The Rajahnate Index

Below are a collection of articles and threads I made about the Rajahnate &or in support of it:

  1. Table of Contents

  2. Part I. Preliminary ideas

    1. Chapter 1. Combat the CIA-PNP-CPP Conspiracy

    2. Chapter 2: Indosphere Unity

    3. Chapter 3: Imperialism

  3. Chapter 4: Enclosure

  4. Part II

    1. Chapter 1: Legislative process under a Rajahnate

Table of Contents

Preliminary ideas:

Concerning the Rajah: -The House of Commons

Effects of a Rajahnate:

Part I. Preliminary ideas

Chapter 1. Combat the CIA-PNP-CPP Conspiracy

I wonder if these claims can also be said by farmers in Vietnam who's doing the major job of still doling the Philippines even though the economic woes are gone[1].On the one hand it helps the economy, on the other hand.

I still believe there is a CIA-PNP-NPA Conspiracy one that encourages Imperialism and a Mythological struggle to wrestle control from the non-tagalog lowland natives. This case is no different. Vietnam rice prices are actually beginning to rise since the pandemic[3]. So I propose an alternate theory:

Recently during ECQ and onwards, as someone who actually lives in the kanayunan, I bore witness to government efforts to modernize the area[4]. They did this by, and I'm not making this up, seizing money from landlords, aka Cynthia Villar and other businesses[5].

In a statement during the recent World Food Day, Secretary Dar gaslighted[6] the question of how much food we were actually producing. The program, I assume is actually going well. "Dar mentioned that he has already instructed the re-alignment of programs under the National Rice Program and the Philippine Rice Research Center to address the emerging rice requirement of the people, not just on high yield variety but also quality aromatic variety."

Not only do I believe that the program is going well but this exactly what was planned by the CPP all along. Not COVID, I mean the programs[7]. But in order to understand my point, we need to begin at the beginning.

First, the CIA killed Ninoy Aquino, not that they didn't like him but the CIA knows their shit. They wanted Marcos gone more than ever as the Philippines was the jumping off base for their control over SEA. The CIA controlled Cory's rule and her crushing of a possible Communist Revolution[8] just shows how much they affected the politics of the 5th Republic. For years they've been milking the cow of the Revolutionary Aesthetic of People Power and it ultimately left the popular consciousness when the last one who used it, Gloria Arroyo the Daughter of the Man who tried to unite SEA into one country, became as corrupt and oppressive as the late Dictator.

The CIA had a bargain, Jose Maria Sison was no longer in power and had been exiled with his other comrades, the local NPA had a new Chairman and he played G-d for less than a decade[9][10] leading to the deaths and tortures of hundreds that would make the US-backed dictator they just defeated blush. So, it wouldn't surprise one to think there was a cooperation. This cooperation wasn't unfounded either, Mao was dead, for a really long time by then and the People's War initiative has soon gone to the grave with him, so who funded modern iterations of the war? Gaddafi's support by the time the Purges began[11]. So who funded them in the majority angle, post-Marcos?

ILAGA was a group of Christian Extremists funded by the Dictator to take land from the Moro population, they were responsible for a few massacres[12] and the protection of local moneyed interests in the region. Other Paramilitary organizations, who were of native origin, as well help in the oppression of local indigenous groups of which, aha, the NPA claim protection over. If you're sensing a pattern, You should.

In previous articles I wrote, we talked about how Civilization occurs through a feedback loop, within the terms of 1984, There is the inner party and the outer party, both organs of the same state. The Inner party is one that accrues progress and the positive position whereas the Outer party the conservatives. In the case of this Conspiracy it one in where this concept reaches it's extreme wherein the state which is conservative overrides(or tries to stop) the power of the Cathedral which is impossible.

Although, I am a total stan of the Cathedral*, it does not account for indigenous perspective and is more likely to be a catalyst for crimes against humanity when brought towards it's primitive cousin(in terms of process). The PNP and NPA are both sides of the same continuum with the express goal of creating a positive feedback loop which occurs when the product of a reaction leads to an increase in that reaction. This being Tagalog Lowland Urban Hegemony.

