The Duterte troll ‘destabilization’ nonsense


Troll camp [Original photo source:]

By Joe America

The Duterte trolls are engaged in an institutionalized attack on our thinking.

They take advantage of the fact that objective truth is something all of us have a hard time getting to because of the filters we use that warp our knowledge.

  • We tend to stick with our biases instead of welcoming new information that proves them wrong.
  • What our friends think is more important to us than objective truth (defending the tribe; see ‘must read’ article on ‘why facts don’t change our minds’ in the right column)
  • We argue with emotions rather than reason.

This applies to EVERYONE. You, me, the trolls . . . everyone. For example, my own objective truth is penalized because I don’t follow Mocha Uson. I rely on Twitter to pass along what she says, and that information comes through a Yellow filter because I mainly follow people on Twitter who believe in the principles of democracy and human rights. So if Mocha Uson were ever to say something important, it would not be in my knowledge bank.

I set up these filters to stay strong in my belief that democratic principles are better than tyrannical principles.  For sure, a lot of people live well under tyranny. But my mindset for the most part has placed a block on that idea.

The Duterte trolls are using this kind of vulnerability by plying on people’s weaknesses (emotionalism) and biases (wrong ideas). They are re-defining Filipino values by promoting ‘like-speak’ and ‘like-think’ with the goal of capturing the loyalty of the ignorant masses. Ignorant means lacking knowledge, in this context, and is not pejorative. It does not mean dumb.

Case in point. The latest theme emerging from the trolls is that people who are opposed to President Duterte are engaged in a sinister “destabilization” effort. The trolls are painting opponents as unpatriotic, as rebels, as bad guys.

But let’s think about what stability means, in the context of the nation’s activities. The rules for stability are set forth in the Constitution. They are clear and plain and represent an agreement put in place after a great deal of debate by smart, knowledgeable people . . . and due process.

It was President Duterte who ran on a destabilization platform of “change”, proposing to tear down the established order. It is his government that has promoted abuses of human rights, killed people and stolen their right to judicial finding, and turned a blind eye to the Constitution. This does not represent a new national charter, something that we are obligated to sign on to. It is merely one person’s political agenda, and it will remain that until the Constitution is changed.

Those who oppose these violations of the Constitutional mandate are actually seeking to RE-STABILIZE the nation around the agreed principles of proper national behavior. They are not destabilizing anything.

So the whole “destabilization” argument is patently propaganda. It is nonsense. The values set forth in the Constitution represent a form of objective national anchor that was put in place to keep the Philippines strong and dignified.

The trolls work against the Constitution. They set Filipino against Filipino. They undermine Filipino dignity.

They are the destabilization experts as they ply on the ignorance and emotions of the masses.

The Philippines can be strong only if its citizens recognize that the Constitution is the best hope for all of us, and the REAL destabilizers are those who degrade the Constitution, and who do this by bullshitting citizens and playing them for fools.


74 Responses to “The Duterte troll ‘destabilization’ nonsense”
  1. karlgarcia says:

    I too filter my readings, but I don’t know if it is a balancing act to read views I disagree with, I read Manila Times even if I don’t like what I see, I lurk on Getreal,ThinkingPinoy,etc. I never tried the Mocha flavor, and Sassot. And I never had a twitter accouunt.

  2. karlgarcia says:

    Before This 2016 campaign period, I thought that reading MRP for years, would make it chicken feed to read troll commentary, but boy was I very wrong.

  3. Loved this statement: The Philippines can be strong only if its citizens recognize that the Constitution is the best hope for all of us, and the REAL destabilizers are those who degrade the Constitution, and who do this by bullshitting citizens and playing them for fools.

    Used to be that before the fb and twitter filtering the voices were more evenly heard.
    FB being FB and mostly being for itself created more intense echo chambers because engagement and near addictive use of FB meant money.

    I still don’t know how to go about using FB and not getting trapped in the echo chamber. The way it is setup means a lot of the conversations happen there but there should be a point where the echo chamber makes the conversations boring and non productive. I suspect we hit that point but no one is doing the disruption or trying to create better more balanced engagement.

    • Yes, the echo chamber is very real, and most of us belong to one unless we do as Karl does, step out of it to read what others think. The problem there is that we are inclined to let our biases rule, and object to that which we don’t like rather than understand where it is coming from . . .

