Skip to content

Filipino Free-farters: The New Mystics

March 26, 2010

The Free-farters are deceptively hiding behind the guise of reason, and that their group—a mélange of various collectivist “isms” tossed into a single anti-concept: Freethinkers (which has no objective, specific meaning at all)—is simply a socialist/communist caucus masquerading as an ardent defender of freedom and man’s rights.

There is a neo-mystic  group that tries to display a pathetic veneer of rationality and sense of motive when in truth and in

    A forum of, by, and for the New Mystics...

A forum of, by, and for the New Mystics...

reality, it is a great enemy of reason and individual liberty. The strategy it employs is no longer unfamiliar to us since its proponents and followers are merely imitating the statist schemes of their collectivist/altruist intellectual and philosophical ancestors.

This loud, skeptic collective—the Filipino Freethinkers, which deserves the moniker “Free-farters”—declares that it is engaged in the promotion of reason, science, and freedom. Its liberal, welfare-statist creator and its radical fanatics, came up with a crude understanding of reason as if it stands side-by-side with science, or perhaps even math.

Filipino Free-farters: enemy of reason

The psycho-epistemology of the Free-farters is revealed by its eccentric, sophomoric appreciation of reason: “When you try to use reason and science to reach your own conclusion about something, you are freethinking.” (emphasis not mine)

History tells us that the intellectual and philosophical predecessors of the Free-farters also used the power of language to destroy man’s mind. For example, Immanuel Kant, the man who shut the door of philosophy to reason, waged a philosophical war on man’s mind, not by destroying reason but by distorting, negating its concept. By dividing the universe into two—phenomenal world, which is not real, and the noumenal world, which is the ‘real’ reality yet unknowable—Kant declared that man’s mind is impotent.

However, it may be true that some, if not most, of the Free-farters do not believe in philosophy, but they cannot escape the fact that every single person holds a certain philosophy or belief system. They might say consciously that philosophy is impractical or nonexistent, but the very fact that they are espousing a mongrel idea proves that they hold a certain form of reasoning. When an individual says, “I can’t prove it, but I feel that it’s true,” he is actually echoing the idea of Kant.

When the Free-farters proclaim they are for reason, logic, and man’s freedom, they are merely echoing that Orwellian credo: “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

On the other hand, the man who shut the door of freedom to reason is Karl Marx, who pulled an impractical joke on humanity by contriving an idea that distorted the true essence of freedom, liberty, equality, and justice. Karl Marx, who is the intellectual ancestor of most unthinking, careless atheists of today, held that man cannot take care of himself, thus he needs the omnipotent and ever benevolent guidance and presence of a higher being, which is the state. If the religionists believed that the source of all wealth and welfare is an unknowable deity or a supernatural being they call God, the new breed of atheists hold that the sole provider of man’s needs is the society or the state by means of limiting or abrogating of private property and of redistributing wealth.

Filipino Free-farters as a socialist/statist collective

If Kant waged a continued war on man’s mind by perverting reason and if Marx sought to destroy the “hero” in man, the Free-farters intend to invade man’s consciousness by hiding behind the guise of reason, science, and freedom. This neo-mystic bloc has not really made its clear, consistent advocacy except the fact that it banners a nice-to-hear bumper sticker.

Like any other careless soul the Free-farters simply jumped on the atheistic bandwagon, which is being led by a global atheistic caucus that has recently gained worldwide popularity and following and earned the moniker “New Atheists.” It is no secret anymore that the New Atheists have launched a godless movement to counter the continued spread of religions across the world. If the more than one billion Catholics have Pope Benedict XVI and the Muslims have Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, the New Atheists have Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens as the high priests of the global secular cult.

Then there came this groundless, outré Free-farters’ movement in the Philippines, which banners the tagline—the “fellowship of so-called freethinking Filipinos, composed of atheists, agnostics, deists, humanists, and liberal theists.”

To justify its existence this neo-mystic collective adopted the word “freethought” as its guiding spirit or philosophy. If “freethought” is what they call philosophical perspective, freethinking is its process or tool, which the Free-farters should and ought to apply in order to be a rational human being. And they have also embraced the Wikipedia definition of “freethought” which is as follows:

“Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.” (copied verbatim)

This lexicographic scheme would have been justified had they offered a specific, objective and non-arbitrary meaning of “freethought” as a philosophy and of “freethinking” as its tool. Anyone who clearly understands the true concept of reason could easily root out the fatal flaw of this so-called philosophical term (freethought). If it is indeed a “philosophical viewpoint,” as what the creator of this Wikipedia definition claims, what then is its metaphysical and epistemological base? How does this philosophical perspective explain the principles of reality and the universe as a whole? How many truths does it hold? What is its theory of knowledge— how do we know we know and how is knowledge acquired?

Since no one in this collective is able to explain these concepts, it is then safe to assume that Freethinking or freethought are merely a newspeak designed to pull another sick joke on the unthinking, skeptic mankind.

They say action speaks louder than words. Anyone who took a fleeting tour of the group’s website would be able to draw a conclusion that the Free-farters are engaged not in the promotion of reason, science and freedom, but in a new kind of religious battle against the religionists. They declare that the religionists are all “irrational” for holding a supernatural belief that cannot be proved by any physical, actual evidence. It is true that most religionists today who radically act on faith are irrational. By being so obsessed with their religion and God, some hard-core religionists make it their godly, altruistic duty to impose their beliefs on other people by any means possible, not by persuasion but by force.

Free-farters could be worse than the religionists

However, the Free-farters, who are mostly welfare-statists and liberals, commit the same mistake as the religionists. First, they collectively hold the belief that man is the means to the ends of others. What is clear is that they consciously or unconsciously embrace the morality of altruism. This code of morality means that man is a sacrificial animal and that for man to be moral, he must put the interest of others above his own. Second, the Free-farters are welfare-statists, and this is proved by their collective, irrational and impractical defense of the Reproductive Health bill authored by some socialist lawmakers in Congress.

No, these worshipers of New Atheism are not advocates of reason, logic and freedom, but of welfare-statism and collectivism. Their concerted, strong and seemingly immutable advocacy of the RH bill reveals the disturbing psycho-epistemology of the Free-farters: that they promote anti-capitalism, collectivism, welfare-statism, things that would all lead to dictatorship. But yes, the Free-farters are deceptively hiding behind the guise of reason, and that their group— a mélange of various collectivist “isms” tossed into a single anti-concept: Freethinkers (which has no objective, specific meaning at all)—is simply a socialist/communist caucus masquerading as an ardent defender of freedom and man’s rights.

Whether they know it or not, their ugly scheme is clear and unequivocal—they are simply employing a semantic strategy in order to appear rational and sensible in the public eye—and that their purpose is not the alleged preservation of freedom and of the rights of men in this country, but the destruction of these same ideals, which they allegedly claim to protect, by calling for more government roles, controls and intervention in the name of such pro-poor mantras as “common good,” “public welfare,” “social justice,” “egalitarianism,” “democracy,” and “greater good.”

Anyone who is not perceptive or inquisitive enough might feel that these welfarist incantations are for the good of men and for the promotion of freedom and rights. But if one were patient and conscientious enough to look at the history of mankind, he would be able to understand that all great crises and devastations were caused by these collectivist slogans and mantras concocted and presented by the mystics of spirit (Kant, Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Plato, Friedrich, Nietzsche, Marx, among others) and the mystics of muscle (Attila, the Egyptian pharaohs, the Caesars of Rome, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Lenin, Istalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc.) under the premise than man is the means to the ends of others, or a sacrificial animal.

Free-farters’ use of Orwellian tactic

When the Free-farters proclaim they are for reason, logic, and man’s freedom, they are merely echoing that Orwellian credo: “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

Most of the Free-farters also claim that science is everything or an end in itself, and anyone who read their blog articles and statements that contain contradicting platitudes and equivocations might even assume that to them, science is superior to reason, as what the global New Atheists try to imply.

To know whether this assumption is true, it is important to get the objective, exact definition of the word “science.”  Science is defined as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

This definition reveals that science is simply the by-product of the application of reason, which is man’s only means of grasping reality and of obtaining knowledge. The various branches of science, such as aerodynamics, anatomy, astronomy, biology, chemistry, computer science, geology, mathematics, physics, taxonomy, etc., are all the direct, logical, and actual consequences of man’s centuries of application of science and logic.

History tells us that drastic scientific and technological innovation and development occurred during the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason, when the early scientists, under the guidance of the philosophy of Aristotle who offered a solution to the problem of universals, declared a silent, suppressed battle against the Vatican mysticism by discovering the hidden secrets of the universe unknown to man for thousands of years.

It is the application of reason—the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses—that led to the discovery of practical concepts and ideas, as well as the material things required for the survival of man. Man discovered mathematics thousands of years ago for his daily practical survival. One plus one equals two simply means there is only one reality—that the same problem (1 plus 1) would always yield the same answer (2) in any given time, space or place. Man soon found out that mathematics could play an integral role in countering the forces of nature, thus the discovery of the science of engineering.

The first man who thought that he had to save an adequate amount of food and supplies in order to survive during tough times introduced the early concept of economics. Reason postulates that the only source of knowledge and wealth is man’s mind. This is the reason why in the area of politics, the best and only product of reason pertaining to the survival of man is the system of Capitalism.

Filipino Free-farters anti-capitalistic mentality

For those who know the true concept of capitalism, they understand that this system is the very corollary of the Aristotelian Law of Identity (A is A), which means that contradiction cannot exist. The system of capitalism, which is defiled and hated by the Free-farters, holds that man cannot go against his nature. Man’s nature requires that he is and ought to live as a human being, that he is an end in himself and not the means to the ends of others—that in order to survive he must embrace reason. The man who understands this basic principle knows that he has to embrace the right social system in order to sustain the fundamental requirements of his life: the rights to his own life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, which are all guaranteed under the system of Capitalism. Thus, a rational man is a man of self-esteem who holds self-interest as his code of ethics.

But these are the things and concepts that have been rejected and ignored by the Free-farters. Some of them fanatically believe that these basic principles are merely relative and do not correspond to reality, as they are not backed by science and math.

When the New Atheists like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens declared that there is no God, did they ever use scientific principles and mathematical instruments to prove their conclusion? No! They simply argued no one is called upon to prove a negative. In fact Dawkins himself said that truth is and ought to be scientific, which means it must correspond to reality.

In one encounter in regard to the infamous RH bill which I strongly opposed, a fanatical Free-farter, who passionately supports this socialist legislative proposal, claimed that a particular argument, to be valid must be “based on facts, math, observations or experimentation.” This free-farter, who is a self-confessed altruist, a dogmatic relativist and pragmatist, failed or refused to understand that the RH bill is a moral issue, not an academic matter, which would have required the application of scientific principles, mathematical instruments and statistical expressions. He also failed to understand that when logic is employed, scientific facts, mathematical data, and statistics are merely secondary. They are merely employed to back a certain premise.

Under the universally accepted legal doctrine “he who alleges must prove,” this misguided Free-farter should be the one to present a logical argument in favor of the RH bill based on what he calls “facts, math, observations or experimentation.” One must understand that this legislative issue can only be judged as follows: is it moral or immoral to use government force to manage population? Every issue is either moral or immoral, good or bad, practical or impractical—and this is a scientific fact.

Free-farters’ pure ignorance

What makes the Free-farters’ group dangerous to our nation, freedom and future is its dogmatic relativism. Some, if not most of them, hold that there are no such things as absolute. They rebuke the idea of absolutism as dogmatic and impractical as if their line of reasoning is not, when in fact reality itself is absolute. Whether they live or not is an absolute. And what is more ironic is when they chatter, “there are no absolutes,” they are simply proving the fact that they are uttering an absolute.

It is no surprise that some, if not most, of the Free-farters choose to blank out their minds in a drunken stupor and shout that ideas do not matter and “cannot be proven.” The implication of this statement is that only science can be proven (which is true but incomplete) and that reality is not even percepts but words. Again what is more ironic is the fact that their claim to promote reason, science and freedom negates their dogmatic, eccentric position that “ideas cannot be proven.” Logic tells us that when ideas cannot be proven, then what’s the purpose of uttering even a single word or spreading a single idea?

Do they even think that science, which contains an unlimited amount of ideas and concepts, is not absolute? Are the laws of gravity and thermodynamics not absolute? Is the law of nature not absolute? Any person who says, “nothing is absolute” is simply admitting the fact that he is irrational and that his mind is impotent. He is merely admitting that reality is relative and that its fidelity depends upon one’s consciousness. Reality is independent of man’s mind, consciousness, whims, or caprices.

Any person who holds a relativist, skeptic view of reality (that its fidelity or the concept of truth depends upon one’s consciousness) subconsciously holds that his mind is incapable of knowing the truth unless there is a collective caucus that would prove its fidelity or reliability (e.i. surveys, statistics, the agreement of a scientific bloc, etc.) A person who holds this skeptic view would naturally embrace altruism or “otherism” as his code of morality since he simply believes he is an integral part of a society and that man is here on earth as a social animal who must look after the interest of others. Unfortunately, this is the philosophical view and line of reasoning of most of the Free-farters. Indeed, the Free-farters somehow hold, albeit subconsciously (or even consciously) that men are a collection of atoms to be immolated and sacrificed for what they regard as the “common good,” “public welfare,” or “greater good.”

If there’s one thing that is non-absolute about the Free-farters, it’s their satirical, deceptive claim that they promote reason, science and freedom in this country. Again, the Free-farters are never an advocate of reason. But yes, their existence, which is the negation of all their idealistic advocacy, is a big, big joke.

Articles on the Filipino Free-farters:

On how and why they distort the concept of reason: Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason

What is their morality or code of ethics: Freethinkers or Free-farters?

On their being state-welfarists: Why the Filipino Free-FARTERS Would Love Universal Health Care?

On their IRRATIONALITY and pragmatism: Of Utter Dishonesty and Misrepresentations

On how they formed a cult of anti-reason: The Psychology of the Anti-Population Cult

16 Comments leave one →
  1. March 27, 2010 3:38

    Good job Vincent! I like it the way you explain.

    • March 27, 2010 3:38

      Thanks, Mr. Patagnan.

  2. March 27, 2010 3:38

    “What makes the Free-farters’ group dangerous to our nation, freedom and future is its dogmatic relativism. Some, if not most of them, hold that there are no such things as absolute. They rebuke the idea of absolutism as dogmatic and impractical as if their line of reasoning is not, when in fact reality itself is absolute. Whether they live or not is an absolute. And what is more ironic is when they chatter, “there are no absolutes,” they are simply proving the fact that they are uttering an absolute.”

    This is spot on. Great read.

    • March 29, 2010 3:38

      I’m part of the Filipino Free-farters and our group sucks! We believe that existence does not existence, ergo all, including my panty, is NONEXISTENT… all I know is spamming and spamming and spamming this site because I just hate anyone who attempts to expose the Filipino Freethinkers’ evil, anti-reason agenda. That’s all we know, HATE, HATE and HATE. It’s who we are… Yeah, we are a group of evil, nazistic Free-farters who’s got nothing but flatulence!

  3. Malayang Isip permalink
    March 29, 2010 3:38

    Freethinkers are not enemies of reason nor of religion. For reasons nor religion cannot make or unmake enemies. Thoughts or ideas can be falsified or affirmed but you can’t argue with the idea itself nor with the belief itself. You articulate yourself with the end motive of falsifying a theorem or affirming a philosophical idea but at the end of the day, the same sets of theorems and ideas remains as it is. Completely open to criticisms and continuing testings and falsifications.

    Your post is a perfect display of attacking the person rather than the ideals of the person. A negative point if you’ll ask me. Why? It’s because I do believe that an attack to the person rather than the ideals is a clear sign of your failure to empirically disprove the evidences that lays claim to the truth about the idea. Thus, your above rant on the freethinking populace betrays your lack of capability to reason with us freethinkers in a rather rational manner using proof, evidences and empirical data gathered from years of investigative experimentations.

    Again, attack the idea and not the person. For an idea can only be falsified or affirmed while a person’s honor and dignity can be destroyed beyong repair.

    • March 29, 2010 3:38

      The only possible answer is this:

      “The Free-farters are deceptively hiding behind the guise of reason, and that their group—a mélange of various collectivist “isms” tossed into a single anti-concept: Freethinkers (which has no objective, specific meaning at all)—is simply a socialist/communist caucus masquerading as an ardent defender of freedom and man’s rights.”

      • March 29, 2010 3:38

        I’M A FAGGOT FREE-FARTER! FILIPINO FREETHINKERS SUCKS!

  4. UtotBalatLumilipad permalink
    March 31, 2010 3:38

    Ang dami nyong alam. Sa dami-dami ng bagay na pwede mga ganitong philosophy related topics pa pinaguusapan.

    Mga putang ina nyo
    Kaputa putahan ng mga ina nyo
    Magsamasama kayo mga putang ina nyong tarantado kayo
    PAKING SHET!
    PAK YOU!
    MADER PAKER!

