Skip to content

About


My own blogging ethics: As a blogger, I respect other people’s rights (e.g., their right to intellectual property, copyright, privacy, etc.) and I expect others to respect mine as well. Since I own this blogsite, and I expect my readers and commenters to follow or abide by my house rules.

Note: The Vincenton Post is formerly called Ideological Soup. This site is owned by Froilan Vincent (his chosen name). The blogger’s real name is Froilan Vincent D. Bersamina. This transition is not merely lexical; it is primarily intellectual and philosophical. This blog is dedicated to the promotion of individualism, laissez faire capitalism, and the philosophy of Objectivism in the Philippines, a country which is a product of history. In order to have a definite national direction, a nation must have a rational intellectual leadership. This country must be guided by a rational individualist philosophy whose metaphysics is objective reality, whose epistemology is reason, whose politics is capitalism, and whose ethics is self-interest. Without a rational culture, education system and ‘national consciousness’ that are hinged on the concept of individualism, this nation cannot achieve a “new renaissance.” This blog banners the value of Honesty, Objectivity and Integrity. The first means intellectual honesty. In dealing with any kind of social, political or economic issues, The Vincenton Post does not recognize the value of blind compromise, the absurd idea of middle-ground, and the creepy scowl of the not-quite, the not-yet and the not-at-all. Like Ayn Rand wrote:

“There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.”

Intellectual honesty means one must not hesitate to attack an issue according to its value or non-value, and that one must not be afraid to confront criticisms by blind supporters of  an evil social agenda whose value and concept they miserably failed to grasp. Objectivity primarily pertains to Aristotle’s law of identity- that A is A. An issue must be judged not merely on its objective concept, but also on how it responds to reality. In journalistic terms, it is the goal of The Vincenton Post to make an objective evaluation of reality. Man’s knowledge expands by observing reality, but it is important that the stimuli be taken objectively, and that the observer be guided by reason and logic, which is defined as an art of non-contradictory identification. Thus, Objectivity means ideas, opinions and concepts expressed in this blogsite must be clear, comprehensible and free from contradictions and vague generalities.

Finally, Integrity means The Vincenton Post seeks to keep the moral principles of individualism and to uphold only those that make life possible. It does not take compromise or any absurd idea of middle-ground as an option. In a struggle to advance the cause of freedom and man’s rights, compromise is never a necessary evil- it is evil at best. The Vincenton Post offers a choice not an echo. This country and the rest of the world are moving toward collectivism or socialism. The only way to stop this evil, immoral trend is to embrace the right choice- the philosophy of Objectivism, the concept of Individualism, the economic system of Capitalism.

Pardon my pretension, but so far, The Vincenton Post is the best proof that most people, most especially the so-called intellectuals, college professors, and media opinion peddlers, in the Philippines do not truly, genuinely understand how Capitalism as a political-economic system works! However, I do not claim to speak for Objectivism; my errors, where they may be found, are my own.

My primary purpose in creating and maintaining this blogsite is purely selfish in nature. When I created this blogsite, I never thought of other people, what they might say, how they would react and behave, and what they would think of the person behind it—I only thought of my desire to express my mind, to express the word “I”. Every word or sentence on this blog is an expression of my ego, and every entry reflects my consciousness, my views, beliefs, and convictions. I write commentaries not to preach, because I don’t believe that it is my primary duty to be concerned with others, but to express the things that I strongly believe in. My goal as a blogger is not to please everybody, because pleasing everybody is impossible. You can’t please other people without losing your soul and sense of self. If the purpose of a blogger is to ‘go with the flow’ and agree with the so-called collective mindset, then I would have to stop writing. Like  Victor Hugo said: “If a writer wrote merely for his time, I would have to break my pen and throw it away.” This blogsite expresses my personality; it is the reflection of my consciousness.

I do  believe that every person consciously or unconsciously holds a certain form of philosophy. Man cannot live without philosophy. He needs a specific or random way of reasoning, whether good or bad, mediocre or reasonable, to tie his beliefs and convictions. With this, I am forever inspired by the following quotation from my favorite book Atlas Shrugged:

“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.”

Let me state it here, that of all the kinds and forms of smear or criticism, I most disgust and resent dishonesty, whether intellectual, ideological or metaphysical. Any critic who resorts to dishonesty- that is, by arguing his cause by means of dropping the context of your premise or statement, or resorting to adhominem attack- has nary a sane, proper argument to adduce. I have seen a lot of their kind online, the kind of people who borrow disgusting statements from absurd intellectuals and use them against you.

