Against the Angry Leftist Rambo Solution

Problem: Poverty

Rambo solution: Get angry and shout profanities at the government

Problem: Corruption

Rambo solution: Get angry and think of insults to be hurled at the politicians

Problem: Anti-leftist blog post

Rambo solution: A barrage of insulting comments

A few years ago I’d allow myself to be completely mad and hurl back equally insulting comments, but that really doesn’t work. Anger isn’t going to solve our problems, but well-thought out plans and a strong political will to see these plans through will.

I’m not saying I’m the person who can solve all our country’s problems. All I can offer are opinions based on what I’ve experienced as a Filipino living all my life in this country. Again and again I say against angry leftist comments:

Anger does not solve anything. Angry leads to stupid arguments and Rambo macho shit remarks. Anger only makes you feel passionate about something, but passion in itself will not solve the problem. I’m not saying passion, whether based on anger or love or whatever, is not important. It’s what gives us the will to keep on going when the going gets tough, but passion without a good plan of action AND the will to see it through is nothing.

I suspect the problem lies in the fact that we prefer our heroes to be either brave and/or dead. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to say that Rizal or Bonifacio are not admirable; except, we need to achieve more than what they’ve achieved in life. We need to be better than the heroes of the past. Our heroes have provided us with spirit; but like I keep saying, we need more than spirit or passion or love for our fellow Filipinos.

We need results and we can get results with intelligence and a strong will sustained by passion.

Think about it. Regular soldiers are encouraged to feel aggressive during basic training because they need to get out of the civilian mind set of ‘the one being saved’ to the military mind set of ‘the one doing the saving.’ They get encouragements by being told they’re hard core and they have to show their battle face, etc. In the same way, people need to be emotional to be roused out of apathy to having the desire for change. This is where encouragements to be angry at poverty, corruption and all other problems in society come in.

BUT a person who thinks expressing emotion is the same as making a difference is an idiot. Using emotion to propel us to action is only the first step. Think about it. If you go out and show your butt-hole to the U.S. embassy guards because you’re against the Visiting Forces Agreement, what have you achieved except to show a couple of apathetic guards your butt-hole?

After being propelled into action by our emotions, we need to calm down and think about what needs to be done. This is where critical thinking comes in; and if you’ve ever tried to solve a problem by thinking critically, you’ll know that it becomes more difficult when emotions cloud your judgment. This is why doctors are not advised to operate on close relatives, and also why math problems remain unsolved despite all the profanities you’ve shouted at it.

Going back to our soldiers, after all the ‘You’re hard core!’ cheers in basic training, supposedly you already know that you’re hard core (compared to a sedentary civilian, that is). Training becomes less emotional and more technical. You’re not trying to show off anymore that you can be a kick-ass private with an M-16 instead of a bum who can’t get a girlfriend. What you’re trying to achieve now is to increase your skills in whatever specialization you’ve chosen. Ok, so you can still shout out ‘I’m hard core’ after graduating, but my point is you’ve already propelled yourself into action, and the next step which is more difficult requires the concentration of the rational part of the mind, NOT the emotional part. Whatever role the emotions play during this time is at the background to keep the spirit high.

My problem with the typical Filipino leftist is that most of them are only angry especially the young ones (whom I suspect are only used as pawns because rallies would make a stronger point if butt-holes are exposed). Angry comments from people like Prof. Lanuza might influence apathetic people to care more about society’s problems, but my problem with it is the argument contained in it is flawed. You can’t dismiss the problem of squatters by assuming the truth of primitive communism (which is problematic in itself). The fact is private land exists and squatters cannot claim a legal right to private land by referring to their moral right to all the resources of the planet.

I understand that people can be emotional especially when dealing with an issue that is important to them, but anger doesn’t give them the right to kill or to terrorize.

Anger doesn’t give people the right to publicly blurt out flawed arguments, especially when the person doing the blurting is supposedly an intellectual.

Just because something is said in an outburst of emotion doesn’t mean it is correct. 


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s