Red Tagging, Anyone.

Dear patriots, trad-politicians, activists, and pseudo-activists,
‘Red-tagging’. Curious how the signature word is used to underline a curious pack of overused, pretentious slogans such as “Human Rights Defenders”, “EJK”, “dictatorship of the proletariat”, “revolutionary tax”; curious who use these Signatures behind political face masks, ideological face shields, sophisticated sleight of hand; curious why they hide behind the ambiguity of lofty advocacies to camouflage true intent and advance their obsolete agenda; curiouser when their comrades explode land mines while ascribing EJK to others but themselves; curiouser how they raise clenched fists clamoring for “dictatorship of the proletariat” while practicing their own brand of “dictatorship by the exiled and his puppets”; curiouser how they recruit young students, brainwash and bring them to the mountains to carry arms as child warriors, in blatant disregard of the rights, responsibilities, and love of parents over their children, as declared in Article 26 Section (3) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; curiouser how they extort funds mislabeled ‘revolutionary taxes’, or ‘donations’ for cloaked beneficiaries -- themselves disguised as ‘NGOs’ -- in a form of pernicious taxation without representation, in violation of fundamentals of good government they pretend to fight for. We, the people, will speak our minds about the simple clarity of Signature Words, muddled and made complex by sophistries of selfish interests.
--Signature Words II 8/18/2021 SIGNATURE WORDS II

Complicating the simple is the PROBLEM…

“Red-tagging must end,” a curious cliché echoed and re-echoed by organs representing several ‘Party Lists’ even while being charged by former comrades as “insurgents and terrorists in disguise”.

“Red-tagging has to go,” declares a newly appointed political expert, referring to the un-merry mix-up where (a) left-leaning activists are labeled “terrorists-insurgents”, wrongly (or not) subjecting them to real, imaginary, or presumed risks; the other side of the mix-up happens when (b) identified, active, “terrorists-insurgents” hide behind the cloak of the ambiguous phrase “red-tagging”; the confusion is conveniently sustained by (b) propagandists with hidden, self-serving agenda, and sometimes by (a) authentic, concerned “human rights defenders”, and sometimes by (a) plain, simple patriots who care.

What is actually alluded to as “having to go” is perhaps nothing more than just the innocent, left-leaning-adventurer-all bluster, no impact” type; there is a clear distinction between the (a) former and the (b) latter that is rarely noted in public discourses; they add more confusion and obfuscation to the public awareness, the common observer, and even the objective, conscientious objectors; but the hard-core, self-serving propagandists are able to disguise themselves as champions of “human rights” and “freedom of the press” by sophistry, using clichés and Signature Words like “red-tagging”.

The simple truth is that there is no valid reason to harass plain “activists-adventurers” but there are enough legal grounds to bring identified “armed insurgents-terrorists” to justice and all the moral reasons and social compulsion in the world to ask them to “come home” or (if they refuse to “come home”) send them to prison for illegal acts harmful to society. Distinctions between patriotism-activism and “treason-sedition” are clear and simple, and the ambiguity and ambivalence of Signature Words like “red-tagging” should not suppress and hinder actionable clarity.

“There’s no such thing as red-tagging,” says the spokesperson of a duly instituted anti-armed insurgency, anti-terrorist govt agency, citing a Supreme Court ruling that declared the “mere labeling of a group as a communist front is not an actual threat to one’s right to life, liberty, or security,” When a govt body charged with the task of ending the armed insurgency identifies a person as a “terrorist-insurgent”, the act is not “red-tagging” – it is more precisely described as the identification of persons involved in illegal activities. What is the point of “red-tagging” in that context?

Something’s got to give…

Red-tagging, what a curious phrase; when people realize the implications of its use and misuse, it gets curioser and curioser. What is red? What is tagging? What is red-tagging? What is treason? What’s the fuss all about? What’s the real problem? Is it a matter of semantics, etymology, sophistry, or logic, or is it something of graver social complexity? If it’s such a big deal, what is the solution?

“Red is a color at the end of the spectrum next to orange; it has a range of symbolic meanings including war, anger, and love.” Is it to the credit of the Communist Movement that Red became the symbol of “Communists” in the aftermath of the cold war era? Or is it to the credit of sociologists, etymologists, and wordsmiths? Or both?

“Tagging is the action of attaching a label to someone or something.”

Red-tagging: a curious phenomenon, a word tandem that’s more than the sum of its parts, a mathematical anomaly – very curious that the modern meaning of “red-tagging” does not equate to the simple linking of “Red” with “tagging”. If it were, there would be no problem at all, as being Red per se, is neither a crime nor a problem. But the anomalous reality is that the term “red-tagging” has put on a new life and meaning of its own, apart from the literal meaning of “Red” and “tagging”, taken individually and taken together. The meaning can be harmful or made to appear harmful.
Thus, “Red-tagging in the Ph refers to the malicious blacklisting of individuals or organizations critical or not fully supportive of the actions of a sitting government administration in the country.”** -Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and a Wiki can be edited by anyone, anytime; it collects word meanings from common usage and interpretation by people in a community, developed and practiced over time, not the other way around. Wikipedia has no moral authority to define “red-tagging”, it merely echoes and picks up the common usage in a given community. One can easily challenge the accuracy of Wikipedia’s definition, but that would be pointless since Wikipedia is merely a “mirror” and not a “carrier”. Clearly, the problem is not the idea or act of “red-tagging”, but the malicious, sophisticated, contrived, harmful usage, interpretation, and slant that the two-word tandem is made to appear.
Treason is “the crime of betraying one's country, by attempting to overthrow the govt. Sedition is a crime that consists of inciting rebellion or violence against the govt.” (Oxford dictionary) Which is more concise, relevant, and deserving of common public usage -- “red-tagging” or “treason“?

Simplifying the complex is the easy SOLUTION…

If using the words “red-tagging” is causing confusion, angst, stress, and distress, if it leads to uncertainty and deception of people, why prolong the agony? If we stop the use and misuse of the phrase and replace them with more concise, positive words and actions, if we start to edit Wikipedia (after all, Wiki is a DIY encyclopedia) they will eventually be expunged from the vocabulary; along with the words, will go the actions, and we will all be better off for it. If there is anything that must stop, it is the use or misuse of the misleading two-word tandem “red-tagging”. For the sincere social reformist, we can say instead “leftist-activist” and not “red”; to the authentic revolutionary, we can say, go ahead and do your thing, we respect your contrarianism as long as you respect our peace and our laws; for the student, recruited, deceived, indoctrinated, taken from parents, hiding and fighting in the mountains, we can say “come home brother/sister and get healed”; for the pseudo-reformist that will not reform but continue fighting and killing, we can say “treason and sedition are crimes against the state, and traitors will be jailed”; -- “claro-claro lang.”

It’s the use of concise words, precise meanings, correct etymology, common sense, transparent logic, and the plain and simple TRUTH, that will solve our problems, not trickery or sophistry or contrived complexity, not deception, not the disguise of hiding behind complex Signature Words “red-tagging”. Let us give our Nation and our People, the simple truth, clarity, and wholeness that they deserve.

“In Unum Veritas, in Veritas Unum.”

Bob Calida 8:00 am 6/30/2022, the year of new milestones, beginnings, and endings.

**From Wikipedia: Red-tagging in the Philippines refers to the malicious blacklisting of individuals or organizations critical or not fully supportive of the actions of a sitting government administration in the country. These individuals and organizations are “tagged" as communists or terrorists or both..,
***A rejoinder from a citizen of the Republic of the Ph: If it’s easy for Wikipedia to condemn, it is because it carries no moral responsibility, it is merely a mirror of peoples’ words; if Wikipedia is a Wiki, then it can and should be edited anytime, by anyone, by those who carry the moral responsibility, according to the values of truthfulness and clarity. Let not deceptions, and alien values picked up by Wikipedia shape us, let us be the ones to shape Wikipedia and use it as a tool to propagate our Truth Values; Wiki will merely pick up what we manifest as a “WHOLE COMMUNITY”. Let’s do it now!