Filipinos were taught FAKE Philippine history for 30 years!

Back in the heyday decades of Yellowtardism in the 1980s and 1990s, mass communication was pretty much a one-way street. The ability to efficiently reach a mass audience was a capitalist monopoly — held by those who possessed the means to organise enterprises that could build and operate what today are regarded as conventional broadcast and print facilities (television, radio, and newspapers). The only way ordinary people could put up a challenge to the vast information dissemination machine of Big Media was through conventional street-level protest activism — rallies and pickets, distribution of leaflets and pamphlets, and, beginning in the mid-1990s via text messaging and email forwarding.

Suffice to say, the might of Big Media utterly dwarfed pedestrian chatter. Even the running of so-called “mosquito presses” in the form of school publications and “underground newspapers” were as capital-intensive and also prone to monopolisation by powerful interest groups (in the case of campus newspapers such as the University of the Philippines’ Philippine Collegian and others like it in other big schools, primarily Leftist and Communist elements).

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

“Citizen journalism” may have existed before the term was concocted by today’s social-media-beholden hipsters but its practitioners could neither compete with Big Media nor the “mosquito presses” monopolised by Leftists and commies.

Thus it could be said that Yellowtard rhetoric which Big Media almost exclusively broadcast and published in the 1980s and 1990s utterly dominated the airwaves and print media. There was no debate around what was or what wasn’t “fake news” — because there was no other way to disseminate news than via Big Media. And unlike today where, thanks to the Internet and social media, ordinary people regard their ability to routinely challenge “news” and opinion distributed through Big Media outlets, as an entitlement and a right, back in the 1980s and 1990s, Big Media “news” and opinion remained utterly unchallenged.

In short, Filipinos took it for granted that Yellowtard ideology was authentic and correct because, well, it was the only ideology Big Media broadcast. Indeed, even today, in the age of ubiquitous Internet access, high social media penetration and usage, and, as a result of these, commoditised mass communication, the ascendancy of information disseminated via Big Media still remains difficult to challenge. We see this in the way Philippine Mainstream Media has exerted its influence on the positions Western corporate media and Western non-government organisations take on Philippine political issues despite many of the assertions the industry makes about the government of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte being subject to debate and the object of wide dispute.

Indeed, it is quite telling that even in this day and age, the ability of an opaque organisation such as the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) — an organisation that refuses to subject itself and its doctrine to critical scrutiny — to disseminate not just dubious but downright incorrect information routinely goes unchallenged. In that sense, the liberal ideas and emotional rhetoric of Yellowtards achieved its zenith at a time when ordinary people lacked the tools to directly challenge its wealthy purveyors. With the benefit of 21st Century context, it is easy to see that the rise of Yellowtard thinking happened on the back of the unfair advantage it enjoyed over competing ideas. It is no better than how Catholicism spread — by the sword and by suppressing or overpowering competing ideas.

The fact is, the only people and groups uncomfortable with and driven into a panic by the chaotic nature of today’s Internet-fuelled discourse are those who have traditionally enjoyed the advantage in capital resources to reach a mass audience. That advantage may be gone today thanks to the Internet, but evidently not gone is these people and groups’ outsized sense of entitlement to monopolise the discourse. The notion of “fake news” applied to everything beyond the small subset that it is validly applicable to represents a strawman this entitled group put up to represent everything that threatens said entitlement.

Blocking dissent does not make dissent go away. All this does is blind you to the rise and spread of competing ideas and hasten your failure to respond to its spread effectively. Facebook, for example, is now paying lip service to calls to crack down on “fake news”. Yet, just as nobody foresaw the rise of social media back in the early 2000s, nobody can foresee the unintended consequences of one organisation artificially throttling user behaviour over a massive network such as the Internet within which it is a mere subset. Who knows what Next Big (Unforeseeable) Thing will come up that will start to eat Facebook’s lunch. Something out of the Dark Web? A new platform or protocol for connecting people or distributing ideas? Nobody knows.

You need to know your enemy to fight it. And, often, it takes courage and humility (and a reduced sense of entitlement to a monopoly on righteousness) to commit to getting to know your enemy and competing rather than just whining about the world being “unfair”.

11 Replies to “Filipinos were taught FAKE Philippine history for 30 years!”

  1. An informed citizenry , advances Democracy . The Media controlled by the Aquino Cojuangco political axis, fed the Filipinos, disinformation; ever since the 1986 ” EDSA Revolution”…the disinformation was concocted/promoted by the U.S./C.I.A. – U.S. Dept. of State. The CBCP of the Roman Catholic Church, helped in the spread of this disinformation.

    The Fake News, became Fake History, that was incorporated in our school curriculum …. The purpose is to carry this EDSA disinformation to the next generation. And to assure that the Aquino Cojuangco families will be our rulers, for many generations.

    The case of Ysidra Cojuangco and Gen. Antonio Luna, being lovers, is not in Philippine History. The case of the Katipunan Fund, that consists of gold and silver coins, that was transferred, form Ilocos to Panique, Tarlac; under the care of Ysidra Cojuangco is not in our Philippine History. The murder of Gen. Antonio Luna; the main cause of his murder is still unsolved. Who ordered the murder, and why. It is like the Dacer-Corbito murder case…

    The case of the Katipunan Find, disappearing like the Typhoon Yolanda Fund, is not yet solved. And will never be solved. Both Funds disappearance will remain mysteries… However, the people, in charged of these funds are the main suspects.

    Fake History with unsolved mysteries….can you beat that ? Only in the Philippines !

  2. I suddenly remembered my conversation with an anti-Duterter Yellowtard in Flippinflip’s page, accusing the guy of spreading ‘fake news’. I decided to tell him about his flaws with his arguments yet he, in his own trolling fashion, insisted that I’m a supporter of ‘fake news’ and mentions Mocha Uson, Martin Andanar and even Sass Rogando Sasot and he even told me to go to Pinoy Ako Blog since may ‘resibo’ daw, or proof. I was like, ‘ano ito, bayad or something?’

    And when he stated that he get his info from news on TV and even, that is the time where I made a counter argument with, “Pinoy Ako Blog is a Yellowtard site. Also, those news na pinapalabas sa TV at pati ung Inquirer na iyan? They’re all biased and sensationalized mainstream media. At least with Mocha and Sass, they even connect with ordinary people through their views. The biased mainstream media never cared for the people but their own pockets and their own agendas. So you, sir, are also a supporter of their ‘fake news’ that appeared on their sites and newspapers.”

    And then hours later, that bastard blocked me.

    1. Those sorts of persons you “debated” with are just minions or drones who just yammer off a standard script. It’s pointless discussing anything with those sorts because they lack the intellectual depth to comprehend their own stupidity.

      The way to get to them, one would think, is via their “thought leaders”. But even they, such as the likes of Florin Hilbay are also averse to challenge and also quick to block people who confront them with alternative points of view. They have long been accustomed to holding a monopoly over the discourse and find the open challenge they now face quote bewildering.

      And that is the reason the Yellowtards remain collectively stupid – because they isolate themselves from diversity in discourse preferring, instead, to exchange their inbred ideas within their cliques of like-minded lemmings.

  3. Our current history has been muddled by historians who happened to be, mostly, graduates of UP; and as such, is generally left-leaning. While they capitalize on the abuses of Martial Law, they seemed to omit the REAL REASONS why Pres Marcos declared Martial Law – Remember the First Quarter Storm. As it is, our history will always be biased in favor of the Left, for as long as the writers/historians will come from UP or, for that matter, Ateneo.

    1. This.

      As a history nut myself, I remember back in college where I have books of Teodoro Agoncillo and Gregorio Zaide. Thanks for reminding me of Agoncillo since I found out that he’s also biased due to his leftist stance.

    2. Yes. That’s the message I am trying to convey here. One narrative monopolised the discourse for so long — until now when ordinary people acquired the means to challenge what were once regarded as gospel truth.

      People in today’s Opposition are in the middle of that wrenching process of coming to terms with this new reality.

    3. @Albert Martinez Unfortunately, the event of the First Quarter Storm had already been forgotten in our country’s history & I don’t know if that was been discussed on Philippine History subject, not even at the time when I was on high school & college days. About 15 years ago, when my mother asked her if she’d remembered the First Quarter Storm incident way back in the 1970, she’d told me that she couldn’t remember anything about that event in spite that she’s already here in Manila & married to my father, fifty years ago. Well, that’s quite ironic, our country’s history like that one is easily been forgotten… and maybe sooner or later, we could easily forgotten or get amnesia on our country’s historic events like President Marcos declared Martial Law on Sept. 21, 1972, Sen. Ninoy Aquino’s assassination, EDSA Revolution, numbers of failed military coup attempts during the Cory’s administration, Mendiola Massacre, Supertyphoon Yolanda hit on Tacloban City, etc., etc. Besides crab mentality, there’s another mentality of the Filipinos that we’re now experiencing it & that is HISTORICAL AMNESIA. Sorry, Mr. George Santayana, the Spaniard philosopher who’d coined if anyone who’ll forget the history will doom to repeat it but here in my country & your country’s former colonial territory, Historical Amnesia is now a norm in the Philippines.

    4. Sir Albert Martinez, by your statements I am pretty sure you were not a part of the First Quarter Storm, but may have “certain” ideas of what it was. The storm was initiated by UP students which was eventually supported by many other schools, establishments, and even social leaders. The reason for Martial Law by Marcos was not just about the storm. It may have been the straw that made Marcos declare it, but certainly, it was not the “ONLY” reason. The protest was not about being left-leaning, but more of “RIGHTS” and the abuse of power, not just by Marcos, but also of his cronies as well as the Military.

      I also feel my “short hairs” standing with your statement of history favoring the left when students from UP or Ateneo write it. Good if nor excellent writers products of other schools are permanent fixtures of our history, give them at least credit for those writings that led to several laws and freedoms you now enjoy.

      History is history, it narrates the events and incidents of our past, it is neither left nor right – it is how you interpret it.

  4. It is sad and shocking to think that victory and the lives of thousands of men are pawns to the “fear of They,” and the writings of a group of unprincipled reporters, and weak-kneed politicians.

  5. It is sad and shocking to think that victory and the lives of thousands of men are pawns to the “fear of They,” and the writings of a group of unprincipled reporters, and weak-kneed politicians

  6. Textbook accounts of monopoly usually take the existence of a monopoly for granted, then analyze its consequences. When I was an undergraduate, this usually provoked me to argue with the textbook. “Where did this ‘monopoly power’ come from?!” I’d ask. My inner rant then continued: “If the firm has a monopoly because the government made competition illegal, the solution isn’t antitrust; it’s legalizing competition. If the firm has a monopoly because it’s the best, the solution isn’t antitrust; it’s a little freakin’ appreciation.”

    I’ve outgrown arguing with textbooks, but I stand by my basic point: You can’t analyze the consequences of monopoly if you don’t know where the monopoly came from.

    If the monopoly came from government, then it’s silly to fret about market failure and muse about antitrust remedies; you’ve got to unleash your inner libertarian and call for free competition.

    If the monopoly came from superior efficiency, broadly defined, you’ve got to realize that antitrust “remedies” penalize excellence – which almost any economic theory admits is a bad idea in the long-run.

    If you’ve got some non-government non-efficiency story, you’ve got to explain why neither of the two simple explanations for the existence of monopoly work. It’s not impossible to craft such an explanation, but it’s harder than it looks. If you blame monopoly on long-term contracts, for example, this begs a crucial question: Why did customers sign these contracts in the first place? By hypothesis, you’re not allowed to answer, “The firm had a government monopoly” or “The firm was more efficient than any of its competitors.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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