For instance, I have a lot of commenters who called me names and even described me as a member of the so-called Ayn Rand cult. This dishonest attack was perpetrated by a former student of Ayn Rand named Murray Rothbard who later called her a ‘cultist.’ After he was ‘excommunicated’ from the Objectivist circle, Rothbard formed his own Libertarian-Anarcho-capitalist circle and wrote a book denouncing Ayn Rand as the high priestess of a secular cult. Now this is a good example of a dishonest attack designed to simply destroy the reputation of a person. I’ve also seen a number of commenters who called me names like “intellectual masturbater.” This malicious, empty charge is both funny and pathetic. This means that a person who graduated from an average school has no business talking about philosophy, ideology, or man’s intellect, and that the intellectual domain exclusively belongs to the intellectuals, academics, college professors.

There were also a number of commenters who urged me to “drop my ideology,” and embrace what they call “real facts” or “reality-based data or statistics.” Although I did not exactly understand how they used the word “ideology” (if it were related to intellect or way of thinking), I thought that they didn’t want me to think. These people simply forgot that we deal with ideas, and that we embrace a certain premise. For instance, one commenter urged me to argue my cause regarding the Reproductive Health Bill by dropping “my ideology” and use only facts and statistics to prove that “overpopulation is not the problem.” With all honesty, I believe that you cannot argue a certain issue without relying on a particular premise, unless you go by emotion and the whim of the moment. The premise of my argument against the RH Bill is based on “individual rights”, that this legislative proposal is impractical and immoral because it disregards man’s inalienable rights, and that it seeks the sacrifice and the immolation of the good to the weak, although this is not explicitly stated in the bill, but this is only the means to achieve its ends.

Those who resent you for upholding a specific, strong idea simply believe that nothing in this world is absolute, that that there is no such thing as objective or exact word, that everything we perceive is not real but a product of our mental distortion, that there are no such things as bad and good ideas, but only floating abstractions, and that man’s mind is impotent and subservient to what they call collective mentality. These same people unwittingly believe that the world has not improved, that we did not achieve this stage in history where men enjoy technological and intellectual stability by improving or changing our way of thought. In regard to this, I strongly believe with the following quotation by Will and Ariel Durant:

“Civilization is not inherited; it has to be learned and earned by each generation anew; if the transmission should be interrupted for one century, civilization would die, and we should be savages again.”

The great men from the Age of the Enlightenment who ended the Dark Ages of the mystics and the religionists, were able to prove that reason exists, and that man’s mind improves and develops by observing reality. You start with what exists and never take things or issues on faith. They were able to prove that man’s mind is his only tool of cognition and that reason is his only absolute. You tackle a particular issue by using reason, a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. You understand things by means of logic, which should be defined as the art of non-contradictory identification. Logic means A is A- that you cannot contradict reality and that reality is independent of a man’s consciousness, beliefs, or convictions. A is A is the formula of Aristotle’s Law of Identity, which states that an object is the same as itself. You cannot ask a person to “drop his mind” to tackle an issue. Again, man’s mind is a tool of cognition and reason is his only absolute.

I am not a scholar of Objectivism, I am merely a student of Objectivism.

I’m on Facebook and you can ADD ME UP!

About my concept of morality, you can check it here.

For those interested, you may join our Causes/groups on Facebook:

Ayn Rand Fans in the Philippines

Capitalism for Philippines

Reproductive Health Bill: The Road to Serfdom

2010 Philippine Presidential Watch Forum

For those who read, loved, and reacted to the articles on this site, thanks for paying a visit. For those who hated it, get real! I always tell them, “check your premises…”

I don’t delete comments if someone disagrees with me. It’s his/her right to disagree with me. But I do when the comments are rude and crude since this is my private property. I have a right to do so. It’s not an issue of ideology, but of manners. I reject the modern conception of manners; I don’t have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to, anyone who doesn’t know how to disagree with me politely.

26 Comments leave one →
  1. John permalink
    January 28, 2009 3:38

    Good to hear an Objectivist Filipino. We are incredibly few!

  2. February 6, 2009 3:38

    I am sort of an Objectivist filipino as well. Sort of because I like clumping Objectivist thought with Hayek and Rawls (or at least my shallow understanding of Hayek and Rawls).

    Hey FVDB- I’ve been a big fan of this blog, as well as caffeine sparks’ blog. Caffeine Sparks wants land reform. I dont- I think it is collectivist at its core. Can you write something about it?

    Thanks! More power to you, your work, and your law studies.

  3. March 3, 2009 3:38

    Blog pick of the week – this blog is one of the best so far. Thanks for the share. We will be your avid fan.