    Oh! wag nyong i-delete comment ko. Ang dami estdyante ng UP and other state universties ang pinaglalaban ang freedom of speech.

    Pero kahit KAGAGUHAN lang comment ko nirerespeto ko naman ang PUTANG INANG ideya nyo. Ipagpatuloy nyo lang yang PUTANG INANG GAWAIN nyo. GAWA NAMAN KAYO NG ARTICLE NA PWEDENG PAGDEBATIHAN. HALIMBAWA, WALANG KWENTA ANG MGA BABAE. YUNG MGA GANONG TIPO BA PARA MAGAWAY-AWAY NA ANG MGA “TAONG UTOT”

    • March 31, 2010 3:38

      Ok… Why should I delete the very PROOF of the IRRATIONALITY and DEVIANT BEHAVIOR OF THE FREE-FARTERS? I think that you just lost your mind…

  5. March 31, 2010 3:38

    Another side of the same subjectivist coin.

  6. April 2, 2010 3:38

    Good evening, Happy Fool’s Day!

    A newspaper was running a competition to discover the most high principled, sober, well-behaved citizen. Among the entries came one which read:
    “I don’t smoke, touch intoxicants or gamble. I am faithful to my wife and never look at another woman. I am hard working, quiet and obedient. I never go to the movies or the theater, and I go to bed early every night and rise with the dawn. I attend chapel regularly every Sunday without fail.
    “I’ve been like this for the past three years. But just wait until next spring, when they let me out of here!”

    Happy April Fool’s Day!

  7. Ron Parel permalink
    April 2, 2010 3:38

    I’m a freethinker myself, even before I realized it. I don’t believe in a god. I am not a member of any atheist group officially, although I register as a member on some of their websites. I find the literature very interesting, logical and intelligent. It goes with the way my mind is programmed to run. I base myself on reality so i don’t not believe in ancient beliefs and superstitions. I am totally free of any religious bullshit and it feels really good. You should try studying free-thinking, read on atheism. You’ll be surprised how stupid most people are, just like you.

    Also, your title here says “Filipino Free-farters: The New Mystics” shows total ignorance of what you’re talking about. Freethinkers are logical, reality-based thinking people. We don’t believe in any god. To us, it’s total bullshit. And you’re writing here is very bad and pretentious. You should try looking up a word before you use it. And if you need to lambast an idea or a concept which is quite radical or new to what you’ve been exposed to since you were a child, you had better make a thorough research on the material before you even attempt to write about it.

    • April 2, 2010 3:38

      This is for some BS, lazy, presumptuous, troll commenters like you: The ‘God’ Revival.

  8. iskolar permalink
    November 18, 2011 3:38

    Why do you have to call them free-farters? I know they often like to mock and look down on us, people who subscribe to a religion. Yes, it is insulting but why can’t we learn to take the higher road and take their jeers with grace? No need for name-calling and so much hate. I agree with a previous comment, attack their ideals if you will, but not the people.

    While I do not agree with the things the “Free-thinkers” say/believe, I respect them because I know they are seeking the truth (I’d use a capital T for that, but they might get mad hahaha). And they, in that sense, trump the religious who follow blindly any day. Lets just pray for them, that their reason eventually leads them to the truth. And let us learn from them, that it isn’t enough to take in everything we hear/read. Lets not settle for “ganun eh”, and lets actually know our doctrine.🙂

    It’s people like them–people who ask questions–that strengthen my faith in the Church.

  9. Nagiisip na Pilipino permalink
    May 21, 2012 3:38

    “What makes the Free-farters’ group dangerous to our nation, freedom and future is its dogmatic relativism. Some, if not most of them, hold that there are no such things as absolute. They rebuke the idea of absolutism as dogmatic and impractical as if their line of reasoning is not, when in fact reality itself is absolute. Whether they live or not is an absolute. And what is more ironic is when they chatter, “there are no absolutes,” they are simply proving the fact that they are uttering an absolute.”

    Tell me how did reality became an absolute truth? The idea of there is no absolute is not absolute but a relative. In order for the idea to exist there should be a thinking mind that could create such an idea, therefore it could not exist on its own but relies on the thinking individual to exist therefore it is not an absolute. For me, It is the same with reality. I hope you could comment here logically since you’ve replied with hate and without clarification to a structured and logical response.

Trackbacks

  1. Filipino Free-farters: The New Mystics | VINCENTON

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

%d bloggers like this: