Submitted by d4rk in d4rk

The word “liberal” and “imperial” has had a major role in the political situation of the Philippines ever since the colonial period. Any amateur historian knows that the Philippines was colonized by not one but many nations, and its first experiment in self rule was Masonically planned, led, and executed, in the words of General Emilio Aguinaldo. The church-backed party that overthrew and replaced the Marcos dictatorship was ironically named the “Liberal Party”. Most major political parties err on the left side of things. However, there has been a rise of a foreign ideology, that exists outside the notoriously incompetent ‘trapos’ and bureaucrats, and instead exists within the millennials and youth. This phenomena exists mostly within international institutions of learning and the Internet, where they can afford and support both foreign and foreign-trained educators in political and social studies, Jesuit and CICM universities, and any institution rich enough to hire those of superior educators without being suppressed by the main conservative force in the Philippines, the Roman Catholic Church. Social liberalism is a Western idea, not made and not executed by and for Oriental nations. This social liberalism is more prominent within what was known as the civilized world. Formerly members of Christendom, these self-identified progressive nations cast out most reactionary elements-save for the ones for show and performance, and with the help of educational institutions they formed the youth to be accepting of this new ideology, their new cultured ideology, a far cry from the institutions they themselves grew up with. Social liberalism is different from both the classical liberalism of the Malolos Republic and the “yellow liberalism” we are familiar with today. Classical liberalism is modernist in nature, seeking to cast out the influences of the Catholic Church, while still maintaining what many call a conservative standard today, but it was in no way considered such in their time.

The so-called “yellow liberalism” is not in itself opposed to the Church, or at least the current administration of the Catholic Church, nor was it made to oppose its influence in politics or in society, although many prominent members also hold anti-clerical stances, while others profess the faith. The Liberal Party was made to protect the interests of the elite in society, but they are not known for their competence. However, social liberalism is a recent innovation, only making itself manifest on a large scale in the Philippines in the eve of the 21st century. Mainly in urban and metropolitan areas, this new liberalism shares with classical liberalism the resentment of the Church or at least some aspects of it and a resentment of both communism and fascism. But unlike classical liberalism, social liberalism is postmodernist, with the complete degradation of reactionary standards and the creation of a new, universal counter standard.

Although personal aspects of social liberalism existed even in colonial times with sexual immorality, this was largely confined to a personal and not a political scale, and it was not something to be flaunted. However, in the middle of the 20th century, sexual deviance and birth control for example have been widely supported or accepted by a sizable portion of the contemporary youth, and as the hippie counterculture and the sexual revolution spread in America, so did it extend its influence to the former American colony of the Philippines. However, the socially conservative Catholic Church still held a significant political and moral influence on the Filipino people, so the acceptance of sexual deviance and birth control in the archipelago came about only recently in the age of information. This is, as will be shown, an example of cultural imperialism.

There are three main aspects of this new, imperialist, twist of social liberalism that make it distinct from the yellow and classical liberals of old. The first aspect of this would be the destruction of family values. One of the more notorious examples of such was the recent passage of a reproductive health law that divided the Liberal Party. This bill was touted by two major politicians of the era: the late Maryhill trained attorney and presidential candidate Miriam Defensor-Santiago, and the Jesuit-educated senator and activist Risa Hontiveros. Unlike the Dominicans of the University of Saint Thomas who continue to advocate for at least a mainstream, if not conservative, Catholic interpretation of theology and social teachings, the academia in the Jesuit-run Ateneo and the CICM-administered Maryhill are more liberal in their interpretation of such. These universities are more willing to accept postmodernist ideas into their curriculum, although with a more Catholic direction, although liberation theology has also made its way into their teachings.

This reproductive health bill guaranteed universal access to contraception and other artificial family planning methods, and although vigorously opposed by the Church it was passed by the then-President Aquino, who just so happened to be a member of the Liberal Party. This also shed light upon the waning influence of the Catholic Church in Philippine politics, which both classical and social liberals desire. More example of this would be the ever-growing support amongst young and impressionable upper to middle class students, professors, and millennials for divorce, gay rights, and abortion. It would only be a matter of time when these students leave school and enter into the world of politics. Another aspect of the cultural imperialist aspect of the social liberal agenda would be the promotion of extreme political correctness and the creation of a new identity for noncomforming Filipinos. A recent controversy on Facebook and Twitter would be concerning the use of the gender-neutral “filipinx”, an extension of the word “latinx”, and its addition on online dictionaries. The usage of “filipinx” and the advocates of it, mostly Filipino-Americans, alienated some social liberals but many others were willing to accept it. This also proves to show that there is a clear and manifest Western influence in the usage of such words, for the Western world was the first to adopt politically correct terminologies, and the Filipino-American usage of such a term can only further showcase the influence of the new Western man on conservative Hispanic culture. Yet another aspect of the social liberal agenda is an ironic rejection of all things Western. However, some could say that the conservative factors of Filipino society were Spanish innovations, such as the Catholic Church, and how no Filipino may accept the Catholic Church and be independent and free. They view the Church as a shackle, the last holdout of the Spanish colonial period, that existed outside Baler and that is being given a free hand to control Filipino society. But is this completely true?

Although it is true that what is known as pre-colonial Filipino society was less socially conservative than Catholic colonial society, it could be said that pre-colonial Filipino society was neither pre-colonial nor Filipino, and neither was it a unified society. The concept of colonialism existed already before Ferdinand Magellan set foot on Limasawa Island, with the Chinese having influence over parts of Pangasinan and other nation-states controlling bits and pieces of what not constitutes the Philippines. It would not be incorrect to say that the Filipino national identity was a product of the conservative Hispanic influence. Therefore, the re-appropriation of Filipino aspects would neither do justice to the pre-Christian societies nor the Filipino national identity. Although the case could be made that the pre-Spanish period had more aspects of social liberalism, like the role of women and homosexuals, this is nothing new or Filipino since any other culture before the advent of Christianity glorified homosexuality (like Ancient Greece) and other deviant acts. The pre-Spanish culture also have their own concepts of slavery and servitude which were effectively outlawed by the arrival of the Spaniards until the 18th century. However, social liberalism and the Revolution are not at all different.

One must also keep in mind that it can also be said that the Revolutionary movement was of a Western, not indigenous spirit, and the only thing indigenous about it was the ethnicity of their blood and the color of their skin. The Revolution was based on new, Western ideals, completely foreign to both the pre-colonial society, the colonial society, and past revolts. While most early revolts were a genuine attempt to preserve sovereignty, later revolts were mostly founded on personal vendettas with members of society (see: Dagohoy Revolt) or religious vendettas with the Church (see: Hermano Pule). However, the Revolution was something foreign even to the minds of grieving brothers or fanatical cultists. The new ideology and the masonic Katipunan was anti-clerical to the extent of hatred towards religious orders, namely the Order of Preachers, the Order of Friars Minor, and the Order of Saint Augustine. This was nothing new, but the concepts and foundations were. Unlike earlier revolts, the Revolution was led by foreign-educated like-minded upper-to-middle class ilustrados who were not so keen to gain full independence as they were to appoint liberal rule in the Philippines. In a 26 December 1897 interview with Jose Barroso for El Imperial, then-General Emilio Aguinaldo opened with these lines:

“The patriotism I speak of today will be unchangeable. We took the field not because we wished for separation from the mother country, which gave us her laws, her religion, her customs, her language, and her way of thinking, but because we are tired of bearing the material and moral burden of that arch, the keystone of which in our country [are] the friars. “It is quite true that the Revolution instilled in us another desire — that of independence — but that desire was unattainable, and moreover it was in opposition to our sentiments. It served as the banner of Andres Bonifacio, a cruel man whom I ordered shot and with his death the Katipunan disappeared.” [Ocampo, Amber R, Philippine Daily Inquirer: Aguinaldo’s controversial interview]

The Revolution was not as interested in attaining the dream of Philippine independence as it was with the expulsion of the friars, a liberal ruler, and the Masonic agenda under the nose of the Crown of Spain. Although Aguinaldo would soon become the first President of the Philippines, the independence of a nation was not his primary interest, and neither was it the primary interest of the Revolution, except for Bonifacio and the Katipunan. It was in the West that the Propagandists of the Revolution acquired their new ideas, and it is in the West where the social liberals now acquire thiers. Just as the ‘filipinx’ controversy is the result of Filipino immigration to the liberal nations, the social liberalism that is so present in international institutions of learning and other institutions with western-trained educators in political and social studies is a result of Western political and cultural influence to the Philippine Nation. It is the international institutions of education and the return of educators and students in the field of social sciences and social studies from the ‘first world countries’ in the West that directly contribute to the spread of such a foreign and alien ideology. The rise of radical feminism amongst the contemporary youth is a clear and sure sign of the advent of both cultural imperialism and social liberalism in the Philippines. Although not every Filipino that takes up social studies in the West turns out to be flaming liberals, it is still an undeniable fact that the spread of contemporary western education concerning the social studies in the Philippines will lead to the rise of social liberalism in the foreseeable future. Studying political and social sciences in the west, including music and art, could be the path down to social liberalism. Even outside of education the social life of the Philippines is becoming increasingly Westernized in literature, art, movies, and television. Traditions are starting to be portrayed as either superficially pleasant or dangerously oppressive. If you have watched Mulan, Aladdin, or any of those classic Disney films there is always the recurring message of the old ways are wrong, the new ways are good. This is a blatant attempt to portray history in a neo-Western lens, and is a representation of the new cultural imperialism that is affecting the Philippines.

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

There's nothing here…