The Austronesian Viewpoint: TheRomanSlayer's Thread for Musings

TheRomanSlayer

Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
I'm not sure if I am allowed to create my own personal thread that I can post my own opinions without derailing other people's threads, but if there is a rule against it, close this thread please. Other than that, I will proceed.

----

This is the thread that I decided to set up as a means of channeling my own thoughts on various issues that are discussed in this thread. Some of the thoughts and opinions that I will post here may be controversial, but tough shit. I have to be the one to try and come up with possible proposals and solutions in order to generate more discussions.

WARNING: If anyone here is coming to this Thread just to mock me personally, or my viewpoints, do NOT expect any civility or respect from me. I have come to realize that I cannot please everyone here, but that I can be extremely vicious in my defense of certain viewpoints. Readers, you have been warned.

With that out of the way, I will probably start listing the topics that I will have to cover. Most likely, I'll have to write my own viewpoints as if it was an essay. So these are the topics that will be addressed:

1) The Issues of Christian Nationalism and Potential Solutions to Strengthen It.

2) The Thorny and Controversial Nature of Geopolitics, and What Should be the Most Sensible Solution

3) How to Fix the Gaping Holes of Gnosticism

4) Kawawang Amang Bayan, or How the Philippines Can Truly Integrate into the Wider Asiatic Family.

---

If there is also an area within the forum where this thread would be most suited, feel free to move it.
 
2) The Thorny and Controversial Nature of Geopolitics, and What Should be the Most Sensible Solution

Would you elaborate what you mean?




4) Kawawang Amang Bayan, or How the Philippines Can Truly Integrate into the Wider Asiatic Family.

In that.... Should they?

I mean, they can trade with them, and talk to them now. Should they go further, and if so, how? Why?
 
Would you elaborate what you mean?






In that.... Should they?

I mean, they can trade with them, and talk to them now. Should they go further, and if so, how? Why?
In the subject of geopolitics, it would mostly be multipolarism vs unipolarism, and who benefits from either one or the other. Why it’s controversial is because of recent political events, and I will dive much deeper into it.

Regarding the last one, many netizens still refer to the Philippines as America’s puppet, and that we’re far too integrated into the Western political and cultural system. There’s also the accusations of us having a colonial mentality, and that decolonization had not been fulfilled properly. Without going into further detail, I would explain why the Philippines should behave even more like a proper Asiatic nation than a lost illegitimate child of the Euro-Atlantic and Latin American entities that got stuck in Asia.
 
In the subject of geopolitics, it would mostly be multipolarism vs unipolarism, and who benefits from either one or the other. Why it’s controversial is because of recent political events, and I will dive much deeper into it.

Ok.

Sometimes interesting stuff, but overall, something of a mixed bag. Infuence battles to keep/gain power is something that should be looked at on an event-to-event basis.

After all, some are positive for both sides, and some aren't.


Regarding the last one, many netizens still refer to the Philippines as America’s puppet, and that we’re far too integrated into the Western political and cultural system. There’s also the accusations of us having a colonial mentality, and that decolonization had not been fulfilled properly. Without going into further detail, I would explain why the Philippines should behave even more like a proper Asiatic nation than a lost illegitimate child of the Euro-Atlantic and Latin American entities that got stuck in Asia.

Your personal interest.

Let me ask you a question.

How will you make things better? Colonial mentality? What did you gain from that part of your past? There are filipino's in pretty much every corner of the world.


Are your people doing well from that? How does that compare with, say, Papua New Guinea?




Honestly, I just have to wonder, what the hell is a "proper Asiatic nation"?





There's a lot of people around the world talking about Colonialism, and how they should get away from it. Most of them should be asking if that's a step up, or a step down.
 
Your personal interest.

Let me ask you a question.

How will you make things better? Colonial mentality? What did you gain from that part of your past? There are filipino's in pretty much every corner of the world.


Are your people doing well from that? How does that compare with, say, Papua New Guinea?




Honestly, I just have to wonder, what the hell is a "proper Asiatic nation"?





There's a lot of people around the world talking about Colonialism, and how they should get away from it. Most of them should be asking if that's a step up, or a step down.
When we say colonial mentality, we think in terms of constantly praising foreign cultures at the expense of our own original culture. Even I am guilty of this kind of thing, which I want to put a stop to, not just for myself, but for future generations. Another example, which I will have to explain further, is that our mindset is rigged at the thought that whatever whites say and do, they are always right. Christianity is often associated with white culture, and since a good chunk of our population (98% to be exact) are Christian, we associate that with the power and influence of whites.

Papua New Guinea may be as poor as we are, but they don't excessively worship whites and think that they're right about everything. Of course, there are Filipinos around the world, but think of which positions in the labor force are they a majority and which positions are they a minority in. There may be a time when we can no longer rely on immigration to solve our demographic problem, because we're also hurting our own compatriots that could not afford to immigrate. At one point, I would like to move back home and build a kind of business, because I want to contribute to the development of my homeland.

When I meant that the Philippines should become a proper Asiatic nation, I mean the dismantling of the Catholic Church as the bastion of that colonial legacy, and to either bring back our ancient pagan gods (an impossibility, given that any records of our Pre-Hispanic past is bound to be destroyed by the Spanish authorities), or a limited form of atheism, followed by the proposed adoption of Eastern religions that are well suited for our own Asiatic heritage. I want my homeland to be seen as a fellow Asiatic nation by the rest of Asia, and not to be seen as its red headed unwanted stepchild. East Timor has a similar problem too, given that they were colonized by another Iberian power.

It is impossible to build a new kind of Filipino society without first demolishing it and building a new one. It is for this reason that there was even a proposal to rename the Philippines to Maharlika, but that went nowhere.
 
When we say colonial mentality, we think in terms of constantly praising foreign cultures at the expense of our own original culture. Even I am guilty of this kind of thing, which I want to put a stop to, not just for myself, but for future generations. Another example, which I will have to explain further, is that our mindset is rigged at the thought that whatever whites say and do, they are always right. Christianity is often associated with white culture, and since a good chunk of our population (98% to be exact) are Christian, we associate that with the power and influence of whites.

I'm no expert on that. I do know that the current Catholic Church is finding bishops in both Africa and South America have been telling the Vatican they're not going to agree on a bunch of things. It's not nearly as monolithic as it seems.

How many whites are there in the Philippines, I wonder?


Seperate note.

Wikipedia says the Philippines are the 39th richest nation in the World. Papua New Guinea? 109th.


In a bunch of ways, the lessons of the colonial powers were things that worked, and things that don't. They won, because they had those skills, and your ancesters didn't. But, merely by them being there, you could see them. And you learned, and grew.




If you pay attention to South Africa, you'll find that as they throw away the "colonial legacy" they're also finding it near impossible to keep things they bought with them.

Things like clean water. Electricity. Law and order. Are you really sure you want to throw away the ideas and skills the "colonial legacy" offers?



I wouldn't live in South Africa these days, and I suspect you wouldn't want to, either.




It is impossible to build a new kind of Filipino society without first demolishing it and building a new one. It is for this reason that there was even a proposal to rename the Philippines to Maharlika, but that went nowhere.

That's really dumb. The Philippines aren't a place, they're a people. You going to kill everybody? No? Then, you're just going to have to change things slowly. The education, the media, the slow convincing of your people to choose a new path, one by one.


It can be done. It's happening in places like the US, like Australia, like Europe right now. And it's both powerful, and a complete disaster, here.

Right now, the most powerful Military in existance, the US's, can't get it's high tech supplies from the US. They don't have all the skills. The changes made have crippled much more than their initiators ever thought they would.
 
I'm no expert on that. I do know that the current Catholic Church is finding bishops in both Africa and South America have been telling the Vatican they're not going to agree on a bunch of things. It's not nearly as monolithic as it seems.

How many whites are there in the Philippines, I wonder?


Seperate note.

Wikipedia says the Philippines are the 39th richest nation in the World. Papua New Guinea? 109th.


In a bunch of ways, the lessons of the colonial powers were things that worked, and things that don't. They won, because they had those skills, and your ancesters didn't. But, merely by them being there, you could see them. And you learned, and grew.
Like I said, I will have to address this much deeper than simple conversation, but to be honest, Malaysia is 35th richest nation in the world, and Indonesia is 16th largest.

We did eventually lose the conflict against the Spaniards later on, but it is also worth noting that the 1521 Battle of Mactan was something that became a part of Philippine mythology, as we can say that we were the first ones to actually resist the Spanish conquest, mostly because our ancestors were familiar with gunpowder based weapons and they fought with steel weapons. It is not an accident that Lapu-Lapu became a national hero that is often mentioned in textbooks.

Perhaps I should be a bit more clear about the whole worshipping white culture at the expense of our own native culture, though this link here should be of help:

If you pay attention to South Africa, you'll find that as they throw away the "colonial legacy" they're also finding it near impossible to keep things they bought with them.

Things like clean water. Electricity. Law and order. Are you really sure you want to throw away the ideas and skills the "colonial legacy" offers?

Only the more negative ones that deserve to be thrown out. The positive legacies however, would be more of a grey zone. However, modernization can still occur in non-Western nations without colonialism, as evident by the Thai and Japanese modernizations.

That's really dumb. The Philippines aren't a place, they're a people. You going to kill everybody? No? Then, you're just going to have to change things slowly. The education, the media, the slow convincing of your people to choose a new path, one by one.

The very name of the Philippines is of colonial origin, as we were named after Philip II of Spain. I have not met a Muslim from Mindanao who says that he or she is proud to be a Filipino, given that to them, the name of the country is associated with a kafir king. That was why there were proposals to rename the country throughout history, though most of them were frankly, cringeworthy, except for the name Maharlika.

Reforms of a long and arduous nature, as you said, will have to be slow and gradual. This, I agree. First, the subtle and gradual dismantling of the Catholic Church and its influence on Filipino society would have to take place, in a similar manner to how Turkey under Ataturk managed to modernize and secularize its society by taking Islam out of Turkish society. That's how Turks today have this modernist mindset. I also believe in the idea that the military should become the guardian of a nation, and by taking the example of Turkey once again, the military had in the past, launched coups against politicians suspected of being overtly religious. In this inspiration however, the Philippine military must be educated on the necessity of secularism and eliminating the influence of the Catholic Church from political society. It is through generations after generations that the new Filipino population can learn the benefits of secularism and being proud of their Asian heritage.

Though we may have butted heads recently, I actually appreciate being able to have this frank discussion with someone who can be rather blunt and honest without coping and seething. The main point of the Austronesian Viewpoint after all, is to generate a kind of musing from the viewpoint of an Austronesian person like myself.

Of course, I would also have to address two other social issues that are hot button topics that have been discussed that are also influenced by the abnormally unbalanced relationship between the Philippine state and the Catholic Church: that of the reproductive health bill, and divorce. As it currently stands, both the Holy See and the Philippines are the only two entities in the world where divorce is considered illegal.
 
Musing 001 New
The Issues of Christian Nationalism and Potential Solutions to Strengthen It

When someone often mentions the term 'Christian Nationalism', images of patriotic Americans with their Bibles and crucifixes often come to mind. In certain areas of the world where the Catholic faith is strong, it often conjures the legacy of the Crusades and the Reconquista period where the Kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Portugal had reconquered their lost lands that were held by the Islamic Emirate of Grenada. In nations that are predominantly Orthodox, 'Christian Nationalism' is often associated with the ethnic churches that serve the territory they are in, in most cases for example, like the Serbian and Russian Orthodox Churches serving their respective countries. However, I will not talk about Christian Nationalism as a criticizing point. This passage is more about the significant weaknesses surrounding it, and what would be the most sensible and bold solution to solve it.

The first issue that should be addressed facing Christian Nationalism is the very nature of Christianity itself. Originally considered another sect of Judaism, it gradually evolved in its own direction to become a powerful faith in its own right. Before the Council of Nicaea had happened, there were early split and 'heresies' that occurred, most notably the controversial legacy of Saint Marcion of Sinope, who made a rather bold, though shocking, claim, that Jesus was sent by God to combat an evil God he called the Demiurge. Though his legacy eventually died out, it was one of those Gnostic movements that led to its condemnation as a heresy. Additionally, the preaching of the Apostle Paul and his connections to various parts of the Roman Empire had played a role in Christianity's growth, and as they say, the rest is history. However, there's also the episode surrounding Nestorius and the Nestorian heresy, and so on. While Christianity gained converts from both Jewish and Gentile communities, its rather internationalist approach is ironically enough, both its greatest strength and weakness at the same time. It was a great source of strength in that it can unite different tribes together and form new identities, as demonstrated by the conversion of Bulgaria to Orthodox Christianity and the spiritual unification between the Bulgars, Slavs, and Thracians. Conversely, it was also a source of weakness in that it can be subverted, corrupted, and degraded. Even the much vaunted Catholic Church was not immune to infiltration and subversion, as evident by the shrouded mystery of whether the accusation levied against Pope XXIII of being a Freemason was true or not. However, the proof that the Catholic Church has indeed been infiltrated was presented by Pope Paul VI in his letter, quote:

"… We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it's not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.
"The Church is no longer trusted. We trust the first pagan prophet we see who speaks to us in some newspaper, and we run behind him and ask him if he has the formula for true life. I repeat, doubt has entered our conscience. And it entered through the windows that should have been open to the light: science."
(aleteia.org)
What did Paul VI mean by saying “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church”?

Other Christian denominations however, are just as, if not, more vulnerable to infiltration and subversion than the Catholic Church. The existence of Churches that cater to the LGBT community can be an example of such subversion, as well as the existence of "woke" sects of Christian churches. Evangelical Churches are also vulnerable to infiltration and subversion, as evident by the introduction of modern musical instruments and the light hearted way that signifies the loss of spirit within those denominations. While many Protestant and Evangelical Church leaders wanted to bring their congregations into the modern period, this kind of modernization only allowed them to lose their original purpose as a congregation. Going back to the Catholic Church, there's also one glaring example of a clear evidence of subversion and corrosion of its original purpose, and it is summed up by three words: Novus Ordo Missae. It is as if the congregations that adopted this kind of cringe worthy practices had turned their own churches into a circus. Such infiltration and subversion has actually done wonders for both Catholicism, Protestantism, and Evangelicalism, in that their spiritual value has been lost. Even the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are not immune to subversion however, though in their case, Ecumenism is the main threat to keeping their ecclesiastical independence. Orthodox-Catholic inter-faith dialogues since the mending of the Schism had been a prime example of such attempted 'healing', though in reality, it is nothing more than a more sinister attempt at subjugating the other Four Patriarchates to the authority of the so-called "Vicar of Christ", or the power hungry Pope that has disgraced the title, 'Patriarch of the West'.

The second issue that had to be addressed regarding Christian Nationalism is its internationalist character. Christianity in itself, is not only a kind of spiritual internationalism, but a spiritual globalist sect. Think about it: any ethnic or tribal group can convert to Christianity, and become a part of a big, international group. The cost of that would be the abandonment of blood ties to their own tribe, ethnic consciousness, and a sense of pride in their ancient heritage. Additionally, Islam also functions in a similar manner as well, with any ethnic or tribal group being allowed to convert to Islam, and become a part of the ummah. However, the only difference is that Islam's punishment for leaving the religion is death, while there are no such punishments that one can think for leaving Christianity. While both Christianity and Islam can be considered a form of bloodless, spiritual form of globalism, Judaism is an ethno-religion with an extremely difficult criteria for Gentiles to convert to. However, Noahidism serves as a kind of bridge between Judaism and the Gentile world, thus making it essentially a quasi-Jewish religion tailored for Gentiles. Even though the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are unique in that they are tailored towards the ethnic group and country where that church resides, anyone can convert to Orthodoxy, but with rigorous criteria and study that potential future converts would have to undergo, kind of like a more, strict version of the Roman Catholic Initiation for Adults.

Perhaps the most important and final issue facing Christian Nationalism is the fact that expression of any form of nationalism is considered pride, which in itself is considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins. The inability to express one's own pride in his or her own Christian faith usually ends up being downplayed, and it reaches a point where they have to hide their Christian faith in the face of open hostility towards them. To make matters worse, Christian nationalism has recently been smeared with the reactionary brush by those who are pushing progressive agendas that often damage the nations involved. The subverters often use puppet "Christians" as symbols of their progressive stance to attack the reactionaries that have come to dominate the Christian Nationalist movement. Moreover, addressing the internationalist point of Christian Nationalism once more, there was an example by noted Catholic author E. Michael Jones (the tweet may have already been deleted, or it might have been referenced in a debate against noted white nationalist Richard Spencer), and it went like this: an African migrant moves to Poland, adopts the Catholic faith, learns the Polish language, and embraces Polish customs, and in the end, the African migrant is considered an ethnic Pole. How idiotic does this sound? Does any Pole think that the African migrant would magically become an ethnic Pole? First and foremost, the African migrant to Poland can become a Polish citizen, acquire Polish nationality, but in the end, he is anything but an ethnic Pole. Additionally, when one thinks of what a Polish or say, Hungarian person would look like, one automatically assumes that they are white.

So what should be the solutions for a much, stronger form of Christian Nationalism? I can think of several ones that would be ideal, though not perfect:

1) The reactionary flavor of Christian Nationalism can be maintained, but the Christian Nationalism existent in every Western nation has to be tailored towards a cultural nationalist, or in the cases of heavily Protestant nations like Britain, the Scandinavian nations, and the Netherlands, their brand of Protestant Christian nationalism must take the form of an ethno-nationalist strand. Ethno-nationalist centric Christian Nationalism has already been perfected in Orthodox nations, most notably Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and so on.

2) Christian Nationalist movements first need to form a nucleus of a new, revolutionary elite that can codify their policies in order to make it easier to disseminate to the curious masses.

3) In the case of Europe though, their version of Christian Nationalism can take on a Pan-European cultural nationalist strand that can be both inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive in that they have to accept the possibility of collaboration and cooperation among the three major brands of Christianity, two of the Western branch and one of the Eatern branch. In the case of the Anglophone nations, there should exist two kinds of Christian Nationalism: a Protestant branch and a Catholic branch.

4) If anyone wants to experiment with the idea of developing another new kind of Christian Nationalist ideology, they must be open to the idea of dabbling with certain Gnostic strands, even though it may be deemed heretical. This kind of experimental Gnostic Nationalism, as we can propose to name it, is like thinking outside the box. However, as Gnosticism is a kind of subject that needed thorough examination and explanation, this experiment would have to be placed on stasis until one could address the sensitive issues regarding Gnosticism.

Though these solutions are not perfect and are open to further discussions, it is a possible start.
 
We did eventually lose the conflict against the Spaniards later on, but it is also worth noting that the 1521 Battle of Mactan was something that became a part of Philippine mythology, as we can say that we were the first ones to actually resist the Spanish conquest, mostly because our ancestors were familiar with gunpowder based weapons and they fought with steel weapons. It is not an accident that Lapu-Lapu became a national hero that is often mentioned in textbooks.

Impressive. I hope it earned some respect from the Spanish.

Perhaps I should be a bit more clear about the whole worshipping white culture at the expense of our own native culture, though this link here should be of help:
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1569&context=conf_shsrescon

The moment it talked about "Post Truth" I stopped reading. Reality is. There cannot be a "Post Truth".

Perhaps it has something worthwhile to say, but I doubt it.

Only the more negative ones that deserve to be thrown out. The positive legacies however, would be more of a grey zone. However, modernization can still occur in non-Western nations without colonialism, as evident by the Thai and Japanese modernizations.

In a very real sense, a lot of current Japan is the result of a mix between the bootstrapping they did to gain the tech they used in WW2, and the time after when they were dominated by the US. You might be looking at "colonising" in a little limited ways, there. Still, they're having some massive problems.....

Without a more traditional culture, you start to get Feminism, and that's a nightmare. There's a reason why we're getting stories from Japan of women marrying dogs, and men quitting out of society.

The very name of the Philippines is of colonial origin, as we were named after Philip II of Spain. I have not met a Muslim from Mindanao who says that he or she is proud to be a Filipino, given that to them, the name of the country is associated with a kafir king. That was why there were proposals to rename the country throughout history, though most of them were frankly, cringeworthy, except for the name Maharlika.

That, I can see. I'm not sure it's as important as you think, but still.

You could make the name your own. There's no more Spanish kings, you outlasted them, after all. Or, you could change the name, and find it not mattering at all.

Name, rose, sweet, etc.

Reforms of a long and arduous nature, as you said, will have to be slow and gradual. This, I agree. First, the subtle and gradual dismantling of the Catholic Church and its influence on Filipino society would have to take place, in a similar manner to how Turkey under Ataturk managed to modernize and secularize its society by taking Islam out of Turkish society. That's how Turks today have this modernist mindset. I also believe in the idea that the military should become the guardian of a nation, and by taking the example of Turkey once again, the military had in the past, launched coups against politicians suspected of being overtly religious. In this inspiration however, the Philippine military must be educated on the necessity of secularism and eliminating the influence of the Catholic Church from political society. It is through generations after generations that the new Filipino population can learn the benefits of secularism and being proud of their Asian heritage.

Note, I'm an athiest.

I'm still finding, as I get older, more and more proof that humans need more. That Faith seems, more and more, to be the bedrock on which civilisation grows. The lack of something more than what we can touch has massive side effects, showing in cracks that will kill our nations.

It's something I have grappled with. I'm not 100% sure, but..... The more I see, the more I realise that the average person isn't me. I'm somebody who asks questions, who wants to think through all sorts of ideas.


And most people aren't.




I do advocate being proud of the wonders of your people. That, too, is essential.

Though we may have butted heads recently, I actually appreciate being able to have this frank discussion with someone who can be rather blunt and honest without coping and seething. The main point of the Austronesian Viewpoint after all, is to generate a kind of musing from the viewpoint of an Austronesian person like myself.

Thanks. It's sometimes hard, finding people who want to talk and think, isn't it?

Hope it helps.

Of course, I would also have to address two other social issues that are hot button topics that have been discussed that are also influenced by the abnormally unbalanced relationship between the Philippine state and the Catholic Church: that of the reproductive health bill, and divorce. As it currently stands, both the Holy See and the Philippines are the only two entities in the world where divorce is considered illegal.

Divorce, huh. Any exceptions? In the West, as it's known, the standard now is "No Fault Divorce", where you can do so for any reason, or none at all.

It's a major problem, that. When you need a reason to break your word, you get less divorce, and there's a lot of evidence that a broken home is really bad for the kids. (And everybody else from said home.)
 
I find that these days I do end up getting really heated up easily, though mostly because I tend to hold grudges against certain people on this site. Not that I would hold a grudge against you, of course, though my vitriol is aimed at someone that I butted heads most of the time and had developed a sense of hatred and contempt for that person.

My musings regarding divorce and the RH bill in the Philippines is something that had to be addressed in the same topic or a separate one, because I would have to do a huge amount of research into the RH bill. There is the annulment as a policy in the Philippines, but it's not the same as divorce.
 
I find that these days I do end up getting really heated up easily, though mostly because I tend to hold grudges against certain people on this site. Not that I would hold a grudge against you, of course, though my vitriol is aimed at someone that I butted heads most of the time and had developed a sense of hatred and contempt for that person.

My musings regarding divorce and the RH bill in the Philippines is something that had to be addressed in the same topic or a separate one, because I would have to do a huge amount of research into the RH bill. There is the annulment as a policy in the Philippines, but it's not the same as divorce.

You'll have issues with me, same as I'll have issues with you.

We're only human. Still, good conversation can help us learn.




As for divorce, almost all places have some. The question is, how easy is it, and how much do people value their oath to family? In faithful societies, there's an oath to God in that, too.

When divorce is easy, keeping family can be hard. And the family is important. Also, if you can't keep your word in the big personal things, why should anybody trust your word elsewhere?


Annulment is generally "It never happened", and I would have thought that's a rare thing to invoke. Or do they mean it as a "We hold your oath as complete, go forth and sin no more" as they do with divorce in many places?


It can be very interesting. But, there are costs to it, in all ways.
 
Next week, I will be addressing the sensitive and controversial nature of geopolitics, and what my solutions should be. Fair warning: some of my solutions would be a bit.......radical.
 
Next week, I will be addressing the sensitive and controversial nature of geopolitics, and what my solutions should be. Fair warning: some of my solutions would be a bit.......radical.

Honestly listening to you.

I think your being too hard on your country the Philipines.

th


I mean look at it from a map point of view. Its an Island group with two major islands instead of a singular major island dominating smaller ones. Thats typically a recipie for a splintered system, then there is the fact that its located in the tropics which is an environment that just saps your energy and that isn't even bringing up malaria and parasites and other tropical diseases that just wreak fucking havok on human beings.

On top of this you have mountains, jungle, and it can at times be easier to travel around on boat to a place on the same damned island then on land. You bring up colonialism but keep in mind your country is young really young. Its essentially just over 70 years old.

The US took over a 100 years and had to go through one of the most horrific civil wars in our history before we became a functional nation state. The Philipines made a few mistakes yes but they didn't commit the kind of world class fuck ups that africa did.

Considering the terrain, the climate, the recent history and the fact that you guys are as functional as you are, its like give yourself some god damned credit man.
 
Honestly listening to you.

I think your being too hard on your country the Philipines.

th


I mean look at it from a map point of view. Its an Island group with two major islands instead of a singular major island dominating smaller ones. Thats typically a recipie for a splintered system, then there is the fact that its located in the tropics which is an environment that just saps your energy and that isn't even bringing up malaria and parasites and other tropical diseases that just wreak fucking havok on human beings.

On top of this you have mountains, jungle, and it can at times be easier to travel around on boat to a place on the same damned island then on land. You bring up colonialism but keep in mind your country is young really young. Its essentially just over 70 years old.

The US took over a 100 years and had to go through one of the most horrific civil wars in our history before we became a functional nation state. The Philipines made a few mistakes yes but they didn't commit the kind of world class fuck ups that africa did.

Considering the terrain, the climate, the recent history and the fact that you guys are as functional as you are, its like give yourself some god damned credit man.
The biggest critic of one's own country is someone who has actually lived in it, plus his or her own family. Plus, we're more scattered around the world due to how poor it is, and while remittances are what's helping our country keep itself afloat, global economic crises of all kinds would make our reliance on remittances a bit more of a liability.

Indonesia, while facing a similar geographic and weather conditions to the Philippines, has actually accomplished something more than we did, and so did Malaysia, and Indonesia has way more islands than the Philippines. Yet, if you also look at the map of the wider Asia-Pacific region, the Philippines actually sits perfectly in a position where they can actually trade with the rest of SE Asia. We also made a lot of our screw ups as well, especially during the conflict that we had with the US (such as assassinating a popular general who actually cared a lot about the fighting prowess of the Philippine Revolutionary Army). We still have a long way to go before we're no longer a geopolitical punching bag that America and China would use.

Aside from the political ruling class being idiots whose main concern is their family dynasty's political longevity, there isn't any more issues that I have to address. I mean, the Philippines would have to be a special kind of pitiful when you have the likes of Brian Berletic brutally laying out the geopolitical mistakes that we had made, and I really don't like his overt pro-China stance on everything but can't deny that he's right about us.

And the worst part? Our mortal enemy, Communist China, is also one of our biggest trading partners and we have a territorial dispute with them. Plus if you take into account Taiwan's own claims on the Spratly Islands, we would technically have a territorial dispute with them as well. It's horrible, since some of the statelets in what became the Philippines were Chinese tributary states, while a few entities were actually ruled by the Bruneian Empire.

Don't get me wrong: I love the country that I left for greener pastures and have learned a lot of its history from when I was little. I grew up learning about our heroes and all the conflicts, plus even going on a field trip in the centennial year of our independence. I just could not help but grow a bit more angry and resentful that my homeland is getting fucked by bigger powers that would only use us as pawns when we should become far stronger.
 
Don't get me wrong: I love the country that I left for greener pastures and have learned a lot of its history from when I was little. I grew up learning about our heroes and all the conflicts, plus even going on a field trip in the centennial year of our independence. I just could not help but grow a bit more angry and resentful that my homeland is getting fucked by bigger powers that would only use us as pawns when we should become far stronger.
That happens to most of us.

Australian here. Why, I wonder, did so many of us die in WW1? Why were we even in WW2? Vietnam? Iraq?

There's a long list of things that we do to prove we're minions. I'm not fond of most of them.
 
In the subject of geopolitics, it would mostly be multipolarism vs unipolarism, and who benefits from either one or the other. Why it’s controversial is because of recent political events, and I will dive much deeper into it.

Regarding the last one, many netizens still refer to the Philippines as America’s puppet, and that we’re far too integrated into the Western political and cultural system. There’s also the accusations of us having a colonial mentality, and that decolonization had not been fulfilled properly. Without going into further detail, I would explain why the Philippines should behave even more like a proper Asiatic nation than a lost illegitimate child of the Euro-Atlantic and Latin American entities that got stuck in Asia.
Philippines are part of West,no matter what you want.And never was part of Asia,becouse they have their own civilizations,when Philippines were islanders on Pacific,with their own culture.

You are sea people,when asiatic nations,except possible Japan,are not.That is difference which could not be changed.
 
Philippines are part of West,no matter what you want.And never was part of Asia,becouse they have their own civilizations,when Philippines were islanders on Pacific,with their own culture.

You are sea people,when asiatic nations,except possible Japan,are not.That is difference which could not be changed.
Culturally speaking, yes. Geographically speaking, no. Racially speaking, no as well, for we are of the Austronesian ethnos, and therefore, should be aligned more with the rest of Asia, or should I say, the Brown Asiatic-Mongoloid race. Indonesia and Malaysia are also considered Pacific Islander, but they truly identify with the rest of Asia.

What I am proposing for what should be done to the Philippines is to realign their cultural alignment with Asia, so we may never be seen as little brown Americans with Hispanic surnames. Only by gradually severing our cultural ties to the West, can we truly integrate fully with the rest of Asia. Pacific Islanders too, must embrace their Asiatic roots, for they came from Asia as well.

It is to our detriment that Japan chose to imitate China's tendency to become the center of Asia when they treated the nations they claimed to liberate far worse than when they were under the rule of whites. It would have been better if the Pan-Asian movement was a genuine movement instead of being a mere cover for Japanese imperialism.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top