      The key question is our personal morality, and the framework we use to build our biases and select echoes. Is it compassionate and thoughtful rather than mean and following the leader? I don’t think you need to worry about yours. You have superb principles.

  4. chemrock says:

    I try to read the other side’s point of views. I tried Mocha Uson’s FB and Sasot’s but they are in tagalog. I read Mocha’s column in Philstar. I go read some other pro Duterte blogs and websites. The problem is most of them expound utter rubbish that just make me go boinkers and spoil my day. Majority are point blank propaganda hero-worshipping, garbage in-garbage out types. Many are plan low and vulgar. Often times, truth and reality are staring them in the face but they simply do not want to engage it. I found myself saying surely Filipinos are made of better materials than these. Soon I realised these are people pushing their own agendas so it’s an utter waste of time. I better go clip my finger nails and sweep the courtyard or feed the stray cats.

    For me it’s not my filter. It’s not opposing views that I hate. It’s manufactured lies, incredulous unthinking minds, and personal agendas that I hate. I welcome opposing views that’s intelligently argued, that makes me stop to ponder, and forces me to do some further research to re-establish my position on an issue.

    • karlgarcia says:

      Corect, opposing views are fine, but Nonsense is nonsense.

    • Nick Marcelo says:

      Mocha Uson and Sass Rogano Sassot is what I call as CyberTerrorists, they support the killing of their fellow Filipinos, the harassment of the opposition, and the desecration of Filipino ideals and values. As a citizen of the Republic, it is our patriotic to preserve the Spirit of the EDSA Revolution by rallying the people to rise up against an oppressive and dictatorial regime. Just like our late former president, Corazon Aquino, and Senators de Lima and Trillanes.

      • Although understanding where you are coming from, I have to caution you not to use this blog as a forum for urging people to uprising. This is a discussion forum and not an advocacy. Advocacy here becomes much like spam, people using the blog’s circulation base to push their product.

        • Nick Marcelo says:

          I understand but, It is our duty as journalists and bloggers to speak the truth, create positive change, and influence the public to do what is right for our society!

        • Nick Marcelo says:

          All of us share a common trait; we despise the Duterte regime; we will do anything to expose his regime’s evil agenda and tarnish his cult of personality.

          • No, you only represent you. For now, you will be placed in moderation until you grasp the purpose and editorial standards of the blog. You can work your advocacy in sites better suited to it, but not here.

            • Nick Marcelo says:

              What do you mean? Isn’t this the message you are trying to tell your readers?

              • No, the blog has no advocacy. It is open discussion, welcoming all views and a lot of different subjects. People who participate have been around a while and understand that, as a foreigner, I cannot allow my blog to become an advocacy against the Philippines, however one defines that. On the other hand, we all have our values, our opinions, and our histories and are free to impart what knowledge and insights as we may. There is absolutely no group agenda. This is not a “yellow” blog, or white, or red, or purple. It is a place where people can talk civilly about things. Teach. Learn. But don’t promote your solutions as if they were the only ones. Leave room for different views.

              • As I reflect further on the subject, I recognize that I have lost patience with what I consider modern, emotionalized social media posturing, on any topic. Which is odd, because on twitter and facebook, I can emote along with the best of them, but my harsher words are left for dignitaries, and not the people who visit my page or respond with comments. Your remarks are what I would call typical of the social media dialogue today, and it does not teach much, it just incites. Facebook is a good place for that, but not here. Here, you should teach, or learn, and not just rally and rant.

              • Nick Marcelo says:

                Then what is the purpose of your articles is it to demonize those who support duterte? Or just satire?

                If Im not mistaken, many who read your articles may have the same thought process that I have, but is afraid of showing it. I would like to say that they should channel their anger and hate upon reading this article and take actions to restore democracy and eradicate the government paid trolls like Mocha Uson, ThinkingPinoy, and others.

              • The articles promote discussion about the Philippines and what is transpiring with sights on building a well-functioning, ‘better’, Philippines. Because most people bring to the blog western ideals, that tends to shape observations and the ‘morality’ of the blog and discussion. If a Duterte backer wrote here civilly, that commentary would be welcomed. If you read regularly, you will find the discussion reaches to understand those backers, not condemn them outright. How individual readers deal with the commentary is up to them. I personally don’t want to ‘eradicate’ Mocha Usun, I just don’t think propaganda ought to be a State function, so she ought not be employed by the State. If more people believed that, she would not be employed by the State. If someone wrote to explain how her role helped the Philippines, that commentary would be welcomed. Indeed, if I were a university professor and you were in my class, I’d ask you to write a defense of Mocha Uson.