  4. May 8, 2009 3:38

    Hope you didn’t mine. Thanks!

  5. October 24, 2009 3:38

    Since I’m the exclusive owner of this site, I have the right to ban rude, silly, stupid, bigot, irrational and insane comments on my blogs.

    Thank you for pointing this out.

    I will be careful with my words and follow the flow of the stream towards the direction that is acceptable to your taste.

    • December 21, 2009 3:38

      totally agree bhai darbs.

  6. December 21, 2009 3:38

    wow, this guy is really cool, love it!

  7. December 21, 2009 3:38

    pls excuse me, if im wrong, no offence.
    its my first visit here, saw the link via darbs blog,
    FVDB sounds familiar (sounds like dean bocobo)
    but anyway, whoever you are, love your strong and honest words!

    • December 21, 2009 3:38

      well, to be honest, i never liked dean bocobo.

      • December 21, 2009 3:38

        Lee, honestly, I don’t know this dean Bacobo. FVDB stands for Froilan Vincent D. Bersamina. Thanks for dropping by.

  8. January 10, 2010 3:38

    The more I read this site, the more I see how completely unoriginal every line is. You’re not the one who came up with “Check your premises”; Ayn Rand did. Your “A is A” was a favorite saying of Ayn Rand. To get some perspective, why don’t you read Jennifer Burns’ Ayn Rand bio: http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Market-Rand-American-Right/dp/0195324870/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263157338&sr=8-1

    Just because one talks of rationality does not make one rational. Just because one espouses ‘objectivity’ does not make for an objective world or viewpoint. Look at Ayn Rand’s stand against a woman president as opposed to a male president, and her opposition to chess, for God’s sakes. Chess!

    Ayn Rand presupposes that rational thinking can only come about via the use of words. A little contemplation makes it apparent that this is not the case. Think of how a person is able to distinguish between different types of voices – say, raspy and nasal voices. But then, this same person is also capable of distinguishing between two raspy voices, although he or she is unable to say in words how these two different raspy voices differ. Perhaps there are only so many words in a language that could define the different types of voices. Or maybe the distinguishing faculty is something more primal that need not be put into words.

    It appears that some form of rational perception is still used for such a distinction between the raspy voices! Clearly, reason is beyond just the verbal.

    It is dogmatists like you, swallowing Ayn Rand whole, that give capitalism and individualism a bad name. Check YOUR premise, that of Ayn Rand’s infallibility. Don’t pretend you came up with your system of belief through your ultra-sharp reasoning faculties. It’s all about being spoonfed by John Galt.

    And you’re still rather young, so you have time to read other libertarian authors’ books. A caveat: doing so will make you cringe at the sight of your present blog entries, seen a year or two from now.

    • January 10, 2010 3:38

      Paul How, so are you now saying that this badly-written, creepy article of yours, which is full of mixed premises, floating abstractions, dishonesty, sickening contradictions, and misrepresentations, is original, non-dogmatic, and rational? Read it again to flatter yourself. Everything you have stated here is a sheer misrepresentation of Ayn Rand and my convictions.
      If you hate what I wrote about your presidential bet, let me tell you that I won’t delete it. If you want to support the candidacy of Sen. Noynoy Aquino, you have all the means to campaign for him. Nobody is depriving you from supporting your presidential bet. If you want to spread your ideas and criticize Ayn Rand all throughout your lifetime, you have all the means to do it.

  9. January 10, 2010 3:38

    Paul C. H. How, it appears that this Google digi-book which you allegedly composed is a parody of statism and attempts to mimic Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” Why not spread your alleged ideas in the Philippines if you really believed in the contents of this badly-written, creepy digital propaganda?

  10. J. H. Dawkins permalink
    January 11, 2010 3:38

    Honestly, I forced my self to read the so-called book of Paul How and I have to say that it’s one of the most miserable and most dishonest distortions and misrepresentations of the ideals of capitalism. I’ve observed that the author cited Kinsella, Mises, and some other Libertarians and believers of the Austrian economics, but I have to say that his work is at best a parody of not only statism but capitalism as well. Apart from being sophomoric in style and literary aspect, the author’s logic is fatally flawed and his understanding of capitalism consists of an orgy of floating abstractions, mixed premises, misplaced assumptions, and utter misrepresentations. As a Libertarian, let me say that I won’t recommend this so-called book authored by a certain Paul C. H. How not merely because it distorts and misrepresents capitalism, but because it enshrines a Machiavellian-type of statism.

  11. David Marshall permalink
    July 24, 2010 3:38

    CAN DO NO WRONG!

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 STANLEY [3] “to harm” DOD experiment is approved by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1950 FERES [1] ‘military can do no wrong’ Doctrine. The STANLEY case is one of the U.S. Senate’s 1994 “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to harm”.[8] It is a dereliction of duty in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments.[2] To-date ignored is the U.S. Senate’s 1994 recommendation, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.” In 2010, after honorable service the U.S. Congress still has not given back to veterans those rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep, e.g., “Written policy and practice prohibit the use of inmates for medical…..experiments.”! See page 13 of 14, REF: [6] Also overlooked by Congress is our “Pledge of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all.”!

    The “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress.[9] A veteran’s right to get the “to harm” needed for treatment evidence never became law.

    “IT WAS NECESSARY “TO CONCEAL THESE ACTIVITIES FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN GENERAL,” BECAUSE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE” UNETHICAL AND ILLICIT ACTIVITIES WOULD HAVE SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS IN POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC CIRCLES AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS MISSION.” See [Footnote 2/4] Page 483 U.S. 709 U.S. Supreme Court 1987 STANLEY military biomedical experimentation case. [3]

    After the 1987 STANLEY, Congress passed the 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA).[4] Established was the Legislative, Article I severely restricted, U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. Its Chief Judge stated, “The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy — policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, “I haven’t been told by my boss to change. If you don’t like it — appeal it.”[7] Congress dictated that, “The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.”[4] Given to the Secretary of the DVA is the Judicial Branch’s final authority on “the policies underlying the schedule” questions of law![5] Thereby, the withheld needed for treatment evidence and the underlying “experiments that were designed to harm” cause may not be addressed!

    Each “to harm” experimentation project completes a Research and Development (R&D) process. Prior R&D is reviewed. The resulting Scope of Work defines what each experiment is “designed” to accomplish. The how, where, when and who is identified. The conducted RESEARCHED cause and effects are closely followed and recorded. From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, use, victim treatment and protection. Accordingly, at the time known are the “designed to harm” experimentation resultant disabilities with their identifying symptoms.

    DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF SOME, WITH THE U. S. CONGRESS’S NOW 66 YEAR BEHAVIOR [8], DO NOT THE EXPERIMENTS CONTINUE UNDER THE COVER OF OUR PRESENT WARS?

    REFERENCES:

    [1] 1950 – Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html

    [2] 1953 – DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

    [3] 1987 – U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/669/case.html

    [4] 1988 – Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA), Pub. L. No. 100-687, Div. A, 102 Stat. 4105 (8 December 1988) DVA-Chapter 4 and http://law.jrank.org/pages/6784/Federal-Courts-Court-Appeals-Veterans-Claims.html#ixzz0MIKbF8ND

    [5] “United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.” US CODE: Title 38511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.

    [6] 1994 – U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 – Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman
    or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Electronic Research Collections (ERC)

    [7] 1994 – Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. Chief Judge Frank Nebeker’s Statement STATE OF COURT – - – URL: http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm

    [8] 1994 – December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session.

    [9] 2005 & 2006 – “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. H. R. 4259.

  12. August 9, 2010 3:38

    I entered the blog via a portal from a page of pissed off UP students (not one of them)
    and I was intrigued.
    I am liking what I’m reading.
    Also very enlightened about the matter.
    Thank you, sir.
    Currently reading Atlas Shrugged.
    Post more.

  13. November 17, 2010 3:38

    Hey! Thanks for your very informative blog! Thanks for your courage to defend the truth. I’ll just start reading Ayn Rand… ;-)

    • November 17, 2010 3:38

      Stop it. Don’t waste your time on that group. Just be what you wanna be.

      • January 29, 2011 3:38

        You might want to qualify that…be that which does not impose on other. i.e. Don’t be a hedonist.

      • January 29, 2011 3:38

        What the heck are you prattling about?

  14. November 22, 2010 3:38

    interesting post. I hope you continue writing such informative articles

  15. Nelia permalink
    December 3, 2011 3:38

    Hi! Nice blog. I’m just curious. Why Objectivism?

  16. April 24, 2012 3:38

    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

  17. July 22, 2013 3:38

    Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad
    and tested to see if it can survive a twenty five foot drop, just so she can be a
    youtube sensation. My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views.

    I know this is totally off topic but I had to share it with someone!

Trackbacks

  1. Defend capitalism “to live and survive in a society…” « EXODIANS
  2. The pseudoscience and pseudo-intellectual Fililipino Freethinkers, their trolls and sockpuppets « aristogeek

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 244 other followers

%d bloggers like this: