondent in Russia during the fall of the Soviet Union, shilling for the Jew takeover of that nation’s entire system during that greatest of disasters).
The article is basically horrible. Just a stream of emotions, not really forming any solid ideas beyond “bad man is mean man.”
Let’s take a look.
Rodrigo Duterte, the new President of the Philippines, is a liberal’s worst nightmare. In his campaign, Duterte, a former mayor and prosecutor, promised to cleanse the country of drug users and dealers by extrajudicial means. Since his inauguration, on June 30th, he has been following through with a vengeance. In that time, more than eighteen hundred people have been killed—drug dealers, drug users, and in several cases people who happened to be nearby. The youngest was five years old.
“My mouth has no due process,’’ Duterte said in a nationally televised speech on August 7th, in which he named judges, mayors, police, and military officials whom he claimed were involved in the drug trade. The Philippines has the highest abuse rate in East Asia for methamphetamines, known locally as shabu. Duterte has warned drug peddlers to surrender themselves or face summary execution. “My order is shoot to kill you,” he said on August 6th. “I don’t care about human rights, you better believe me.”
Who wouldn’t believe him? During hearings before the Philippine senate on Monday, the national police chief, Donald Dela Rosa, said that, since Duterte’s inauguration, seven hundred and twelve people allegedly involved with drugs have been killed by police, and another thousand and sixty-seven by presumed vigilantes. Some six hundred thousand, the police chief said, had turned themselves in.
The particulars are harrowing. At hearings, relatives of the victims, wearing sunglasses and scarves to disguise their identities, testified about low-level drug users being dragged out of their homes and shot at close range. The two-year-old daughter of one suspected user was stripped and subjected to an anal exam to see if she was being used to conceal drugs.
Since Monday, the casualties have mounted. On Tuesday, a five-year-old named Danica Garcia was killed while eating lunch when gunmen fired into her family’s house. They were targeting her grandfather. On Wednesday, Rogelio Bato, a lawyer representing a suspected drug trafficker, was shot in his car, along with a teen-age girl who was in the passenger seat.
…Many of the killings appear to have been carried out by hit squads. Similar teams were blamed for killings of suspected criminals in Davao, the southern city where Duterte was mayor for twenty-two years. Back in 2009, Human Rights Watch investigated how the death squads operated. According to its report, “The assailants usually arrive in twos or threes on a motorcycle without a license plate. They wear baseball caps and buttoned shirts or jackets, apparently to conceal their weapons underneath.’’
Literal “right-wing death squads,” fam.
“Is he dead, Bong?” “Yeah, Bong. Totally dead.”
This would be a perfect solution to the American heroin epidemic, no?
It is almost impossible to write about Duterte without making comparisons to a certain American Presidential candidate. Duterte, a trash-talking septuagenarian, cheerfully disparages women, international institutions, and even Pope Francis. He has a cavalier attitude toward due process, human rights, and the use of physical violence to achieve political ends. He is an unapologetic womanizer. During one campaign rally, he mimicked a stroke victim. When he is questioned about a grossly inappropriate statement, he sometimes claims he was “just joking.”
Duterte does not take criticism lightly. “I will have to destroy her in public,’’ he said of Leila de Lima, a senator and the former secretary of justice, who in the hearings this week accused him of disregard for human life. He has accused her of having an extramarital affair with her driver, whom he said was linked to drugs. After the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement, on August 18th, saying that Duterte’s war on drugs amounted to “incitement to violence and killing, a crime under international law,’’ he threatened to withdraw the Philippines from the U.S. and start a new global organization with China. “Maybe we’ll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations. If you’re that rude, son of a bitch, we’ll just leave you,” he said. A week earlier, he refused to apologize for calling the U.S. ambassador to Manila “gay” and “the son of a whore.’’
There are obvious parallels, too, between Duterte’s campaign earlier this year and the current U.S. Presidential race. On the stump, Duterte played to fear, claiming that drugs and crime were turning the country into a “narco state.’’
But Duterte was always a more serious candidate than Trump. “We do ourselves a disservice if we take his rhetorical excesses that are very similar to Trump and then underestimate him as being a buffoon,’’ John Gershman, a professor at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Administration and a founder of the New York Southeast Asia Network, told me. “This is a man who has extensive political experience. He was a former prosecutor, which gives him some credibility. He was reëlected multiple times in Davao and was respected by both the business community and the left.’’
Wow, the “Trump is a joke” meme.
Haven’t seen that since the fall of Ted Cruz. Now it’s all “he’s a dark evil madman who will nuke the world because of David Duke.”
During the campaign, Duterte was popular with educated voters, the middle class, and the many Philippine citizens working overseas. He also had the support of Muslims, who make up about five per cent of the population. Cristina Palabay, the secretary general of Karapatan, a human-rights organization in the Philippines, said that the middle classes felt that a corrupt justice system and police force had failed to combat the drug trade. “Democratic values and rule of law are all but words in this country,’’ she told me.
That’s all they are in any country, dear.
What’s worse, no one even knows what the words mean, but all of the implications appear to be extremely negative.
In the final days of the campaign, Aquino became more alarmed about Duterte, telling voters that “we should remember how Hitler came to power.’’
lel, you cuck.
If Duterte is the Flips’ Trump, Aquino is their Jeb.
Asians love Hitler. Duterte could just as easily have used “we should remember how Hitler came to power” as a campaign slogan.
But Duterte’s fear tactics worked. He drew thirty-nine per cent of the vote, to Roxas’s twenty-three per cent, and popular support for him remains robust. In a poll released on July 20th by Pulse Asia Research, ninety-one per cent of Filipinos said that they trusted Duterte, while the more authoritative Social Weather Stations found that sixty-three per cent expected him to fulfill his campaign promises. “There seems to be a level of acceptance on how Duterte’s war on drugs is being conducted,’’ Palabay said.
Duterte’s election and his pitiless war against drugs are terrifying at a time when political scientists warn that democracy is in retreat. “Democracy itself seems to have lost its appeal,’’ Larry Diamond, a political sociologist at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, writes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs.
I meant to write that article up when it was published a few months ago. Hilarious stuff.
“Many emerging democracies have failed to meet their citizens’ hopes for freedom, security, and economic growth, just as the world’s established democracies, including the United States, have grown increasingly dysfunctional.” He cites Kenya, Russia, Thailand, and Turkey. In its annual survey, “Freedom in the World,” the U.S. advocacy group Freedom House reported that the number of countries that it considers democracies has been declining since 2005, and that civil liberties and political rights have contracted in seventy-two countries, and improved in only forty-three.
The report went to press before Duterte’s election, but next year it is likely that the Philippines will appear as Exhibit A.
And that’s where that article ends.
No conclusions, no real ideas presented.
Diamond’s own article also failed to present any real explanation as to why he and his masters believe democracy is declining beyond “public misconceptions,” or indeed why anyone should care.
The vague explanation for why democracy is good is that it reduces physical suffering of the highest number of individual human beings. Holding this as the highest human ideal is obviously based on an extremely base and materialistic view of man’s role in the universe. What’s more, there is no evidence that it is anywhere close to being true.
What’s also patently untrue is the baseless claim that “democracy” best represents the will of the people. This claim is disproved by the very fact that so many nations are moving away from democracy, and that the leaders of these nations have some much higher approval ratings than countries still trapped in the democratic system.
The Philippines is a great example of both lies.
Addictive drugs are the greatest fuel of suffering the world has ever seen. The users suffer, their families suffer, the community suffers, they increase violence, poverty and death throughout the society. Yet we are told that abolishing this phenomenon through violence is worse than allowing it to continue to destroy the fabric of society.
This is plain nonsense, as no one could seriously argue that if you were to create a math equation of human suffering, allowing the drugs to continue would end with less than quickly and aggressively removing them through extreme means.
And as far as the will of the people – Duterte won by a landslide and in the middle of his right-wing death squad rampage across the country has a 90+% approval rating.
Whether you are in the realm of the intellectual or the realm of the masses, there simply is no real argument that democracy is a superior system to authoritarianism.