              • Here is a paragraph from the ‘Policy and Terms’ of the blog:

                Nothing in this blog should be taken as a truth. The articles are rife with satire, exaggeration and opinion compiled to produce certain meanings, meanings intended to advance the well-being of the Philippines. Many expressions are intentionally provocative to work through the armor of reader complacency; no malice is intended. It is impossible for the publisher to distinguish fact from fiction for every phrase written. Therefore readers are advised that they are required to take NONE of the statements literally, as truth. The only truth is the meaning readers gather for themselves, based on their own history, conditions and intellect. The Society cannot be responsible for extracted meanings that diverge from intent, where the intent is the well-being of the Philippines.

  5. NHerrera says:

    Thanks for the blog topic. Timely and I believe a “call to commitment and action.”

    If one detaches himself from the PH universe one can see four groups outside of those whose poverty is such that they can only think and do what is needed for his family to physically survive:

    – those who for various reasons, laziness one of them, cannot be bothered about what is going on;

    – those trolls who are passionate for the Administration or Pro-Duterte who cannot be bothered by facts other than what they already have or feed to them;

    – those trolls equally passionate against the Administration that they too cannot be bothered with the issues or reasons why the Pro-Administration are so passionate about;

    – a fourth group, who are committed or passionate who tries — in various degrees — to read the products of the other groups; get more facts as grist for the mill of their thoughts; and most importantly have principles and values aligned with the Constitution which is the basic anchor of their thinking.

    It now behooves on all the young and adults with time on their hands — perhaps re-allocate a good amount from their FBing activities — to get into a commitment if not action that the country needs. Every minute of un-commitment is time lost forever. If one thinks the fourth group is also a troll, then so be it — be that kind of troll. At least it is the troll that cannot be labeled as nonsense.

    • NHerrera says:

      On the destabilization phantom in the minds of Duterte trolls — such as Andanar and Aguirre:

      * No destabilization actually but trumpeted as such to deflect or distract from the pushback that they feel is gathering steam;

      * Destabilization as the trolls label it because harsh but honest criticisms/ rallies are labeled as such.

      • Nick Marcelo says:

        There is a facebook page dedicated to shutting down pro-Duterte trolls called Resbak Operatives. Why not, insted of deleting their Facebook page, we delete the users so they would not create more fake accounts and spread lies?

  6. Sup says:

    For me personally i would have the comment sections in the Philippine online newspapers shut down for a while….It is so overloaded with trolls…:-(

    • edgar lores says:

      In some Oz newspapers, one has to register before being allowed to comment.

      Registering involves submitting a valid email name and address. When making a comment, a handle is acceptable.

      All comments are monitored. My impression is that comments go through a computer program that scans for keywords and then by a human moderator.

      Libel laws here in Oz are very strict. So the comments tend to be well-phrased, analytical, and witty.

      Conversely, the comment section in news and social media in the Philippines is a cesspool. Nevertheless, there are pearls.

      I think the major news media would do well to implement user registration and automatic and human moderation.

    • NHerrera says:

      What is funny if not insidious about many of these comments is that they are far from relevant on the subject of the article — insulting former Pnoy or, worse, Cory for example. Which seems to me that the troll is either coming from an organized troll group; or an old robot not programmed with the latest AI technology.

      • NHerrera says:

        Which brings home a point: while we are uncomfortable with the different types of trolls, what is important is that the different voices continue to see the light or be heard. The day only one type of troll is heard is the day we are “dead” — emotionally, spiritually, or otherwise. In short, we might as well be dead than to live the Orwellian World of Big Brother.

      • NHerrera says:

        While we are beating ourselves, it may be worthwhile to take a perspective. What is happening in the US of A is no less amazing.

        Trump fans stood by their man despite untruths—study

        Time for the world to get rid of this virus no less deadly than the VX nerve agent.

  7. josephivo says:

    We are social animals. Physical pain and social pain reside in adjacent overlapping parts of our brain, same for physical and social pleasure, they produce the same chemicals to interact with the rest of the body. People with larger groups of friends on Facebook have also a larger amygdala where emotions reside too.

    So a lot of behavior is searching for rewards. What side you are at is more determined by “chance” than by deep thoughts. Once belonging to group the search for oxytocin and dopamine rewards starts. Same as for supporters in a football game or churchgoers, the name of your team or religion is less unimportant.

    A lot of oxytocin addicts in the troll family. As for alcoholics, don’t feed them and evaluate so now and then your own consumption.

  8. edgar lores says:

    1. Touché.

    2. If there are alternative facts, there are also alternative realities. In the context of the Constitution, there are three realities:

    o The ideal reality — which is that the Constitution is mostly realized. I say mostly because the ideal reality will never be perfected.

    o The nascent reality – which is that the Constitution is beginning to be realized. This is the reality pre-Duterte.

    o And then there is the alternative reality – which is that the Constitution is being not only unrealized but being actively spurned. This is the Dutertian reality.

    3. to put it in existentialist terms, the nascent reality is Being, the ideal reality is Becoming, and the alternative reality is Alienation.

    4. The nation is divided between the nascent and alternative realities. And it mainly falls on the Judiciary to determine which reality becomes more real.

    4.1. Congress, too, is a strong determinant as it considers such issues as the Death Penalty, the confirmation of the presidential appointees, and its investigative hearings.

    4.2. But each individual citizen is also an arbiter, perhaps the final arbiter… in the final analysis.

    5. If it is agreed that the principles in the Constitution are the ideal norms, then it should be relatively easy — rationally — to figure out whether our solutions and biases are correct or incorrect.

    I say easy but only for men who question their biases and desire to cure their own ignorance.

  9. I just saw the movie “Arrival” , and it was really good. And IMHO relevant to this article.

    Similar to “Contact” and “Interstellar”—- about aliens, different dimensions, limits of human cognition, throw in some time travel, determinism with time travel and all that fun stuff.

    But what’s different with “Arrival” compared to “Contact” and “Interstellar”

    was the alien technology (or human technology, via interdimensional travel in corridors built by aliens in “Interstellar”) used to push the story forward.

    “Arrival” substituted alien tech for alien language as means to fast track human limitations, Sapir-Whorf on steroids,

    So maybe the limitations here isn’t simply in the tech (ie. comments section, social media, etc.) but the language being used itself. In “Arrival” the alien language was circular, symbolic, one circular symbol contained sentences or even paragraphs of complex ideas,

    on top of the fact that these circular symbols were palindromes (H-A-N-N-A-H), able to transcend thoughts thru time/space.

    When I was talking with Micha a few days back, I recognized Micha’s thoughts on the de-criminalization of drugs, so i searched for that old conversation to get the link, in so doing I got to reading mine (and others’) old comments in that thread,

    and realized even in a span of a few months, there’s slight differences in my views of things, and recognized similarly in others’ commentary. So in a way that alien palindrome-mic symbol in “Arrival” is already with us,

    though you have to search through stuff you wrote or read online (karl’s expertise), if only there was a way to capture this palindrome-like nature of our thoughts, like the aliens in “Arrival”—- this guy’s ideas came to mind as I watched the movie,

    either way, language must evolve. The fact that we are already mind-melding of sorts right now, in real time, is already a huge step forward IMHO. Instead of looking to be offended (self fulfilling prophecy all the time) or confirming one’s bias all the time, maybe just accept these thoughts as part of a bigger whole,

    this vast consciousness we are now part of,

    from trolls to tomes , all play a part for me—– i think it’s the sifting (or the need to sift) is what’s slowing people down, when in fact we should be like vacuums sucking everything up, big aahhhhhhhhhhh, like those big whale sharks that ply the waters over there… at least

    when it comes to internet ideas, how you then proceed to act upon these ideas must be specific, or granular, on the ground level.

    Right at the start of “Arrival”, Colonel Weber goes to Louise to ask her to work with him on talking to the visitors. It isn’t happening, but on his way out the door, she asks him if he’s going to Berkeley to get a linguist she knows who works there. He says yes, and she tells him “Ask him the Sanskrit word for war, and what its translation is.”. Then the Colonel leaves.

    In the next scene, he shows up at her house in a helicopter. She asks him what the guy at Berkeley said and he replies “He said it meant a disagreement. You?” and she replies “A desire for more cattle.”

    • karlgarcia says:

      Hey Corporal ( Micha promoted you), Why did you designate yourself as chief troll here.

      consistency of being inconsistent is normal, don’t worry, I change my mind every now and then, after listening to more knowledgeable people, but of course nice to have a bs detector.

      I search for oldcomments not to use ones word against them, though sometimes I ask if they hold a different view than before,for clarification only.

      I don’t like the screen grab rubbing off guilt trips, nothing against you if you happen to do that btw.

      • “Why did you designate yourself as chief troll here.”

        I didn’t , Joe conferred that title on me himself, so I’m elevating it to an art form. 😉

        • karlgarcia says:

          If you say so chief, I do not need to look for that particular comment.

          Speaking of old comments, it wasn’t you I cussed in english or tagalog. I said wtf not to you but to the world( I mean the situation), And the tagalog one was for some one accusing TSH of being paid hacks.

          just needed to get that out of my chest.

          • I forgot which article it was also, but Joe can confirm.

            As for cussing no worries, karl.

   this is a Spanish way of drinking that i didn’t see in the Philippines, although the communal pitcher or glass of drinking beer and liquor I got a good solid sense of, and partook heavily.

            I drink from the porró that is the pitcher of knowledge offered for the taking here, without sense of worry, karl. I only hope i’ve replenished this pitcher for communal consumption fairly myself, for my part—- that i’ve given as much as i’ve taken.

            Let’s just drink!

            • Yes, I made the appointment, but you earned it through relentless devil’s advocacy and diversions and other high skill techniques. 🙂

            • karlgarcia says:

              Cheers! 🍻 I tried drinking beer like a viking with others once or twice, straight from the pitcher. Is that close enough?

              • HAHahahaa.. thanks, Joe!

                karl, drinking out of the pitcher is close enough, but see if you can get your hands on a porró , that’s all the rage here now in bars, so I’m sure it’ll be already very familiar in the Philippines no more back-wash (I’m not saying you did this when you drank from the pitcher, karl 😉 ) plus it’s just more hygienic (that was one of the worries i had when drinking from one glass over there).

                But my point re porró and that Gospel of Thomas Jesus quote is that we are essentially drinking from one another’s mouths here… figuratively, but i guess one can make an argument for literal as well. The optics of drinking in this matter just seems unsettling, so we use the porró, to lessen the grossness, but that’s the essence of communication IMHO that Jesus (albeit Gospel of Thomas) quote,

  10. On paper (and for an educated minority of Filipinos, called “elite” by the others even if they are not necessarily rich or powerful) the Constitution IS the guiding principle.

    For the rest, I fear it is something they simply said “Yes, Sir” to, like maids and drivers to their bosses, without knowing or caring what it is about – their true principles are completely different.

    I have had a lot of exposure to the “masa” crowd abroad… their values when they open up and tell the truth, when they are not saying “yes” to those they don’t trust like OUR kind usually… DIFFER.

    Many for example do believe there are occassions when someone has “the right to kill you” – this is something I have heard, verbatim. Stories of assassins sparing children “na wala pang isip” under seven – in the news recently, but stories like that are not new to me, I have heard them before.

    That many from that commoner crowd believe that children “na may isip” – above seven – know what they are doing and can be held responsible for their actions, is also a sad truth. WE of the “elite” failed to educate them and uplift them. The populists are simply using their prejudices.

    • josephivo says:

      The constitution is irrelevant. My guess is that there are many different trolls. There might be a paid professional section, but also some longing for a strong fearless leader or eventually someone who dares to take their side against the suppressors who doesn’t look or sound like an elitist, some supporting the cry for change being so fed up by the self-serving ways of traditional politicians, some with the conviction that he can make Philippines as vibrant as Davao, some dreaming from a crime free neighborhood, some just loving his suspenders and coarse language, and some (the most active?) lonely people with an intense need to belong somewhere and they choose the winner’s camp regardless content or style. Don’t think there are many federalists. A lot has to do with projection of oneself into the leader figure.

      • The constitution is irrelevant to the masses, in their lexicon. It is totally relevant to their well-being as an anchor to good state objectives.

        • edgar lores says:

          In the above three comments from Irineo, Joseph, and JoeAm, we see three perspectives of the Consitution:

          o Irineo: The Constitution is relevant as a guiding principle but mainly to the “elite.” To the masses, it is of no consequence.

          o Joseph: The Constitution is irrelevant because man is a social animal, and belief and behavior are determined by chance and association.

          o JoeAm: The Constitution may be irrelevant to the masses but is relevant as a guide to the operation and purpose of government.

          It may be said that the viewpoints (biases) are from the standpoints of:

          o Irineo: The failure of education
          o Joseph: Man’s biophysical and psychological makeup
          o JoeAm: The rational thinking citizen

          On reflection, the first two biases are based on the belief that man is not his own creature. In the Nature vs. Nurture debate, Irineo’s pertains to the latter while Joseph pertains to the former.

          In the context of democracy — wherein a basic premise for its success is the notion that each man must be his own creature and be actively engaged in the life of the polity — JoeAm’s bias sees man as responsible. To a great degree, man is the “master of his fate, the captain of his soul.”

          I see the three biases as milestones in man’s potential progression — Nature, Nurture, then Realized.

          • karlgarcia says:

            Excellent synthesis. Since it is a lightbulb moment, it is photosynthesis.💡

            • NHerrera says:


              I just hope that Darwinian evolution will be faster this time around. Meaning that the evolved nature (Josephivo) will be such that mankind with reasonable level of education (Irineo) will behave close to a Constitution (Joe) that mankind has developed — with variations of course in different countries — over decades embodying values different from the values of the cavemen. That is before the earth itself expires.

          • Downright brilliant reconciliation.

          • “I see the three biases as milestones in man’s potential progression — Nature, Nurture, then Realized.”

            Awesome!!! edgar, can you talk more on this process of “Realization”? is it separate from Nature and Nurture (completely different thing) , or simply a coming together of the two to make the third?

            I’m asking because after watching “Arrival” and further researching this language/cognition idea, the consensus seems to be of parting of ways, determinism goes one way, relativism another (what you’re talking about is related to the ideas presented in ‘Arrival’),

            But the “Realization” in ‘Arrival’ seems a mutation of sorts, completely different from Nature and Nurture, something totally new to humanity.

            • josephivo says:

              There is nature, nurture and the interaction between both. Environmental factors influence how genes are deployed, natural talent influences the ease of learning in specific areas. E.g.: IQ’s varies a lot between children and nurture relates most strongly, later in life the nurture component disappears and the nature one becomes predominant. (And there is huge variation in nature, nurture and more importantly in the way they interact)

              Talents can be dormant or exercised, exercise will only be maintained when talented. All can become good violinists, it just takes 10.000 hrs of exercise, but talented musicians will enjoy training and get there, without talent it will be a burden and unreachable.

            • edgar lores says:

              I simply meant we go through three stages:

              o Nature — which is our raw biologically programmed state (that is, pure potential)
              o Nurture — which is our culturally programmed state (that is, modified potential)
              o And Realized — which is our fulfilled state (that is, full potential)

              Note that we rarely reach our full potential. In our areas of expertise, we would approximate full potential. In other areas, we will only have achieved partial potential – or none at all.

              As an analogy:

              o Nature = Caterpillar
              o Nurture = Chrysalis
              o Realized = Butterfly

              I would say it’s a process of layering, where each layer rests upon the previous layer. One could say the upper layer(s) is a breakthrough.

              Even though we have attained full potential, the lower layers of our animal nature and our nurtured selves are still there. And these lower layers will continue to impinge and exert their influence on other areas where we are not fully developed.

              (Certainly, language plays a great role in perception, objectification, ideation and realization. However, this is a conceptual matrix way below what I have discussed, and I am not prepared to take on your question re the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. From what I read, the aliens in the movie seem to communicate in bursts of time-less gestalt, and the Realization seems to be the acquisition by two humans of the alien’s non-linear vision.)

              The good news is that the progression of the milestones – which is the arc of evolution – seems to be trending upward, individually and collectively.

              The bad news in the Philippines is that the masses are stuck in Joseph’s Nature stage with respect to the Constitution.

              Individually and collectively, the lower layers will always emerge unless they are overcome by education and enlightenment. Collectively, the entire country has backslid to Nature’s raw state.

              The very justices of the Supreme Court – educated defenders of the Constitution as they are — will, in some of their decisions, lapse below their Nurture stage, and return to the Nature stage. Their decisions will be emotionally based rather than rationally based.

              IMHO the decisions of the infamous “Eight” justices indicate this in the following cases: the Marcos burial case; the Enrile bail case; and the Arroyo PCSO plunder case. And even Sereno and Leonen will lapse, as they did in the Poe Comelec and citizenship cases.

          • josephivo says:

            My point is only that trolls have no message on our rational approach to concepts as the constitution. The are energized by projection, feeling as if they are part of superman Du30, or by anger with the many selfish politicians, or by dreaming what could be achieved by a strongman… (or just by some pesos). Motivation happens deeper in the brain, not in the prefrontal cortex. Thinking can only adjust impulses. Also our beliefs come from somewhere deeper, feelings of sympathy with victims, fear of violence or chaos… the rationalization comes as an “afterthought”, a justification of our feelings.

            Are education and rationality important? Yes, by all means! Civilization is all about controlling and steering impulses and these safeguards are under attack by individuals as Du30 and Trump.

  11. NHerrera says:


    I love numbers. MLQIII piece in Inquirer’s Opinion Section gave me some numbers to chew.

    The numbers I will use relate to the various estimates of the Luneta (or Rizal Park) crowd and this relates to my previous post in chempo’s “Attack is the best form of Defense”

    There I hinted that the Police estimate of 215,000 crowd was already an overestimate. But comes now MLQIII who reports that one prominent Duterte supporter insisted the crowd to be 800,000 which MLQIII said that “in any event, a far cry from the MMDA and PTV4 forecast of 1.5 million.” MLQIII goes on to say that skeptics on Reddit, looking at drone footage, pegged attendance at 20,000 — perhaps using calculations a la NH.

    So from the touted pre-rally estimate of government functionaries of 1.5 million, to 800,000 to 215,00, 20,000 is a big clime-down.

    (So you see, why I love numbers. I want to see the troll-like numbers from those of others.)

    BTW, there are more interesting and important observations of MLQIII in that piece than the numbers I have abstracted and commented on.

  12. karlgarcia says:

    It is obvious who Faeldon is accusing of destab here.

    Trillanes just got an Ethics complaint and maybe charges from solgen.

  13. gerverg1885 says:

    A government run by dishonesty and lies is always insecure…and will always be insecure.

  14. NHerrera says:


    One does not have to be a Catholic who celebrates Ash Wednesday today to appreciate this:

    For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

    • josephivo says:

      … and statistically some of our 40 trillion cells or dust particles will be recycled in new human beings.

  15. NHerrera says:

    Since no one asked, I will. Whose head photo is that in the blog picture — the one on the leftmost?

  16. NHerrera says:


    The Philippines’ top diplomat has defended before the United Nations Human Rights Council the Duterte administration’s anti-drug war.

    A lot of nice sounding words in that report, but why do I cringe?

  17. karlgarcia says:

    We have trolls for senators. Among them is a bar topnothcher and one who did not finish school, buts who feels that he is like a bar top notcher.

  18. karlgarcia says:

    Thursday’s article:Rainbow Rebellion, has a touch of Tom Clancy.'s_Rainbow_Six

    I hope this rainbow coalition will be the Real minority.(As far as the House is concerned.)

  19. NHerrera says:

    Oh oh. First, Calida said he may file charges against Trillanes for coddling hitmen Matobato and Lascanas. Now it is Panelo saying he will review the amnesty granted Trillanes. Sorta according to script. Methinks Trillanes should tremble, don’t you?

    • karlgarcia says:

      Then the Customs commissioner might also ask if he will go to jail.

    • karlgarcia says:

      Pure Psy War.
      The Proclamation was approved by Congress.
      All those who were given Amnesty must first seek aproval of an amnesty committee.
      In short, due process was observed unlike the decision to give all SAF 44 medals of Valor just like that.
      “Congress approved, provides for the granting of amnesty to active and former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National Police (PNP) personnel and their supporters who figured in the July 2003 Oakwood mutiny, the February 2006 Marines standoff, and the November 2007 Manila Peninsula Hotel siege.

      The IRR requires applicants to personally file their application forms with the DND amnesty committee through its secretary within 90 days upon the publication of Proclamation 75 and its IRR.” –
      See more at:

  20. Nick Marcelo says:

    I agree, These dutertard trolls is a threat to our democracy and the Spirit of the EDSA Revolution, as citizens of the Philippines it is our duty to eradicate them before they poison our youth with lies and deceptions.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: