Imbak para sa Disyembre, 2011

Spam has the best comment ever!

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , on Disyembre 25, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

Anyone on the internet is familiar with Spam. Whether its here on WordPress or on your e-mail account useless mail and traffic will never leave us alone. But sometimes spam can turn up some of the most interesting and outlandish of thoughts and sentiments. They’re so far out there that you can’t help but stare at it for a few minutes with your mouth open before turning away in disgust or laughing out loud. But this one really took the cake, I’m an amatuer troll myself but this is a true master of the art at work. I bow to your supremacy oh great one.

“If this make any sense to you, but having an extramarital affair over the years actually helped me stayed committed to my wife. I guess it is the “guilt” that I am two-timing on my wife that makes me want to make sure that the marriage is still working. I do admit that I feel ashamed that I am having sex with another woman, but I believe that is better than to seek a divorce and embroil my kids through all the legal proceedings. I always practice safe sex so that I would not contract any sexually transmitted disease and pass it onto my wife. So far having an affair has “helped” me be a better husband to my wife.”

Christmas and Commercialism

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , on Disyembre 19, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

Why is Christmas said to be the best time of year? Or to better phrase the question. Why is Christmas the best time of the year period? Because it is a fact that a large majority of the global population say they feel happier during the Christmas season and no other holiday has ever had such a global and lasting impact on the international community like Christmas. What makes it so special, so different from the other festivals celebrated around this time of year?

Is it the family gatherings? The special feasts prepared? Or the tradition of giving gifts? It can’t be any of those because those traits and traditions are not unique to Christmas. These activities are also observed in the Jewish Hannukah as well as the African American Kwanzaa.

What then, makes Christmas so unique? Ironically enough, the answer to the dominance of Christmas as the de facto ultimate holiday is considered by many people to be its greatest scourge and sickness. Commercialism.

According to Merriam-Websters dictionary materialism is-a way of thinking that gives too much importance to material possessions rather than to spiritual or intellectual thing. An attitude which is fueled by commercialism defined as-the attitude or actions of people who are influenced too strongly by the desire to earn money or buy goods rather than by other value.

Going by these definitions it is understandable that American author Stan Guthrie once wrote “We Christians are right to be concerned that the culture is trying to take Christ out of Christmas. Let’s just be sure that we don’t bury him in an avalanche of our own holiday junk.”

It is no secret that some Christians are upset over the “hi-jacking” of their most beloved holiday by materialism which they consider as the anti-thesis of the season. Certain church leaders have even gone a step further and launched what they called the Advent Conspiracy movement six years ago.Determined to do away with the frenzied activity and extravagant gift-giving of a commercial Christmas.

However, it can be argued that the longevity of Christmas was only made possible when big companies came into the picture to take advantage of the gift giving tradition. Commercialism adds a new dimension to the celebration of Christmas that is unique and infectious. Unique in the way that its effects can be directly observed and compared other similar holidays around the same time. Because of its secular principles Commercialism allows Christmas to be celebrated (in one way or another) by anyone and with anyone. It allows the holiday and all of its tenets and activities to be participated in and appreciated even by those outside the Christian faith. It also acts as a handy tool in spreading the spirit of Christmas into cultural spheres never before explored.

There is little doubt that children love Christmas because of the presents and the excitement of opening them on Christmas day. Adults on the other hand love the holiday for the memories of doing the same things they had as children and their wish to give the same memories to their offspring. A cycle is thus formed ensuring the tradition of Christmas for a time longer than probably any other celebration in human history.

And is it true that the team of commercialism and materialism are sapping away the spirit of Christmas (which is being generous and peace-loving )? The answer of course is no. Whether or not the forces behind commercialism honor the values that seem to be tagged to Christmas is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is they (whoever ‘they’ are) recognize that in order for them to sustain their businesses (perhaps) indefinitely they need to keep those values alive. Note that I am already speaking of businesses as heartless robots who think of nothing but the bottom line of profit and still they must, by their own need to survive, sustain what people think they are out to kill.

Commercialism has done more than feed itself on the cheer of Christmas (as many claim) it has actually contributed a very large part of what we know of Christmas today. Santa Claus.

The modern image of Santa Claus is actually an invention by the Coca-Cola company. The jolly old fat man in a bright red suit first came about when the beverage company published an ad in a magazine in 1931. These depictions of Santa Claus circulated for about three decades, and by then the modern image of the holiday gift-giver was pretty much set in stone.

I realize however, that the eradication of peace and generosity are not what most people decry when they say that commercialism is stealing the spirit of Christmas. They are concerned that children might, in the confusion of all the holiday hoo-hah, forget about what they’re celebrating in the first place, the birth of Jesus Christ.

This point is already null since (as I’ve already said) history proves that there is nothing even intrinsically Christian about the season. Jesus was not born on December 25th or anytime near it. Almost if not all Christmas traditions were hi-jacked from the Pagan Roman Saturnalia in an effort to convert people on a massive scale.

If Christmas isn’t about Jesus then why have a Christmas at all? The spirit of peace and generosity. How about the promotion of brotherhood and camaraderie. To let those who you love know how you feel about them and how special they are to you. These are fine reasons to celebrate.

Christ or no Christ, in the end Christmas come down to us. Even if Jesus was indeed born on the 25th, whether it was in a manger or coming down in a pillar of light, just once or even a hundred times. If we decide to acknowledge that but go around spiting people and go around the way we do the rest of the year then the spirit of Christmas really would be lost to us.

As for me I’d rather children remember the peace and goodwill, and if that’s the only thing they can take away from it then the people of planet Earth have a lot to look forward to.

Practicing Christmas

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , , on Disyembre 15, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

Christmas time has come once again and before any of us get carried away with presents and the merry-making we are always reminded that the true spirit of the season isn’t in the material gifts we receive and the sumptuous feasts we gladly indulge in but the birth of the lord and savior Jesus Christ.

However, is that accurate to say? How much of Christmas and the auspicious date of December 25 really has anything to do with the baby Jesus?

No one knows what day Jesus Christ was born on but most Bible scholars can readily admit that it was most likely not on December 25. From the biblical description, most historians believe that his birth probably occurred in September, approximately six months after Passover in relation to the birth of his relative and prophet John the Baptist. It is also very unlikely that Jesus was born in December, since the bible records shepherds tending their sheep in the fields on that night in the book of Luke. This is quite unlikely to have happened during a cold Judean winter. So why do we celebrate Christ’s birthday as Christmas, on December the 25th?

The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas. A number of people are already aware that there are some parts of the Christmas traditions that are pagan in origin. However, they all stop short of saying that the entire celebration was originally pagan, and some of the traditions we do today were once banned for those reasons.

In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.

In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the God of Agriculture.

Saturnalia, was a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).
In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.

The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this Pope Julius I declared in the year 350 that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25 which is the concluding day of the Saturnalia festival. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.

Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.”

In January, they observed the Kalends of January, which represented the triumph of life over death. This whole season was called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. The festival season was marked by much merrymaking. It is in ancient Rome that the tradition of the Mummers was born. The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who traveled from house to house entertaining their neighbors. From this, the Christmas tradition of caroling was born.

The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.” Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.

In northern Europe, many other traditions that we now consider part of Christian worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The pagans of northern Europe celebrated the their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the pagan Sun God, Mithras, being born, and was observed on the shortest day of the year. As the Sun God grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year.
Huge Yule logs were burned in honor of the sun. The word Yule itself means “wheel,” the wheel being a pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Hollyberries were thought to be a food of the gods.

The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all the northern European winter solstices. Live evergreen trees were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were sometimes carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.

In fact variations of the Christmas tradition exist in almost every pre-Christian culture.

The Ancient Egpytians honored their Sun god Ra with palm leaves and evergreens. It was also a tradition for the Saturnalia where Romans decorated their houses with evergreen boughs. The Vikings of Scandinavia believed that the evergreen was the tree of the Norse Sun god Baldur.
Even the exchanging of gifts has roots in the Saturnalia wherein t he emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January). Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace. It was for this reason that the custom of gift-giving was banned by the Church during the Middle Ages, before they used it to their advantage by giving it a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas.

Christmas (Christ-Mass) as we know it today, most historians agree, began in Germany, though Catholics and Lutherans still disagree about which church celebrated it first. The earliest record of an evergreen being decorated in a Christian celebration was in 1521 in the Alsace region of Germany. A prominent Lutheran minister of the day cried blasphemy: “Better that they should look to the true tree of life, Christ.”

We should discriminate against gays

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Disyembre 8, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

The Senate has recently passed on third reading the bill which is after penalizing all forms of discrimination including discrimination against homosexuals. Sounds good right? Wrong! At least according to the Catholic Bishops Council of the Philippines (CBCP).

According to their lawyer Ronald Reyes the institution had no problem with the bill which was against racial profiling and religious intolerance but became “concerned” when Senators made an amendment to include sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity.

“This is alarming and it might change our society,” Reyes said.

Another CBCP lawyer Jo Imbong said the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender) should not be considered the same as the elderly, the handicapped, and the poor.

