Two Baldy Men And Their Puro-Paganda Machineries

Get Real Philippines (GRP) made an article where they compared Noynoy Aquino to Adolf Hitler. In my case, I chose to compare Noynoy to yet another baldy man named Mao Zedong. It's because both Mao and Noynoy had a scalp full of hair when they were younger and started to lose their hair when they got older. Both Mao and Noynoy also smoke cigarettes. Mao and Noynoy are both of Chinese descent even if the latter is a Filipino. Another article from GRP was written way back in 2012 where they compared the Aquino administration's media management to Nazi Germany's media management. In my case, I want to write this humor post that compares Noynoy to Mao because both of them have receding hairlines.

In Reporters Without Borders' article called "Sixty years of news media and censorship". Here are some paragraphs in which I selected certain portions since it's a VERY long article in itself with some letters in bold for emphasis:

The past 60 years have been difficult for journalists as the Maoist regime wanted to turn the media into nothing more than propaganda tools. Journalists and bloggers nowadays are no longer locked in a totalitarian grip but the censorship has never stopped. The Communist Party continues to exercise direct control over the news agency Xinhua, newspapers such as People’s Daily, and the national broadcaster CCTV. The Chinese media enjoyed a degree of freedom before the People’s Republic of China was proclaimed on 1 October 1949 but diversity of views and privately-owned media were swept away when Mao Zedong seized power. Although China’s journalists had been censored by political parties, above all the Kuomintang, and by Japanese occupiers, there had been a nascent press freedom that was crushed by the Communist Party. Editorial freedom came to a complete end in 1949. Intellectuals, including journalists, lived in permanent fear of arbitrary repression orchestrated by the regime until Mao’s death in 1976. 

The role and power of newspapers consist in their ability to present the Party’s line, its specific policies, goals and work methods, to the masses in the most effective and rapid of ways.” This is how Chairman Mao Zedong, in 1961, explained why journalists and intellectuals had to take their orders from the Communist Party. After creating propaganda media during the years of resistance, Mao introduced the Leninist press model in Beijing and the rest of China. As the French academic Alain Peyraube wrote: “The political and ideological role (…) of the main mass media (print media, radio, TV, posters, cinema) is primordial.” From the creation of the People’s Republic in 1949 onwards, the media are seen “not only as a collective propagandist and political agitator but also as an organiser” of society.

When the theory is applied to journalism, the press becomes the means of communicating from top to bottom, the Party’s tool for “educating” the masses and mobilising popular will in support of socialism. The mass media are therefore not allowed to cover the internal processes by which policies are developed and, in particular, the debates within the CPC. The official Chinese press is the CPC’s “mouth and tongue” but also its eyes and ears. 

A People’s Daily article entitled “On historical revisionism,” denouncing the 1961 play “Hai Rui” by historian Wu Han as heretical, is regarded as the start of the Cultural Revolution. The article’s author, none other than Propaganda Department chief Yao Wenyuan, accused Wu of implicitly criticising Maoism. Wu was arrested and executed three years later. His wife was driven to commit suicide. Their daughter ended up in a psychiatric hospital, where she also killed herself in 1976. It was this article criticising a work of literature that launched the Cultural Revolution, which the dictator and his followers would use to eliminate all debate in the press for more than a decade. The totalitarian madness drove journalists to practice a personality cult of Mao, while writers and journalists suspected of nostalgia for the “Old China” were persecuted, humiliated, jailed or murdered.

Don't those sound familiar? Although Noynoy doesn't have the military brilliance of Mao Zedong (he instead follows Antonio Trillanes IV's Art of War manual instead) - you can't deny some similarities. The Aquino puro-paganda (a pun on propaganda and pampaganda or beautify in English) machine is a variation of the Mao puro-paganda machine. Let's consider the subtle media dictatorship that Noynoy may have learned from Mao. Wu was arrested and later executed for criticizing Maoism. Renato Corona later suffered a similar fate except he wasn't executed.

While the Philippines isn't a socialist state in name but it's somewhat one in practice. Mao used handouts where people got paid whether they worked or not. Today, we have the 4Ps system which is more conditional cash transfer in name than in practice. Manny Pinol pointed out that people are just waiting for a shower of gold coins. Pinol wanted to turn the 4Ps program into a real livelihood program. Sadly, some people still believe in the magic that 4Ps will have a three times return on investment and 5.88 multiplier effect. What happened when Mao handed out money to people whether they worked or not? They all became lazy because you get paid whether you work or not. 4Ps has ignored a lot of conditions supposedly attached to it.

Then you also have it that Mao closed the doors of China to foreign investment. I heard Mao hated the foreign press that much and demanded a 100% Chinese-only only press. Today, the Philippines is stuck with the 100% Filipino only press. Foreigners are not allowed to own mass media. Although Noynoy did ease some restrictions during his rule (which makes him a better than Mao) but he still refused to remove the rule against 100% Filipino-only press. In fact, the Aquino puro-paganda machinery is heavily reliant on the 100% Filipino press as much as Mao was reliant on the 100% Chinese-only press. Mao used the media as a puro-paganda weapon. How often did the Chinese mass media try to portray Mao as a person who was going to lead the Chinese to a brighter future, promoted him as a benevolent father to the nation, and as a great leader in the Mao Cult? When Noynoy ran for president - he was also presented as a benevolent baldy man who promised to launch the Philippines towards a great leap forward. While the consequences of Noynoy's great leap forward aren't as much as Mao's truly deadly Great Leap Forward but we can't discount stuff like deteriorating MRT and massive impunity. Both baldy men also introduced a cultural revolution. Mao had red flags and Noynoy had yellow ribbons.

How did the Noynoy puro-paganda machine work? Like Mao, Noynoy also had some devoted followers, and others aren't ashamed to admit it. The Liberal Party had the strong support of stations like ABiaS-CBN, the Philippine Daily Non-Inquirer, and CRappler for a start. All the news media was filled with how Noynoy supposedly made the Philippines "Asia's next miracle" in such a short amount of time. Mao's machinery was also trying to make it look there was nothing wrong with China. Both Mao and Noynoy were presented as benevolent baldy men who were leading their nations towards progress. Worse, fans of Noynoy can be compared to Maoists. Maoists bullied anyone who didn't conform to their Maotardism. Noyists bullied anyone who didn't conform to their Noytardism.

Are they still crying about freedom of the press for ABiaS-CBN's supposed "shutdown"? Noyist puro-paganda blogger Jover Laurio even dares to call it "panggigipit" or harassment. I wonder does Jover even realize that ABiaS-CBN can still operate ONLINE and on CABLE? However, take note that Jover and her followers harass people who disagree with them. The Yellowtards have tried to censor social media in the Philippines by calling anything as "fake news" if it doesn't agree with them. Remember Digs Dimagiba? It's a waste a brilliant guy like him wasted his time in partisanism when he should have remained neutral. ABiaS-CBN apologists tend to be very crude like Jim Paredes. Please, don't try to justify Paredes' conduct to be "better" than President Rodrigo R. Duterte's. Duterte may need to control that mouth and temper of his but that doesn't make Paredes a decent person either. Paredes himself has the right to dislike Duterte but he has NO RIGHT to force others to do so. Paredes' actions at EDSA last 2017 had the makings of a dictator. ABiaS-CBN later tried to make Paredes look like the poor innocent victim later on. The "freedom of speech" they are claiming to fight for is ALL ABOUT THEM and not for all, right?