Why the Philippines Doesn’t Need Edsa
The world we desire exists— but it can only be achieved by embracing the right choice…
Today the Filipino commemorates the first and second Edsa revolutions. The first saw the downfall of a ruthless tyrant who
A revolution without a soul...
ruled the nation for over two decades under that statist political slogan “New Society”, while the second resulted in a disgraceful overthrow of a plunderer who relied on that pro-poor mantra “Erap Para sa Mahirap” (Erap for the poor). Dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos corrupted both the nation’s coffers and soul, while former President Joseph Estrada committed two great sins— betrayal of public trust and betrayal of one’s soul. The former was replaced by a mere housewife whose husband is a revered modern-day national martyr, while the latter was succeeded by a feisty woman, whose determination to cling to power led to the near demise of an ailing nation. The hero of the first Edsa and the first president of the 1987 Constitution, Corazon Aquino, fulfilled her role as a “transitory” leader, and just recently, she gave back her life to her creator. However in 2001, an uprising of the so-called “civil society” fueled by the country’s businessmen and religionists installed Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the successor of Estrada only to resume the destruction of the entire Filipino nation.
Most of us regard the first EDSA as the return of power to the people. We have been taught that the world’s first bloodless revolt led to the restoration of democracy in the country and the reawakening of our national consciousness. Most people call the first people power revolt a ‘gift of democracy,’ I call the second EDSA a sign of national ‘naiveté.’
Unknown to many, the 1987 Constitution was shaped by the following anti-ideologies that are now delivering the Filipino nation to complete collectivism and dictatorship: political correctness, progressiveness, and egalitarianism.
It is us who shaped society in our own image. The current political and social system is the result of our own making in the past two to three decades. The 1987 Constitution is simply an abstract reflection of the country’s concretes. However, only a handful of the country’s intellectuals engineered our national destiny in an abstract form more than 20 years ago. For years we have evaded the fact that the very enemy of economic progress and national prosperity is the 1987 Constitution that embodies only the average of the totality of our beliefs, feelings, aspirations, and goals. Our current charter is undeniably a compromise on basic principles, rational standards, and moral ideals.
It is the charter—the fundamental law of the land— that sets the course of our national direction. It is now time to know and identify the nature of the country’s enemy. What are the evil ideas that inspired our national charter? This is the fundamental question that is being evaded and ignored by the country’s intellectuals for more than two decades. Unknown to many, the 1987 Constitution was shaped by the following anti-ideologies that are now delivering the Filipino nation to complete collectivism and dictatorship: political correctness, progressiveness, and egalitarianism. The logical effect of these three enemies of reason and individualism is this dominant culture in this country— the culture of mediocrity.
Political correctness is the very idea that led to the insertion of statist, anti-individualist provisions in the Constitution, such as the multi-party system, the partylist system, the so-called protection of “indigenous cultural communities that legalizes racism,” protection of women, the youth, the minorities, the underprivileged, among others. This social cancer of political correctness is now eating at the core of our society. It exalts the weak, protects the underprivileged, and empowers those who are poor in both body and spirit; while it kills the hero in man and that it sacrifices the men of ability, the productive and the successful.
The second EDSA a sign of national ‘naiveté'...
Progressiveness is an evil idea that is bringing the country toward complete collectivism and dictatorship. It demands not equality of rights and opportunities, but equality of economic outcome or results. This is the very idea that is empowering labor over production. It demands that those who produce be sacrificed in the name of ‘common good’, that those who earn more be compelled by law to give more, and that those who create wealth be treated as mere slaves. Observe that it is the progressive laws and edicts, such the anti-employer labor laws, pro-poor welfare state programs, anti-capitalist legal shackles like the EPIRA law (Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001) and other directives that establish monopoly and cronies. It is the progressives who advocated and continue to advocate for a wide array of political, economic, social, and moral reforms that are now destroying our remaining freedom. A very good example of a progressive legislative proposal is the socialist Reproductive Health bill and the proposal of administration presidential candidate Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro to implement a universal health care system should he be elected president on May 10, 2010.