“These people are disadvantaged not by their own choice. But the third sex, they choose this. How can you give protection to a choice like that?” Imbong said.

If you feel a sinking feeling of disgust and apprehension don’t worry it’s a normal reaction when faced by malevolent primordial slime left behind by an age long gone and should be happily forgotten.

This underscores the very real  situation out country faces on the topic of discrimination. We have to face the reality that even with the countrys so-called Christian morality of loving each others neighbor the Philippines is practically no different from the barbaric tribes still surviving in the jungles of Africa and the deserts of the Middle East.

In those worlds, rights are a fantasy with less substance than smoke, and if we don’t protect everyone then the concepts of rights, freedom, and equality are nothing but colossal jokes adults tell themselves to make them feel better.

Maybe they should re-phrase that to Love whoever we approve of and to hell with everyone else.

Being gay doesn’t delegate one into becoming a second-class citizen devoid of protection from discrimination which is their right, whether they chose it or not does not enter into the equation. The spirit of the anti-discrimination bill is precisely that. To respect your existence as a human being who is no greater and no lesser than anyone else. Man or woman, CEO or beggar, cripple or athlete. No one has any right to deny you rights or opportunities based on who you are or what you believe as long as it does not disturb the safety and welfare of the public.

Their main objections however are if penalties against discrimination are enacted it will open the way for homosexual marriages. And their right, it could lead to that, but that’s a whole different ball game. They aren’t valid grounds to support discrimination.

More and more the CBCP are showing how bigoted and narrow-minded their world view is behind the kindly facade they so desperately try to cling to in order to gain immunity from public scrutiny and rebuke. But the more they fight the world on how it decides to respect its people the more they show how ill fit they are for this world.

The Blame Game Master

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Disyembre 7, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

Countless people have asked it countless times before. Can P-Noy do anything other than blame other people for the problems that he’s supposed to be facing and trying to solve?

Well the consistent answer seems to be a resounding no. In fact, it is such a definitive trend in his style of governance that it has gone on to take it to absurd new heights never thought possible in coherent politics before.

In the recent Bulong-Pulungan Annual Christmas party at Sofitel he accused the judiciary, the arm of government concerned only with issues of law for being responsible with the bad shape of the economy. This is of course an absurd accusation but P-Noy explains his point in saying.

“These things do not exist in a vacuum, they all interact, a judicial system that doesn’t promote stability and certainty does not enhance the economic environment.”

Disregarding his misuse of the term vacuum (isolated would be more accurate) it seems the President misunderstands how the three branches interact as well. Blaming the judiciary for the shape of the economy is like blaming fishermen or market vendors for the problems currently faced by farming and agriculture.

Justice doesn’t and shouldn’t care about economic stability and its environs. It is merely concerned with the interpretations of the law and and enacting decisions based on it. Whether or not their actions have any effect on economy, as long as they stay true to what their doing, doesn’t really matter.

Aquino continued with his bashing of SC justice  Corona by saying “perhaps he should revisit the oath we all take in government have to undertake and remember exactly to whom we made the promise to and what was promised.”

And has he failed in doing so because he doesn’t promote stability? Who out of the two has stirred the shit between the two departments in the past year? Who has consistently been on the offensive even going as far as insulting the other to his face? Who has exhausted all efforts to demonize the other before the people?

Did Corona do all these things? I don’t think so.

But it did not stop there, during an interview on the same night he attributed the “losing battle” of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency against narcotics was because of dogs…or rather the lack of them.

As much as I would like to rebuttle his statement that PDEA only has one drug sniffing dog per region but I don’t have the latest statistics. However, I can say that P-Noy is wide off the mark if he thinks drug enforcers are just sitting on their butts without dogs to do their jobs for them.

According to a report in http://usnewslasvegas.asia/phl-regions/pdea-7-prioritizing-big-time-pushers-drug-lords/ the problem isn’t the lack of dogs, it’s the lack of personnel. As in people. But that does not make them ineffective in any way.

PDEA-7 Regional Director Jigger Montallana, in the same report, said his office only has 50 personnel but somehow managed to conduct 215 operations in the first quarter, 233 in the second quarter and 225 in the third quarter of this year alone. Of all those operations they arrested 259 persons and filed 310 cases in court during the first quarter. Arrested 280 persons and filed 323 cases in the second quarter; while in the third quarter, they arrested 288 persons and filed 313 cases in court.

Yes they are having a tough time in getting the upper hand on drug smugglers and pushers but not for the reason P-Noy points to. We don’t need more dogs (thought they would be very helpful) we need more men.

Even to the most brain dead of officials it should be obvious that problems won’t go away if we complain about them and hope that someone else thinks of something. The only solutions to finding solution is to go out and actually do some finding. It is not the responsibility of the leader to assign blame or responsibility, it is the responsibility of the leader to take responsibility and be a leader. I’m still wondering when our President is going to step-up and be one.

When rich guys get bored.

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Disyembre 6, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

Countless movies have been about the question “What do rich people do when they get bored?”, and more than a few people came up with the answer “Death Game!”. With billionaires betting millions on games playing with the hapless contestants lives.

But this is not one of those morbid rich guy fantasies. No, its more of morbid rich stupidity. As in seeing the list of cars involved in this crash is absolute torture.

The casualties:

Eight (8) Ferraris

Three (3) Mercedes

One (1) Lamborghini

One (1) Nissan GT-R

and…

a Toyota Prius…(?)

Do we really know Bonifacio?

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on Disyembre 5, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

 

I know its been more than a week since the day we officially remember and recognize the Great Plebian. However, something came to my attention that has never occured to me before. Do we really know the guy?

The name Bonifacio is one that will stand high among the most important people in history, immortalized by his deeds and what we remember of them during our country’s violent birth. However, what do we really know about the man that sparked a revolution at the Cry of Pugad Lawin?
We of course know from very early schooling all tha basics of the personal history of Bonifacio. He was one of a founder and later the supreme leader of the Katipunan movement which sought the independence of the Philippines from Spanish colonial rule and started the Philippine Revolution. While there are some opinions that are more controversial and not as widely supported. He is considered by a small number of historians as the de facto national hero of the Philippines. Putting into consideration the well documented arguments against the choice of Rizal as being hi-jacked by American colonists and that Andres was in fact the first to move the country towards complete independence. As well as the first president of the Philippines if not for the treachery of powers moving behind the scenes and a series of unfortunate inconsolable misunderstandings within the Katipunan that led to his trial and execution, but he is not officially recognized as such.

In fact according to Spanish historian Jose M. del Castillo, in his 1897 work “El Katipunan” or “El Filibusterismo en Filipinas,” describes the first national elections in the Philippines from which Bonifacio emerged as the President, and Plata, Jacinto, del Rosario, Pantas and Pacheco as cabinet officials. This is corroborated by the February 8, 1897 issue of the international publication “La Ilustracion Espanola y Americana” in its article about the Philippine revolution and which featured an engraved portrait of “Andres Bonifacio, Titulado ‘Presidente’ de la Republica Tagala,” clad in a dark suit and white tie. This was of course not formally recognized and considered null because of ahem ahem.
Almost everything we know about the man can be attributed to the work of historians, most notably Teodoro Agoncillo who wrote the book “Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan” who had this to say about his research and findings:

In dealing with Andres Bonifacio and the Katipunan, I have laid more emphasis on the latter than on its founder and organizer, firstly because of the dearth of materials on his life, and secondly, because it is my belief that Bonifacio can best be sen and appreciated against the backdrop of the revolutionary society. He could not have been greater than the Katipunan. Nor could he have risen above it. To understand him, one must understand the Katipunan. He looms great because of the society. He must, therefore, be seen in and through the Katipuanan, and this method of unraveling the thin and scattered threads of his life is valid only because of the lack of materials.
    In examining my sources of information, I have adopted the attitude of friendly hostility. It has been my experience that most of the errors in the difficult task of interpretation–which, after all, is the most important in any book–spring from the scholar’s uncritical attitude. He takes for granted that the fame of an author is sufficient guaranty of reliability and competence. Such mental outlook smacks of hypocrisy and cowardice. I have, therefore, dismissed this line of reasoning as inadequate. In this book, I have subjected my sources to a severe scrutiny, looked for loopholes, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in order to arrive at a balanced conclusion. Ricarte, for instance, hitherto, regarded as incontrovertible, is, after a careful examination, not always accurate and reliable. So is General Pio del Pilar. So are certain documents on the trial and death of Bonifacio. And so are some of the opinions expressed by the great scholars Epifanio de los Santos and Teodoro M. Kalaw. I shall probably hear loud protests and whispered innuendos, but I invite the potential objectors to my method to read my Notes carefully, for in them I have embodied th reasons for repudiating some of the claims of famous scholars, for dismissing this authority and for accepting that document.
However, a cloud of doubt passed over the name and legacy of the Father of the Katipunan most notably in the book by Glenn Anthony May entitled “Inventing a Hero” wherein he made bold and controversial claims such as:
In effect, Bonifacio has been posthumously re-created. He has been given a new personality and a childhood that may bear little resemblance to his real one….to inform Filipinos about their glorious recent past, to promote national pride, and to do some of that by rescuing Andres Bonifacio from obscurity
He claims, through a close reading of the documents left behind by the man himself after his execution, that he uncovers a history of mythmaking in the service of nationalism. Our contemporary image of Bonifacio is the sum of unreliable personal testimony and dubious, possibly doctored, documents. If the real history of the Philippine Revolution is to be written, historians will have to break through these heroic myths and admit to the limitations of the existing sources.
It comes as no surprise that these claims have come under very heavy criticism, especially since the the author was American.
In an article he defended his stance saying that it [his book] questions whether his correspondence with his fellow revolutionary Emilio Jacinto was, in fact, written by him. This is very important since Emilio Jacinto “the Brains of the Katipunan” remained steadfastly loyal to the Supremo even after his execution, refusing to join Aguinaldos troops. It questions whether existing accounts of what is, arguably, the most crucial event in Bonifacio’s life — the Tejeros Assembly, the meeting at which Bonifacio was replaced by Emilio Aguinaldo as leader of the revolutionary movement — can be credited.
It questions whether prevailing views of Bonifacio’s personality — views that have been shaped by a celebrated book by the celebrated Philippine historian Teodoro Agoncillo — bear any relation to reality.
    My principal argument is that those six men [Manuel Artigas, father and son Epifanio de los Santos, and Jose P. Santos, Artemio Ricarte, Teodoro Agoncillo and Reynaldo Ileto.] posthumously reconstructed Bonifacio, collectively creating the man we find in the textbooks.
    The depicters, wanted to romanticize, idealize, and, to a certain extent, sanitize Bonifacio to promote particular political agenda. All five were, in their days, prominent, outspoken nationalists, interested in freeing the Philippines from all traces of alien rule, influencing other Filipinos to join their cause, and providing young Filipinos with heroic historical models they could look up to and emulate.
    For all five, Bonifacio — or, rather, the version of Bonifacio that emerged from their posthumous re-creation of the man — served as the key symbol of the Philippine nation and a vital element in the creation of a national political identity.
In this vein of argument, it seems that May has a critical and (for the most part) correct point. In terms that it seems that the “re-creation of Bonifacio” (if there ever was such a thing) in order to serve as a national symbol seemed to have succeeded. And there is good reason to at least think (or re-think) the things we know about Bonifacio. For there are in fact things that are commonly accepted about the man that are completely wrong.

(1) It is highly unlikely that Bonifacio ever wore a red kerchief with a bright white shirt into battle. This is important because this costume has been a staple for anyone who has ever depicted or portrayed Bonifacio in film, television, photographs and paintings. The reason this might be wrong is that whoever would wear this while engaging in guerilla style skirmishes and battles would become any marksmans dream, he would stick out in every kind of imaginable terrain (except say absolute darkness).

(2) It is widely accepted that Bonifacios weapon of choice is a bolo. This is wrong. Much like everyone else he preferred a pistol.

And he calls to question some aspects of the Bonifacio story that may be suspect. If Bonifacio really was an uneducated layman that counted himself amongst the class of the impoverished how did he find himself in the company of the illustrados that ran the La Liga? How did he gain membership into the Freemasons?

There could be less controversial explanations than what May forwards. It could really just be hard work and determination that allowed the young Andres to move up in life but I doubt we’ll ever be sure.
However, it seems that though Mays work has been by and large rejected, by the reviewers of the Ateneo de Manila University Press stating that the book failed to “employ methodology and truthful/factual knowledge about the Philippines and its language(s) and culture(s) in the scholarship efforts of foreigners and Filipinos alike. it seems it has caused a spark to open a door of inquiry into the matter.
“Glenn May has subjected to painstaking scrutiny the primary sources that have been used to write the history of Bonifacio and the Philippine Revolution of 1896, as well as the principal secondary works dependent on them. Though the results will dismay some, and I would question or nuance certain points, no historian who has used these sources— including myself—can fail to go back and check his work against May’s findings on the reliability of these primary documents.” —John N. Schumacher, S.J., Ateneo de Manila University.
So who was Andres Bonifacio? Was he really a man that represented the masses in a time when social classes were considered concrete walls that divided society as absolutely as the caste system? Or was he a man completely different from the one we all know to have learned about since our earliest memories?
Whichever the case, there is one indisputable truth. Andres Bonifacio, whatever his former circumstances may be, was a man who saw injustice in a society and a country he called his home and was one of many who heeded the call to gather whatever courage they could afford to become a hero.