I touched on this before in a way that was vague because it's full nature was not clear to me then. I do not think I am alone in this idea that institutions craft ideologies in which they function with a relative level of stability. This Conspiracy, the Tripartite pact, is one of a long term theoretic with the goal of standardizing an oppression of minorities due to moral ambiguity with modern audiences. There are things I still say today that will be quickly cancelled by modern twitter, but the idea that this is equivalent in such way means alienation from indigenous struggles. It is a defeat in a way to the ideas of Marxist Technological Determinism and the Historical Dialectic if one were to admit that some cultures offend others, moreover, it would be more acceptable for an institution to fully subsume a culture than to see it fully violating it's laws of conduct. This ideology in itself is inherently part of the Imperialist MO.

These are the same in substance to the events described by the CPC occurring in Uyghur Territory[13]. Going back to the writing, It is no secret how Jose Maria Sison envisioned his radical form of Nationalism based on Mao's New Democracy. It is in a fashion so deliberately fascistic they might as well say "the bundle of sticks should be brown"

“In terms of class tendencies, material interests and ideology, the left wing would be occupied by the working class and the peasantry. The middle wing embraces three strata of the so-called middle class and these three strata can themselves be described as left, middle, and right within the middle wing, the left middle wing is occupied by the intelligentsia, and self-reliant small property owners whom we may call the petty bourgeoisie; the middle middle, the nationalist entrepreneurs, whom we may call the national or middle bourgeoisie; and the right middle, the merchants who are partially investors in local industry and who are also partially compradors. The right wing is composed of the anti-nationalist forces, such as the compradors, the landlords and their rabid intellectual and political agents...To tilt the balance for the purpose of isolating the right wing composed of the enemies of progress and democracy, it is necessary therefore for the main and massive forces of the workers and peasants to unite with the intelligentsia, small property owners and independent handicraftsmen, win over the nationalist entrepreneurs and at least, neutralize the right middle forces. The resulting unity is what we call nationalist or anti-imperialist and anti-feudal unity.”[14]

Mao himself expressed in his book:

Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism. Strangely enough, some spokesmen of the Chinese bourgeoisie fight shy of openly advocating the development of capitalism, but refer to it obliquely. There are other people who flatly deny that China should permit a necessary degree of capitalist development and who talk about reaching socialism in one stride and "accomplishing at one stroke" the tasks of the Three People's Principles and socialism. Obviously, these opinions either reflect the weakness of the Chinese national bourgeoisie or are a demagogic trick on the part of the big landlords and the big bourgeoisie. From our knowledge of the Marxist laws of social development, we Communists clearly understand that under the state system of New Democracy in China it will be necessary in the interests of social progress to facilitate the development of the private capitalist sector of the economy (provided it does not dominate the livelihood of the people) besides the development of the state sector and of the individual and co-operative sectors run by the labouring people. We Communists will not let empty talk or deceitful tricks befuddle us." [15]

These ideals would have made a reformist route more likely but a reformist route where they play both sides toward that goal. And in cooperation, many times, with the people they supposedly hate it garnered fruit over time but at the expense of the popular masses who were most likely different indigenous groups. It is this Hegemony that brought them into a Civilizing and Imperializing reaction as the lives we have now slowly turn into bureaucratic supremacy, educational standardization and Northern Hegemony.

To this I say to the current indigenous students of the cause against oppression to bombard the headquarters of the Party and if possible decolonize within the Cathedral.

(1) "The Cathedral consists of the educational organs: public schools, the universities and the press.3 Its spires are the Ivy League and the New York Times, whose faculty and news desk respectively are endowed with an almost pure connection to the Inner Light—lesser institutions, of course, following their lead. The entertainment industry arguably belongs on this list as well."

Chapter 2: Indosphere Unity

Let us see a Clash of Civilizations unfold, between the Cathartic State & the Indosphere. I will be using these terms not on account of ethnicity, rather it will be focused on the respective Mythology concerning Nationalism. We'll present the Conflict between these two cultures of different times and come to a conclusion on a specific question, that being "What is the Future?"

the Cathartic State is Oedipal. It believes that the long line of history ends in Adulthood before collapse and therefore it re-enforces an impression of Catharsis. There are certain agencies, state committees, ministries, secretariats, departments, officials and bureaucrats all with certain tasks and functions. This isn't a bureaucratic nightmare, this is adulthood. This is the Cubicle, you'll be staring at a screen for 8 hours a day, coming home to a family, raising your kids, watching the tele. The goal is to subvert the idea of "the dream" whether it is the "American dream" or whatever dream is there. The aspiration of a Cathartic state is self-imposition of the full weight, societally, of adulthood. It is a Victorian restriction of oneself with periodic breaks within the system going into drunkenness or lashing out in riots. The subversive element no longer undermines the state but rather the imposition of the state becomes part of one's life cycle. The Cathartic state is one that believes in bureaucracy a means of certainty and stability. That one gets a house, a job, a family, kids to raise, money for the day, in a monotonous fashion. This becomes the end, not the means unlike the Childish or Teenaged mythology of the US. It is one that strips off any mention of a dream. There is no metaphysical reality, there is the something, a thing which is calculated and measurable, something that man can control to the infinity of size and time. Society itself becomes a feedback loop of optimal control. It is self-control on a societal level, it isn't freedom, because being adult isn't free, it is a slavery that one gets to become over time.

There are certain individuals within a teenage society that want to have jobs they love often times that doesn't happen but eventually it does. Such is a fallacy that it can only exist with the pain of others, but whom they sent their dreams toward(the third world) believe in the dream. And they will be far worse and more oppressive than those who had the dream initially. But it is incredibly different in Indigenous societies. I would like to point specifically on the Indosphere culture.

Within the Indosphere it is not a Cathartic State, nor is a Childish one nor a teenage one rather it focuses on something that still influences modern politics, the view of the immortal. What does it take to be remembered by the future? In the previous societies, it becomes a question of "what do I want to be when I grow up?" or "what am I going to do now while I'm not grown up?". This problem becomes essentially grounded on the idea of a living person that civilization rises and falls and this does contribute to the furthering of the existence of a culture but it restricts the exceptionalism to a current generation. When people say America is great, obviously its not. But if someone pulled up the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Story of the Buddha, the History of China, Yes it does have cyclical themes but see how these people made themselves "story-worthy" something people kept on remembering for 3,080 years and possibly longer. These types of leadership or at least how people mythologize themselves are absent in other Cultures. China is a mix between the Cathartic and the Mythologized, just look to documentaries about the Long March or the East is Red. The Soviets saw themselves as the adults in a teenage or Capitalist world. And the adults eventually die. The Chinese however pride themselves on 3180 years of recordable history, and I don't mean recorded, I mean recordable meaning, if you were to use the documents within the Soviet Union is it worth the recording? The statistics, the citizenry, the food allocations, the policies, all of it, is it worth recording?

This clash therefore between the Indosphere and the Cathartic State is the problem of Recording. The Cathartic state prides themselves on every bit of social imperialism, to bring civilization wherever they went and etc. This is literally their excuse for the imprisoning of the Uyghurs and the Tibetan Panchen Lama. They took it upon themselves as Oedipus, the new Father, to whip their children into adulthood.

The Indosphere however cannot do this, it is literally impossible because Spectacle and the Mythologized life before the camera or documentaries on their lives come before the idea of being Civilized and frankly what is the point? It isn't a matter of fun. If you've ever been in a Circus you know how bad it is to wrestle down an elephant.

The Indosphere represents a Rebellion towards Immortality, a god who looks at the pettiness of an Adult. The actions that make them no more special than any of their other creations. China may be huge but the Lord Rama destroyed a mountain a steel arrow. The Indosphere is the representation of resistance against the modern world against the teenage, against the child, against the father, we are the genderless, body without organs, the gods, how we act is how people will react to us, not how they treat us but how they will begin to worship us. This contradicts the idea of Nationalism because wonder is exactly the reason why they got imperialized in the first place. The Indosphere is a statement of Rebellion, it is the warcry of civilization, the birthing pangs of an old mother, dying from her wounds and bringing forth a god. The Indosphere is Hagoromo Gitsune the mother of the paragon. A woman of intense revilement bringing forth the ultimate good.

This is a Clash of Civilizations between one culture that prizes the idea of Catharsis and one that believes in the Immortal. Is China today, a society worth studying? A story worthy of being said to their kids at night? I don't think so.

Chapter 3: Imperialism

Imperialism and the Elcano and Magellan movie: a Post-Colonial counterargument against an article by Jorge Mojarro

Introduction: As a vehemently Anti-Imperialist person, I was initially against showing the movie but it became more apparent the more I watched the trailer and it's Historical context. It comes with the threat of whitewashing the story the same way with Christopher Columbus and de Balboa. In order to properly give myself a proper heading I actually took the time to read the entire article, however I will focus on the many points in the article without giving much into some other things in the article. However, he does make good points within the article about the current status of our education system, he does in actually understand the main problem of the movie which he does not get without understanding the idea of what message that it sends. The whole problem with the movie is the perspective and the Imperialist narratives attributed to the movie. The movie although should not contain the idea of fact but instead, since it is a children's movie it is more focused on the message than the actual facts. If it wasn't, Christmas Carol would not be a thing. Now, to get into the article.

I will go right to the point: the film is not about the Philippines, its about Imperialism. It is about the Narrative and the story by which we represent the Imperial peoples than the actual facts. The film is not just about the first circumnavigation of the world. And given that this is a film for children and teenagers, there are several stereotypes in order to create an engaging plot, he says, not acknowledging the problematic subtext that it will bring among them, the typical division of characters between heroes and villains. Needless to say, the circumnavigators had to be necessarily the heroes according to the Imperialist perspective. Which is why it is so problematic.

In connection with the historical events recreated in this film, there are 3 issues that people seem to forget:

One: The plan was not to circumnavigate the planet. The Treaty of Tordesillas was signed between Portugal and Spain in 1494. Ridiculous as it must sound today, both nations agreed to divide the new territories and waters of the planet according to an imaginary line situated a few hundred leagues at the East of the Cape Verde islands in the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, they did not plan to circumnavigate the planet.

Magellan started their journey very long after people knew the earth was round or what was on the other side of it. Marco Polo knew what the Pacific Ocean was and had access to ancient maps knowing there were Islands beyond China, even the Philippines. Columbus and other subsequent Conquistadors have already known a whole continent exists beyond the Atlantic and even then they already knew a whole Ocean divided their worlds. So, there was no real need to "explore" the islands. But why they did can be explained in the next point.

Two: The seamen who took part in the expedition were not mandated to conquer any land. Therefore, they were not colonizers. They were looking to exploit the spice trade. They wanted to trade, and actually they did. Once they arrived in the Moluccas, they did not attempt to conquer. They negotiated and paid the inhabitants of Tidore the right price of a few hundred kilos of cloves. This is how it all starts.

But ever since Christopher Columbus and Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, the definition of exploration on those times was really more brutal than what it seemed. The legends of the Taino people being Barbarians and thus so the idea of the Chammoros and other Filipino people's have followed the same Barbarian narrative to which justified the "White Man's Burden". This is the narrative we wish to call out when such movies or literature as this is still popular in this era. It increases the wholesale popularity of the Imperialist ideology. That by which is what as Post-Colonial theory (a primer is here: https://youtu.be/jbLyd0mQwIk) and all Anti-Imperialists in general are against.

Certainly, the expedition spent too many weeks in the Philippines, and the reasons seem open to speculation. Pigafetta talks about the Catholic devotion of Magellan,this is where I can also draw the Post-Colonial sword. Catholicism weighed greatly in the creation of the imperial ideology. The Spaniard imperial ideology was never trade centered although it was originally trade for the sake of people warming up to the pendejos. It was ultimately conservative, it was more interested with trading gold for souls any day.

Another source is the account of Ginés de Mafra, who suggested that people were really fed up with Magellan because they knew the cloves they were looking for were not in Cebu or its surroundings, and they thought they were wasting time in Cebu.

The Battle of Mactan, therefore, was not aimed at conquering anything. Magellan wanted to gain the trust and friendship of Rajah Humabon of Cebu, who had – falsely – converted to Catholicism, by helping in a fight against Humabon's enemy. So, I need to insist again: Magellan and his crew were not colonizers. They wanted to trade spices.

Third: Lapu-Lapu was not fighting for the Philippines because, in the first place, Filipino people, as we understand it today, did not exist. He was protecting his own barangay. His fight against Imperialism was more a skirmish to him than an important drive against Imperialism but he also had to contend with their own version of Imperialism specifically under Humabon himself.Prehispanic Philippines was populated by dozens of chiefdoms who engaged in tribal wars quite often. This precursor idea of Imperialism made him cautious of his own kind and kin. Raja Humabon was an Imperialist himself. Understanding that the Spaniards may be a threat to his own independence as a barangay. He had no choice but to defend whatever semblance he had of a Motherland which he defended fiercely. Philippines as a nation is the result of an accident of history: early European imperialism. And the process of becoming Filipino was a long one.

Lapu-Lapu was fighting against a foreign intruder to protect his Motherland, and he did it very rightfully, since Lapu-Lapu and the people of Mactan did not do anything to deserve an attack from the European intruders. Therefore, considering Lapu-Lapu a national hero is as anachronistic and senseless as the Italians considering Marcus Aurelius – from the Roman Empire – a national hero. There was no Italy there, not yet. It would be more rightful, I believe, to consider Lapu-Lapu as a symbol of resistance against foreign intrusions and interferences.

I am not surprised that Lapu-Lapu is depicted as the villain: this is a necessary and probably unfair counterpoint of the narrative. But I have to confess that I would be extremely dissapointed if Cebuanos were portrayed in a bad way. I will wait until I watch the whole film to confirm this. Spoiler alert, Lapu-Lapu was a Slave trader. He and the Moros at the time were great partners and it stabilized the powers in the region under Humabon. So he was not free of fault.

Lastly, I would like to remind the ones offended by this Spanish cartoon how the Chamorro people of the Mariana Islands were portrayed in the Filipino film Pedro Calungsod: Batang Martir (2013). I remember perfectly that the natives of the Marianas were, according to this film, uncivilized and cruel barbarians who mercilessly killed a Visayan missionary and a Jesuit Priest who wanted to bring them the light of faith, a tool often used under imperialism. Chamorros looked and behave as deeply evil and unthankful people. Unsurprisingly, the film was immediately and unanimously praised in his native land as “a valiant effort to dramatize the life of our second Filipino saint,” but very, very unwelcomed in Guam.

On this note, may I refer you to another movie, "Silence". Which shows the same narrative, wherein it is flipped on its head. Instead of seeing the main actors, being the Jesuit priests as the rightful ones, it shows the use of treason, or apostasy, as a means to end an ideological self-righteousness. Such self-righteousness compelled the persecutions of the Imperial era.(the link to that video is here: https://youtu.be/Yj7SGe7FcYE if you want a good deconstruction since I don't have time to explain)

Conclusion: It is important, if not the most important to understand the view of context not just in fact but within how we are to view the facts. Just because the raw facts speak against your view doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. This is the main problem of today's society. The disjunction between what is signified and the sign has brought about an atomic chain reaction in literary, film, aesthetic and many other theories and wholefully undermines the powers that be. That is if it is being signified in the right context. The more we understand the ideological subtext of facts the more we can undermine the main system by which we can overcome the imperial ideological holdouts we still have to this day.

Post-Edit: I am not arguing in the favor of the Lapu-Lapu ethos alone. In the movie's trailer there was no mention of him or the Philippines, what it was instead talking about is the Moluccas. The poster was misleading. However, my position still stands that this movie is literally just giving the imperialist ideology a facelift for the younger generation. I think it was a good reason why filipinos were up in arms against the movie. It was never about just us, but about imperialism in general. Furthermore, this also applies to that one El Dorado Movie

Chapter 4: Enclosure

When we first understand the problems usually with Capitalism it always comes from the idea of Enclosure. Like when writing about this after a heated debate when it comes to enclosure within the confines of my professor and me( and people still complain why I approach farmers or workers first before university professors). Basically the entire debate with my professor was on the idea of whether the Aetas were squatting on purchased land.

<<The plains and mountains of Capas, Tarlac, are tied to the stories of the Hungey, said to be the oldest Aeta tribe in the province.

Casimira Maniego, 68, looked out at the fields outside her home and remembered how her parents tended the green that had nurtured her and her five children. Everything she knows about the earth was passed on to her by her father, she said, the way it was passed on to her forebears.“Our ancestors remain a part of our humanity,” she said. “Their presence is entwined with our daily lives and our environment.” But their memories of home are in peril as the rapid development of the state-initiated New Clark City (NCC)—said to be the Philippines’ first smart and green metropolis—edges closer to their land now being claimed as eminent domain.

The NCC is set to be inaugurated on Nov. 6, but tens of thousands of farmers and tribespeople living in the development area are still ignorant of the project’s extent even as bulldozers have leveled their crops, according to a research led by the University of Glasgow (UG) in the United Kingdom and the University of the Philippines.>>

I essentially screamed at him in chat form however to let people understand my simplistic view or rant on the problem of Indigenous land the most, we need to get back to where it all began. I'm just gonna copypaste the terms I use from Wikipedia because it still hasn't built up the money to gain royalties for itself.

Enclosure (sometimes inclosure) was the legal process in England of consolidating (enclosing) small landholdings into larger farms since the 13th century. Once enclosed, use of the land became restricted and available only to the owner, and it ceased to be common land for communal use. In England and Wales the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. The process of enclosure began to be a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to rough pasture in mountainous areas and to relatively small parts of the lowlands.

Enclosure could be accomplished by buying the ground rights and all common rights to accomplish exclusive rights of use, which increased the value of the land. The other method was by passing laws causing or forcing enclosure, such as Parliamentary enclosure involving an Inclosure Act. The latter process of enclosure was sometimes accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in England.

In discussing the problem of Enclosure, people should realize that the property which they use are no longer like the Feudal ideas of land, it is bought, has papers and the such. Enclosure is obviously a practice protected by the state as only through the state can one own land through a Market transaction with all the deeds and bureaucratic procedures in order to claim the land as one's own. People have come a long way from enclosure however such a principle can derive the problem by which the indigenous people suffer from. Now when we come towards the rights afforded to the enclosure laws, it stakes a claim on a territory on the form of it being private property, exploitable either Residentially or Economically which is a thought that is in general an equivalent to the Capitalist mode of thought or speech. The ubiquitous idea of Enclosure essentially comes at odds with the idea of native rights. The idea is that Enclosure in itself is a contradiction with Native Rights in the first place, and that is what it was intended to do.

In common law systems, land tenure is the legal regime in which land is owned by an individual, who is said to "hold" the land. It determines who can use land, for how long and under what conditions. Tenure may be based both on official laws and policies, and on informal customs. In other words, land tenure system implies a system according to which land is held by an individual or the actual tiller of the land. It determines the owners rights and responsibilities in connection with their holding. The French verb "tenir" means "to hold" and "tenant" is the present participle of "tenir". The sovereign monarch, known as The Crown, held land in its own right. All private owners are either its tenants or sub-tenants. Tenure signifies the relationship between tenant and lord, not the relationship between tenant and land. Over history, many different forms of land ownership, i.e., ways of owning land, have been established.

Historically in the system of feudalism, in itself a native or indigenous system of ownership, the lords who received land directly from the Crown were called tenants-in-chief. They doled out portions of their land to lesser tenants in exchange for services, who in turn divided it among even lesser tenants. This process—that of granting subordinate tenancies—is known as subinfeudation. In this way, all individuals except the monarch were said to hold the land "of" someone else.

It was usual for there to be reciprocal duties between lord and tenant. There were different kinds of tenure to fit various kinds of duties that a tenant might owe to a lord. For instance, a military tenure might be by knight-service, requiring the tenant to supply the lord with a number of armed horsemen. The concept of tenure has since evolved into other forms, such as leases and estates.

This is what the early proponents of Enclosure wanted to be up against, the idea that land was the ownership of a lord who, trial by combat, got to own it. Now most of the indigenous land was also taken by such way, although not all of the systems of indigenous ownership was Feudal, the Aeta being a good example. They didn't have the Datu, Rajah system although they did have it in a proto-quasi way. But what this essentially boiled down is that Enclosure was meant to be a counterargument to Feudal tenure and the process to get to here was a long fought one. It started with the Magna Carta, wherein, if memory serves right, Vassals will no longer be compensated in Land but rather money and the trickling down of which allowed Peasants to be more affluent. This basically kickstarted the shitstorm that started off Capitalism as emanating from a State rather than just the will of God that they somehow own the lands. This gained some ground as a form by which people can upend this "Natural system" of land. It turned it from mere Feudalism to also a right to exploit, this was new. Now, the Right to exploit people is as old as Aristotle or even Hammurabi, what I mean by this is that the right to exploit land no longer inferred it by those who were working on it with some of such being given to the lord every so for their own survival. The Right to exploit a land now depended on price, not just the price of the land but also the price of Labor, Capital, machinations and many other things which triggered the rise of the Capitalism we know and hate today. This reflects to the present day in a drastically different light, now everything that was Enclosure just seems like common sense, those who own the land have deeds, if they want to garden on their land there is the DENR for that. But when it comes to how the Aeta can retake their land nowadays, even if they can buy their land, they still need to pay land taxes and the only way to do so is to pastichize their existence, to make them into literal museum sculptures to entertain a paying audience. If that is not already Zoobic, I don't know what is.

Now this contradiction between Enclosure and Native Land rights is in itself a problem when it comes to the discourse concerning Native Rights and it's subsequent attitudes and languages towards it. Next time, we should think twice when it comes to the words we use to describe their situation. Because, no, they are not squatters, they were just there for longer and by the time some dude wants to rectify a huge government project or a "green city" it would all be too late.

Part II

Chapter 1: Legislative process under a Rajahnate

the Rajahnate system explained: the Nova incarnate and head of the indosphere.

the acronyms:

  • CCG-Committee of Confederal Governance (a department of the CPP or NDPB in this scenario)
  • SC-Supreme Court
  • HC-House of Commons
  • HL-House of Lords
  • GWU-Government Workers' Union
  • ABM-Accounting & Budget Management

Now the graph is split between left & right because i see government less as a volleyball pass and more of a flow. which will fuck up quickly

So the Sovereign is known as the Rajah, I'll get into a discussion about their accession in another thread, Just like their pre-colonial predecessors, they are meant to be mediators to forward policies they deem correct.

The people most likely to represent the Left wing are the ones who begin the process as the Fact Finding and Causes(FFC) the job is split between CCG & the SC

Using the CCG, they are essentially a research unit tasked on finding sufficient evidence or cause for government action, like the harmful effects of X or the environmental or social impact of Y. they compile it and give it to the Umalohokan, the private Cabinet of the Rajah.

Using the SC, this is an inalienable right and very much encouraged without charge, you can Sue the Government either for not having a law about it or not executing the law effectively. If there is a sufficient number of cases it is raised to the Umalohokan.

Best case scenario, there are both the Comprehensive Study & Case Compilation, that is enough for the Umalohokan to consider the Rajah to Declare it as Law hoc opinionem. Meaning it is now technically a Law. In rare occasions the declaration is done publicly.

Once it is declared "Legis meae locutus sum quia in hoc opinionem illam.."(long version), it will then have to be given Implementing Rules by the House of Commons comprised of the Deputies(Senators, Budget, Workers & Lords) as above and then execute it themselves.

in summary: the Left (CCG & SC) finds facts & causes. the Compromisor (the Rajah) defines the Law in Belief. the Right (Commons) defines the law executed

if there is something wrong, again, sue the government, it is the right of every informed citizen to openly criticize.