No, we don’t need a political system based on an evil lie— that is, democracy—in this country.
Egalitarianism, on the other hand, is the belief in the equality of all men. It is the altruists in this country who distorted the meaning of equality. To the altruists, equality refers to metaphysical (reality)- not political- equality. The altruist proponents of this anti-concept (egalitarianism) are out to distort reality in the name of equality. They want everybody to be rich, productive, and endowed with positive physical traits through the employment of government force. The ultimate results of this evil idea are the pro-poor agrarian reform programs, the anti-capitalist labor laws, and the edicts intended to redistribute wealth. In a free society, equality, in a human context, is a political term, which means equality before the law and equality of rights.
The underlying code of ethics of all these three ideological pillars (which are, in fact, anti-concepts) of the New Constitution is the morality of altruism. This code of morality asks every man to put the interest and welfare of others above his own. Altruism is not synonymous to charity. Altruism regards man as a sacrificial animal and the means to the ends of others, while charity basically means the voluntary giving of help to others.
More than 20 years after the downfall of a ruthless dictator, the 1987 charter is now summoning the evil spirit of collectivism. Today we are witnessing the rise of the two warring factions of collectivism: the right-wing Fascist movement and the left-wing Socialist collective. Presidential aspirants Gilbert Teodoro, Sen. Noynoy Aquino, Sen. Manny Villar, Sen. Richard Gordon, and ousted President Estrada have been spouting statist programs, which have all the trappings of fascism. On the other hand, evangelist Eddie Villanueva, of Bangon Pilipinas Party, and Coun. John Carlos “JC” de los Reyes, of Ang Kapatiran Party, and Nicanor “Nick” Perlas have been flaunting their pro-poor, pro-God political programs with socialist tendencies. Remember that the “socialism for the 21st century” of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was founded on Christian ethics. Sen. Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal is to be ignored simply because she’s undeniably a political “troll” whose primary purpose is to annoy and destroy Villar.
“The country and the Filipino people are trapped between a disgraceful and perilous struggle of two conceited evils— the Socialist-Communist proletarian movement, which is prepared intellectually, and the Fascist-Elite movement, which is backed by gold and goons. However, the most dangerous situation of all is not that one of these two clashing movements is winning, but the fact that the country lacks intellectual leadership, which should guide the people in their decisions.”
No, we don’t need a political system based on an evil lie— that is, democracy—in this country. Democracy is simply a myth and an evil idea, which has no objective, clear, specific meaning. It simply means unlimited majority rule. History tells us that the first victim of “democracy” as a social system was Socrates who was condemned to death by the people in Greece because of his “dangerous” influence on the youth.
What we need is a social system based on the nature of man and his rights.
For a country to be truly free, it must be founded on the right idea and on a philosophy for living on earth.
What we need is a social system based on the nature of man and his rights. The Filipino doesn’t need another EDSA. That so-called people power revolt was a social struggle without a soul. The first EDSA revolution was without consciousness, as the people merely ended the rule of a brutal dictator. It was not a triumph of individualism against collectivism, since the revolution was not inspired by a new consciousness that could have empowered the people to embrace a rational socio-economic system. Proof of it is that the people hailed the rogue enemies of freedom and liberty as heroes of the so-called first bloodless revolt in human history. The collapse of the ruthless Marcosian wall was regarded as a moment in history that saw the transference of power to the people. The socialists described it as the failure of capitalism in this country and nobody in the academia or in the business circle ever attempted to refute this dishonest claim. The 1986 revolt was not a product of philosophy— it was rather a product of emotion.
It is wrong to say that we have to reclaim our freedom and rights because, in reality, we have neither to reclaim. The most proper statement is— we have to discover the true concepts of liberty and rights. If we did, we would also discover reason, individualism and the most practical and moral social system on earth— Capitalism. The Filipino needs to discover reason for his survival— he needs to discover individualism for him to truly respect the sanctity of his life and rights as a human being, as well as those of his neighbors— and he needs to discover capitalism in order to sustain his survival and to protect his inalienable individual rights.
In reality, we have nothing to celebrate yet. We only have something to mourn for. But there’s no other option left but to discover what is best for us as individuals living in a given territory. The problem is that the people were not given a choice. As I stated before, the only choice to protect and defend our freedom is capitalism, and the only way to advance the cause of freedom and man’s rights is to have a rational intellectual leadership based on the philosophy for living on earth. The world we desire exists— but it can only be achieved by embracing the right choice.
RELATED BLOG ARTICLES:
Why are the Communists Advancing to Take Away Our Freedom?
The Moral Base of the Filipino Nation and Philippine’s Intellectual Bankruptcy
Trackbacks
- Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason « THE VINCENTON POST
- Why They Missed It? « THE VINCENTON POST
- It’s Democratic, Stupid! « THE VINCENTON POST
- The Party-list Babel « THE VINCENTON POST
- 1987 Constitution: The Source of All Political, Economic Evils in RP « THE VINCENTON POST
- It’s Amazing How They Missed The Point! « THE VINCENTON POST
- RH Bill: A Marxist, Politically Correct Policy « THE VINCENTON POST
- RH Bill: A Marxist, Politically Correct Policy Vs. Free Speech, Freedom « THE VINCENTON POST
- Why the Philippines Doesn’t Need Edsa | VINCENTON
THE VINCENTON POST 
I’m no Pol-sci but being an observer for quite some time now
I think what we’d be better with Democratic Socialism
Check it out.
Click to access widemsoc.pdf
Its more like what you describe Only I see more safety features on it for the people.
🙂
Democratic Socialism is a floating abstraction. Epistemologically and metaphysically, DemSoc is a utilitarian concept. The Utilitarians teach that an action is moral if its result is to maximize pleasure among men in general. This theory holds that man’s duty is to serve—according to a purely quantitative standard of value. He is to serve not the well-being of the nation or of the economic class, but “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” regardless of who comprise it in any given issue. One of the 19th Century thinkers, John Stuart Mill, says the individual must be “disinterested” and “strictly impartial”; he must remember that he is only one unit out of the dozens, or millions, of men affected by his actions. “All honor to those who can abnegate for themselves the personal enjoyment of life,” says Mill, “when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount of happiness in the world.”
The reading you gave me states: “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”
That statement confirms the fact that DemSoc is socialism per se, because in reality, democracy is a form of collectivism. Under this system, the individual is the means to the ends of others. In a true free society, the individual is the standard of value.
DemSoc is exactly a compromise on moral ideals. It’s not even a contradiction in terms. It has no value at all since the very premises which this anti-system, anti-concept has been derived from do not correspond to reality. In the first place, there is no definite, specific and objective definition of democracy. DemSoc establishes a mixed economy which we have right now. Only evil can win under this kind of system.
Thus I say that SocDem is a evil idea. Read some of my blogs on Capitalism.
I would rather not say that, “The 1986 revolution was not the product of philosophy–it was a product of history.” Because every individual has its own philosophy whether he know it or not. It is just a matter of identifying it explicitly. And most don’t care to identify what those philosophy are inside their subconsciousness. Ayn Rand called it “sense of life”. Her definition of a”sense of life” is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and existence. Most Filipinos at that time sensed that man and existence should not be like that of the Marcos dictatorship. We have the emotional sense that life in a society should not be like that. There ought to be another way. Bur unfortunately, no intellectuals to back it up by identifying it explicitly, clearly and objectively. The dominant intellectuals are the priest, the professors of colleges that tells nothing objective. Thus, I would say that 1986 EDSA revolution was the product of philosophy. So the same with history. HISTORY IS THE PRODUCT OF PHILOSOPHY! Read the book of Leonard Peikoff, “The Ominous Parallel”.
Yes, every person has philosophy whether he likes it or not. What I mean by “The 1986 revolution was not the product of philosophy–it was a product of history” is that this people power revolt wasn’t based on a conscious, definite philosophy, but rather on a mongrel viewpoint consisting of pragmatism, liberalism, progressiveness, and egalitarianism. This is why we have Edsa II and even Edsa III. History continues to repeat itself. If that revolt had been founded on the right philosophy, the 1987 Constitution which is the abstract form of the nation’s concretes and beliefs would have primarily focus on the value of individual rights and not admitted contradictions, floating abstractions and false premises.
EDSA revolution was similar to that of the “Tea Party” of the Americans before the revolution. The people were disgusted about the political life. The people sensed that there was something wrong that they could not identify. And EDSA revolution will be repeated if the whole people will sense that there is something wrong or weird. But perhaps we objectivist could help identity it.
The Boston Tea Party before the American Revolution was in response to the heavy taxes, persecution, and abuses of the King of England. The 1986 Edsa was in response to the abuses of a fascist dictator. However unlike the people power revolt, the American Revolution had philosophical, primarily epistemological, foundation. The Founding Fathers of America understood that individual rights cannot exist in a society that rejected reason, basic moral principles, and proper ideas. This led to the creation of such rational principles as the “separation of church and state,” taxation by representation, the three equal branches of government, separation of powers, objective legal system, and an objective written Constitution founded upon the premise that man is an end in himself.
I must repeat that the 1986 Edsa was based on the concept that man is the means to the ends of others, an idea inspired by the anti-concepts of political correctness, progressiveness, and liberalism.
If we recall our history, we underwent different suppression of freedom. Under the Spaniard, it took centuries before we toppled the suppressive regime then came the Japanese; with the help of the Americans we got our freedom. Then came Marcos dictatorship, our freedom was suppressed again for more than 10 years. The EDSA revolution was the result of Marcos suppression of freedom (Democratic Socialism/Bagong Lipunan propaganda). Freedom, liberty is the “sense of life” of each individual and political life of all the Filipinos (of human beings). We have the “sense of life” to be free, free from the coercion of others. That sense of life was not and has not been identified by the intellectuals (priests, college professors). That the source of that (sense of life) is the individual inalienable rights of which we can observed from the nature of man. The concept of rights (as identified) is natural to man in the form of “the sense of life.” This is not identified because of the religious ideas that contradicts with it. And for that reason, I can say that it (EDSA revolutions) will be repeated until our freedom is suppressed again, perhaps this time by the effects of democratic socialism. Have you observed what is happening in the US. There is a brewing revolution against the tricky socialism that has engulfed the whole social system. It will explodes soon. Socialism is suppressing the freedom of the Americans. So it will be here in the Philippines.
NO. EDSA revolution was NOT A CONCEPT but an emotional response against the suppression of freedom. EDSA was and will be the expression of “the sense of life” of the Filipinos. Until it is identified objectively.
We, Filipinos, love freedom. Man loves freedom. We have to backed it explicitly by the concept of inalienable rights observable in the nature of man. Not based on any mystical/religious ideas.
“NO. EDSA revolution was NOT A CONCEPT but an emotional response against the suppression of freedom.”
I agree with your there. I stand corrected. Yes, Edsa revolution has no epistemological and philosophical base at all… It’s rather an “emotional reaction” to political abuses. Thanks for that wonderful insight, Mr. Patagnan.
After reading you site, Your site is very useful for me .I bookmarked your site!
I am been engaged 10 years on the Free finance personal software If you have some questions, please get in touch with me.
This is so damn good, and so damn amazing, that I’ll include this in my sandbox. See you around at http://www.kidinsandbox.com
Visit us now. You’ll love it!
PH needed EDSA because the economy was already weakening considerably during the last few years of the dictatorship. Even the US realized this as they advised Marcos to leave.