I regularly came across Nepomuceno in my archival research for The Drama of Dictatorship and he makes a walk-on appearance in my book at several points. 2/ cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/978150177…
Willie Nepomuceno took part in the famed Diliman Commune of February 1971. When the barricades were lifted, Nepomuceno, who was a member of the UP Student Council, voted in defense of the commune behind the leadership of Ericson Baculinao in a bill sponsored by Sonny Coloma. 3/
In 1971, Nepomuceno was made spokesperson for the Sandigan Makabansa (SM), the UP Diliman campus party of the KM and SDOK. It thus fell to Nepomuceno to speak on the shocking defeat of the SM in the July 1971 campus election. 4/
In his role as spokesperson for SM, Nepomuceno wrote articles in the Philippine Collegian in 1971 very much in keeping with the Maoist radicalism of the times. Here for example was his article, "Fraternities in Revolution," from July 30. 5/
He hailed the politicalization of the campus fraternities.
It was, tragically, precisely the politicization of campus fraternity rumbles that turned the '71 UP Diliman election into a bloody street battle, although Willie Nep couldn't have known this when he wrote his article. 6/
By 1972, Nepomuceno had become a member of the editorial board of National Liberation Forum, the publication of the radical umbrella organization, the Movement for a Democratic Philippines (MDP). 7/
In the wake of the Diliman campus defeat and as part of the campaign for the Liberal Party in November 1971, the KM and SDK adopted much more conservative tactics. During Marcos 1972 SONA, in place of their usual fiery rhetoric, the KM-SDK brought out Nepomuceno to perform. 8/
Willie Nepomuceno entertained the protestors outside Congress, effectively launching what would become his future career at a KM rally, by impersonating Marcos, Villegas, and Popeye. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On the 39th anniversary of the EDSA People Power revolution, the question that must be answered is how is it possible that the criminals responsible for the Marcos dictatorship have been rehabilitated and restored to political power? 1/
The People Power revolution was a political success but a social failure. I explained this idea in a brief video from 2022. 2/
I expanded on this idea in an interview with @IanEsguerra in February 2023. 3/
My exchanges with @natoreyes and @teddycasino over the past two days regarding the history of Bayan’s support for Duterte have, I believe, been instructive. A stock-taking is in order. What have we learned?
Three lessons stand out.
A thread. 1/
First – the national democratic groups are founded upon and sustain themselves with lies.
There is no moment in their history of which they can give an honest account. They lie about support of Arroyo, for Villar, for Duterte, they lie about campaigning w/ Bongbong Marcos. 2/
Most people are no longer convinced by the natdem lies, but Bayan has no other recourse. For Bayan to be honest would require that they confess to an immense political crime. 3/
.@natoreyes claims that Bayan never enabled Duterte, but we all saw them do it.
Bayan leaders lie to their members and claim to have engaged in self-criticism over their support for Duterte, then they lie to the public and claim they never enabled Duterte.
One of the lies Reyes tells is that BAYAN only supported Duterte's "positive pronouncements." He does not say what parts of the Duterte regime were positive, but let us focus on the murderous war on drugs.
Did Bayan and other natdem orgs support Duterte's war on drugs? Yes. 2/
To be clear the murderous character of this war was apparent even before Duterte took office. He boasted of a 100,000 dead bodies floating in Manila Bay. In the month after his election but before he was President, the police, already emboldened, began killing hundreds. 3/
Yes, there are other factors, many of far greater objective weight.
But in a revolutionary situation it is the subjective factor -- revolutionary leadership -- that is decisive. This is why the CPP has played such a critical role. 1/
The central question in a revolutionary situation such as February 1986 is this: will the working class fight for its own political interests, will it take up the perspective of socialism?
Here the intervention of the revolutionary party is decisive. 2/
All of the other actors have their own interests, hostile to the working class -- factions of the military, Marcos' cronies, the fractious bourgeois opposition rallied behind Aquino, the hierarchy of the Catholic church. 3/
A year ago today, I wrote an assessment on the WSWS of the election of Marcos. Published the day after the election, it is a historically detailed explanation for the return of the Marcoses.
Marcos' election, I wrote, was part of the "death rattle of democracy." 1/
"The outcome is a result of the impact of US imperialism on the country’s history expressed in a concentrated form under the conditions of the current global crisis of capitalist rule." 2/ wsws.org/en/articles/20…
"The postcolonial Philippines was a country of two democracies—the democratic tradition of the masses and the formal parliamentary institutions of the elite—with no organic, historic connection between them whatsoever." 3/ wsws.org/en/articles/20…
As Mr. Marcos goes to Washington, it is useful to recall the state visit of his parents to the White House in 1966.
LBJ needed to manufacture the appearance of multilateral support for America's bloody war in Vietnam and he courted the Marcoses. 1/
We know from declassified material that LBJ's National Security team told the US president that the secret to securing Marcos support was to pledge discretionary money that Marcos could pocket, and to stoke Marcos ego. 2/
Under secret auspices, the Johnson administration channeled millions to Marcos who personally stole a good deal of the money. When this was exposed by the Symington subcommittee in 1969, the Nixon administration buried the evidence to help Marcos get re-elected. 3/