Skip to content

When YELLOW is the New RED: Filipinos Protest Versus Aquino Regime’s E-Martial Law

October 2, 2012

No, it’s not just Sen. Sotto’s or President Noynoy Aquino’s fault. It’s not just the fault of our ‘public servants’ in the Senate who voted in favor of the Orwellian, totalitarian Cybercrime law that limits people’s freedom of expression and Internet freedom and violates their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process, equal protection of the law and privacy.

It’s the our fault. As Rome’s great statesman and political theorist Mārcus Tullius Cicerō once said:

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions and laughed delightedly at his licentiousness and thought it very superior of him to acquire vast amounts of gold illicitly. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.” 

We are what we build. It’s us- the people- who shaped our society in our own image. If our Constitution allows our politicians to pass laws that legalize ‘plunder’ in the name of the poor and the least advantaged, then why can’t the same do-gooder politicians pass new totalitarian laws in the name of people’s security and the greater good? 

We have long been warned by the great thinkers and intellectuals of the olden world about the many perils of big government– or a government that knows what is best for the people. French political philosopher Frédéric Bastiat told us about how big government can commit injustice,which people may or may not support: “Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.”

Indeed, if the government can legally force certain sectors, namely, businessmen, healthcare providers and other industries, to provide certain goods and services for the people, then why can’t it enact new political or economic measures that limit some of our freedoms and force us to do certain things in the name of public good and welfare?

In the Philippines, Yellow is the new RED. Now we see a number of ‘intellectuals’ and political pundits joining the outraged public to protest the Aquino regime’s Cybercrime Law. Yet most of these public intellectuals strongly support a proposed measure that seeks to force employers and doctors to violate their free will and freedom of conscience. Yes, they support a totalitarian measure– the Reproductive Health bill– that seeks to help the country’s poor and women by violating the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of other social sectors.

One of these intellectuals is Fr. Joaquin Bernas who was ironically a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission which drafted the New Charter. In his Oct. 1 Inquirer column titled “What’s frightening about the cybercrime law”, Bernas informed his readers about the supposed evil of fascism and Nazism.

This former Ateneo De Manila University president said he read a book titled “Winter of the World.” He said:

The first few chapters are about the gradual rise of fascism and Nazism amidst an unsuspecting world lulled by the idea that the government knows what is best for the people. Meanwhile, within our midst there is a debate going on about how to teach the facts and the lessons of martial law in schools. I find this to be an opportune moment to talk about the new cybercrime law or Republic Act 10175 to see what shades of Nazism, fascism and martial rule it might contain.”

I say, poor Bernas he doesn’t even know that the RH bill he supports is also fascistic. Perhaps he thinks that only obvious, direct arbitrary laws that restrict free speech can be fascistic or ‘nazistic’. Fascism and Nazism are about Nanny Statism or Big Government that is ‘there to help’. As the book that he read suggests, both ‘isms’ are about “the idea that the government knows what is best for the people”.

It’s very ironic that we now see a lot of RH bill supporters denouncing the Cybercrime law as a ‘totalitarian’ political measure. It’s all about e-Martial rule, they say. Perhaps they naively think that only measures that restrict or violate people’s freedom of expression can be considered ‘totalitarian’ or ‘fascistic’, but not political measures that seek to help the poor by sacrificing or immolating some members of our failing society.

Someone on Facebook told me that not all Filipino Freethinkers (who actually strongly support the RH bill) are ‘freefarters’ simply because they denounce the Cybercrime law. Here’s my reply to this Facebooker:

They are! And their anti-Cybercrime post simply proves their idiocy and failure to understand the true concept of freedom.

First, they’re simply singling out Sotto. The truth is, PNoy happily signed that law. PNoy really wants more political power. For instance, it was the president who suggested the re-insertion of the provision on “malicious disinformation” in the RH bill. Fortunately, it was again taken down by the bill’s proponents in Congress. But why did these tongressmen propose it in the first place?

Second, the Cybercrime law is as disastrous and dangerous as the RH bill. The freefarters are now howling because of their ‘perception’ that the new law is against free speech. But they were willing to surrender the same right by supporting the RH bill, which they strongly backed long before the provision on ‘malicious disinformation’ was deleted. See the utterly disgusting cognitive dissonance there?

The RH bill, on the other hand, seeks to put the entire medical industry and the private sector under a higher degree of state control. Well, since the freefarters are all left-leaning and ignoramuses, they’re willing to sacrifice the private sector and to enslave doctors and healthcare providers just to help the poor and the least advantaged through the use of coercive laws.

Well, even hardcore leftists and left-leaning individuals know the value of free speech. Defending free speech is the easiest thing to do, but defending the rights of employers and professional healthcare providers against institutionalized slavery is not.

It is very easy to understand the effect of an anti-free speech law on people’s rights and freedom, while it is very hard to grasp the impact of a bill that seeks to help the poor through redistribution of wealth and institutionalized slavery on the economy and future of a nation. Why? Because the latter is more than an economic issue. It is a philosophical issue, and I don’t think the freefarters have enough brain cells to understand a highly complicated political issue…

I have no problem joining these new enemies of rights and freedom in the fight against a ‘new form’ of totalitarianism. Like Bastiat said, people naturally oppose unjust laws of which they are victims. This merely proves that man cannot be consistently evil or irrational.

In my humble opinion, we have these types of ‘evil’ laws because of some people’s notion that freedom is dangerous to society. To these people, the ‘right’ to criticize’ or to offend must be limited to protect society’s greater good. This is the reason why so many Filipinos support the idea that the government must promote ‘responsible speech’ and discourage ‘hate speech’ or ‘irresponsible’ utterances or ‘behavior. In the minds of these Filipinos and our politicians who pushed for the Cybercrime law, freedom is society’s enemy that must be abridged or curtailed.

In fact these people embody what I call ‘Sottonist” (from the name of Sen. Tito Sotto) view or mentality: ““Once the Cybercrime bill is enacted into law, they (bloggers and netizens) would be responsible for what they say and write.”

Indeed, their goal is to legislate morality, that is, to shape or misshape people’s mentality and value judgment according to their whims, caprices or prejudices.

As George Orwell once said: “Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.” Orwell observed that the literary censorship and muzzling of free speech in England was “largely voluntary”, because the elite (e.g., the British press and intellectuals) were unwilling or afraid to challenge “the prevailing orthodoxy”.

If there were ‘useful idiots’ in England and in the Western world, there are also brown-skinned useful idiots in this country.


This is why YELLOW is the new RED...

This is why YELLOW is the new RED…

The president's father was a RADICAL MARXIST!

The president’s father was a RADICAL MARXIST!


Oversensitive Sotto is Dangerous to Our Rights and Freedom!

In Defense of Absolute Rights and Free Speech Against Absolute Ignorance

Will the Aquino Regime Take This Blogpost Down?

Sen. Guingona III a Libertarian?


18 Comments leave one →
  1. Simon Raval permalink
    October 3, 2012 3:38

    The law takes effect today. So the witch hunt begins.

  2. 2112 permalink
    October 3, 2012 3:38

    My suspicion is this cybercrime law, which all of a sudden came out of nowhere ready-made, is the precursor of a similar law that’s already “in the works” in the United States. Maybe this is a feeler law to see the reaction it elicits. The Philippines is like a petri dish to grow new authoritarian ideas that they plan to apply to the USA. Our present satrapcy is probably afraid he might end up like dad so he’s got to toe the American way or end up like JFK. We’ve always been a protoype for social engineering/mind conditioning by the States; we’re their lab rats for predictive programming.

    Stated in another way by Thomas Jefferson, posted above: When law becomes injustice, rebellion becomes duty.

    I see people, whom I suspect to be Marxist-Socialist in conditioning, now marching with masking tape on their orofices to signify their protest to the law. I think these protesters don’t want you to think the way you do, but you are free to think the way they do. These seculars are humorously fanatical and cultlike. They’re funny. That is,until the time they probably want you to drink the Koolaid.

    Maybe they should read snippets of Thoreau. Then tell me about it. I’m too lazy to read his books.

    This place of yours is cool. It makes me feel smart reading it.

    • October 3, 2012 3:38

      Actually, a Forbes writer said our law makes SOPA and PIPA look reasonable. I agree.

  3. 2112 permalink
    October 3, 2012 3:38

    I forgot, These people remind me of Pussy Riot. Hehe.

  4. GabbyD permalink
    October 4, 2012 3:38

    Off topic question.

    is it true that ayn rands philosophy rests on the nature of man which can be described by:

    ““one must begin by identifying man’s nature, i.e., those essential characteristics which distinguish him from all other living species.” She identifies two: a brain evolved for rational thought and a survival instinct based on the desire for personal freedom.”

    that these two characteristics define man’s nature?

    • October 4, 2012 3:38

      “She identifies two: a brain evolved for rational thought and a survival instinct based on the desire for personal freedom.””

      — LOL! That’s my response.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 4, 2012 3:38

        so, if that is wrong, what is right then? what did she say?

      • October 4, 2012 3:38

        It seems that you know what you’re talking about. I don’t think you want to know the answer. But first, I’d like to know where you got this: “She identifies two: a brain evolved for rational thought and a survival instinct based on the desire for personal freedom.””

        Any particular quotation that supports it?

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 4, 2012 3:38

        google it. together with

        its their article. i’m merely consulting you — an expert on rand — whether his premise is correct.

      • October 4, 2012 3:38

        If you wanna know more about her, read her works.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 4, 2012 3:38

        so clearly its wrong. but why? isnt there a simple 5 sentence answer for this?

        where can i read more about her position on human nature?

      • October 4, 2012 3:38

        Help yourself. Know you… knowing your dishonesty, laziness and stupidity, I don’t think it’s metaphysically possible to deal with you.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 4, 2012 3:38

        when have i been dishonest?

        here i am, asking a simple question about a topic you know much about.

        i would think that its easy to at least mention a chapter in a book somewhere. but its not?

        i thought u were interested in debunking wrong ideas about rand? you are weird man…

      • October 4, 2012 3:38

        LOL! Like I said, it is impossible to deal with stupid, lazy and dishonest people like YOU. How can one debunk stupid ideas held by stupid people? That’d be like proselytizing a religious fanatic who’s ready to die and kill for his dogma. I’d just let them embrace their stupidity.

      • October 4, 2012 3:38

        Haha! Natawa ako dito. Pati ba naman dito kalat ang pagiging hobbyist mo, GabbyD.

        To the blogger, GabbyD is sometimes called a hobbyist. It’s just his hobby to comment on blogs. Others call him internet troll. So bear with him.

        GabbyD is all over the net hehe. Nasa antipinoy siya. Sa GRP. Sa Filipino Voices and many other blogsites. In short, kilala siya bilang isang troll at online hobbyist hehe.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 4, 2012 3:38

        its not my idea. its the guy from

        so no counter argument? wala lang, basta its just “stupid”?

  5. 2112 permalink
    October 4, 2012 3:38

    I also see unwitting gatekeepers. They’re behaving usefully for the government they seem to oppose. Nagiging controlled oppostion sila. Wala naman nagagawa ang mga symbolic protest na yan. The Government Monopoly will just ignore these protests.

    Ang true protest stay at home shut down everything, do nothing? Then multipy it by it by a million or so? That is direct action, don’t you agree?

    Oops. Cybercrime law is in effect nga pala. Ideas like civil disobedience are dangerous to governments. They will do whatever they can to perpetuate themselves. Ignoring the state is something the government does not want us to do.


  1. On Cybercrime Law: How They Pretend to Protect ‘Little’ Pinoys to Take Away Your Freedom « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: