To a pseudo-intellectual,
It is so easy to say such empty claims that you are a “historian”, or have read “historical” and “political” books. The only way to prove those claims is to see if your statements were well-founded or within the reason and dogma of the disciplines that you were claiming to be adept of. Let me tell you this: students of history never deny nor disregard facts and evidences, nor distort narrations, nor resort to euphemisms and speculations, for they know that such actions were grave sins to their discipline on which retribution will be swift as they will be cited in contempt. Those who study political science knew about the fundamental and philosophical notions about government and civil rights, such as the social contract theories, ideologies, and the like, which were not present at all in your arguments.
And now you disregard what Ka Pepe Diokno has been preaching for most of his life – that Mr. Marcos corrupted the military and its regulations to his benefit and that his regime was clearly an oppressive one as Ka Pepe once said that the “law of the land died”, during the dictatorship – by saying a nonsensical speculation that “I bet Ka Pepe…”
Did Teodoro Agoncillo live in the 1800’s in order to make his enlightening biography on Bonifacio? Of course, no is the clear answer to that. And that applies to the people who were born even after the Martial Law era.
Let me write to you an excerpt from Agoncillo’s Malolos:
“[…] Differences in history are natural and cannot be avoided, for historians differ as much in their temperament as in their outlook. Such differences of interpretations are, and should be, welcomed for they show that freedom is here with us. What is to be deplored is uniformity of opinions or conformism, for it presages a return to obscurantism.”
“[…] But though history is not objective, it must nevertheless be impartial. Impartiality implies the moral responsibility of the historian to weigh the pieces of evidence and to derive just conclusions therefrom. I purposely avoided the use of the much-abused phrase ‘balanced judgment’ because it means no judgment at all. Judgment cannot be balanced, for it implies tilting one’s opinion to one side depending upon the facts available at the moment. A historian who purposely suppresses a document or who twists its contents in order to serve his personal or group interests is guilty of distortion. He is, therefore, not impartial, and is punished by the just contempt of perceptive readers.”
In conclusion: You were neither adept on studying history nor political science. You were hiding behind that fake facade and apparent eloquence of yours in order to hide the fact that your statements were mere baseless prejudices which you were unwilling to let go. You are a pseudo-intellectual that preys people into believing lies. We don’t debate on the wrong data and premises.