"Here again, that kid's imaginary ständestat tries to exert its influence."

"Here again, that kid's imaginary ständestaat tries to exert its influence."

Here again, that the kid's imaginary ständestaat tries to exert its influence.

Just like this page's past article related to that kid in the basement, that through his social media page, one would say that most his posts is as if aspiring for a moral sanation of the Filipino body politic, and like any other idealist would say that he is willing to take part in the reforms regardless of what people seeing it as detrimental to the country's development, or a factor in consolidating entrenched interests.

However, it all end turned out to be a butt of jokes given the levels of irony been percieved in his posts. It is unsurprising for a concerned, for he, as any other idealist, whilst trying to offer a view thinks as "dynamic", end like trying to salvage an order amidst popular upheaveal to dismantle it; if not justifying an unpopular venture thinking that "this can benefit on the long term", regardless of its unlikely consequence or repercussion in regards to its actions.

Is it Dictablanda? Democratic Orderism? Ständestat?

It is unsurprising for this person that the orderist tendency of "that kid from the basement" tries to be hidden in the veneer of constitutional democracy. For as he imagining his variant of a ständestat, he tries to replicate what's orderly as idealised in the past while at the same time trying to "update" with view that's modern and appealing, and both of which for sure did benefit the order regardless of its problems coming.

Reminiscent of Stolypin and his policies if not those of Pilsudski's, his orderist escapades are given that he's disgusted with the percieved corruption within the bureaucracy and economic mismanagement, if not yearning for economic and moral development or even a nonpartisan variant of governance, he preaches a somewhat "middle way" kind of politics which tries to bridge interests between people, state, and business interests. And like Dollfuss with his ständestat, he sees federalism as an extension of subsidiarity while a corporate-style governance being a blueprint of a well-governed society, wouldn't be surprised if he's trying to update old concepts like 'partyless democracy' by transforming or political parties with those of functional representations in an attempt to create an organic social solidarity.
Otherwise, he tries to be like Mill, whose liberal corporatism does not reject capitalism or individualism, but instead believing that capitalist companies are also social institutions capable of bringing developments regardless of being profit oriented, if not exploitative.

But despite all his babblings (that brought this writer's attention as the earlier post), is quite obvious that in his social media posts that "Orderism" alone hath been invoked throughout- such as a having a working if not a strong leader, of the need for an objective interpretation of law, the need for strong armed forces, and the means to upheld "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that sometimes at the expense of these words. The word "balance" for him is of importance thinking that he tries to weighs both the regime's rightness and wrongness of its policies, what more of its leaders and it's implementation; or the unpopularity of the policies that for him can be considered good "in long term" no mater how the majority still interprets each and every policy, especially that's brought about by a neoliberal-oriented interest seeker as unfair, unjust, hence "unpopular" like in the case of "Rice Tarrification" and "Tax Reform" laws.

But regardless of the unpopularity would say that the kid think that there's "no greater mistake than to regard orderliness as a mere mechanism of administration." Whereas he wishes a society that's "less politics and more policymaking/implementing", and a leadership that is willing to be deemed "unpopular in the eyes of many", the "democracy" he envisioned can't be the liberal democracy he praised about, more rather a "constitutional republic" as interpreted by conservatives like him, much likely an authoritarian one, a "Dictablanda"/"Democratura" variant all basing on the character references that kid himself posted in his account.

"Side by side", "balance", no matter how "unpopular" it is 

"Many of us, Filipinos only accepts government policies that are for us popular even if some of them are detrimental for the country in the long-run while we cannot accept government policies that are unpopular but would be good for the country in short and long-term..."

These are the words the kid from the basement saidth in his post. That by thinking that the basis of efficient leadership comes from the creation if not implementation of unpopular laws and policies, the kid interprets these as necessary regardless of its nature and its impact towards the majority.

Quite reasonable at first for knowing that governance as not meant to please people or gain fame, but rather to improve the nation's wellbeing no matter how it appears to be unpopular or unjust. However, if a policy happens to be made for the consolidation of entrenched interests, regardless of its so-called impact, the majority will deemed unpopular or even unjust; and to think that most policy or law brought about by the order happens to be unpopular in its character, that even tho the order tries to justify it, the dubious nature of a law will always be an object of ridicule and opposition. Policies such as Reaganomics, Thatcherism, even those of Marcos, Cory Aquino, and Fidel Ramos's neoliberal/monetarist economic polices were examples of those deemed unpopular by many, and at some time became a reason to protest against those- being synonymous with rising prices of goods, to those of privatisation and deregulation of services.

As an observer, would say that he may still live in irony, for knowing that with his desire for a country with capable and dynamic leadership, he wishes a "gradual" kind of change; while on the other hand, he still keeps faith on those whom he think has the "will" to pursue "changes" even these people themselves are unlikely to happen. And one example is how he wishes to see issues be dealt side by side" if not looking at things unpopular in a positive light.

Let's state some examples of his views: He wished for a radical change of systems (according to his November 4, 2018 post), radical yet limited to an evolutionary way of systems such as is reforming the 1987 Constitution thinking will be a gradual overhaul of our political and economic systems; while at the same time he preaches continuity of past policies (based from October 27, 2017 Facebook post) most of which are made by oligarchs and landlords alike. Isn't it that ironic knowing he desired to "break the shackles of interest" while seeing same old policymakers within the system be able to do their job "thinking there's good men and women" in their ranks; this reminds of Mussolini or Franco having "good people" isn't it? But are they sure they are change driven? Or looking after their interests as they retain the order their leaders saidth about? Wouldn't be surprised that the change brought from a Dictablanda is all about submission to markets and capitalism, similar to what is happening in present.

Another example of his view (coming from his April 24 2019 Facebook post) would be the idea of having "more foreign investors coming in the country to invest, own businesses and give jobs for Filipinos", that's "side by side with a national industrialization program that would create many industries supported by government or local entrepreneurs." Quite interesting, if not sounding like ideal for as the kid thinks that it can be done both at the same time; yet, reality says otherwise especially in the case of local industries gone bankrupt with the influx of cheap processed goods abroad or, letting local enterprises be taken over by multinational ones on the pretext of "agreements". But that kid would insist it as necessary no matter how unpopular those consequences thinking that "If this happens, the oligarchs will loose their total control over their economy and will loose their influence to rent-seek the Government into doing policies that will favor their interests" and "for them to compete fairly side by side with other Filipino businessmen, especially those engaged in small and medium enterprises, and with foreign businessmen".

Yet again, reality says otherwise, for no matter how many rules being imposed regarding businesses, responsibilities, and the like, a shrewd capitalist, be it an oligarch or an outsider is always an interest driven one. There may be conscience driven ones trying to stress national development than those of their self-interest, but this doesn't reflect capitalism in general. Furthermore, he sounds like any other neoliberal apologist trying to be "patriotic" in justifying his stances the way he wishes for the Philippines "to adopt some concepts of a welfare state" while "balancing it with capitalism" to benefit the poor, that again, how ironic.

Aside from his irony-laden socioeconomic stances, his character references are mostly unpopular ones especially dictators like Pinochet and Franco. As Chileans equate the late dictator with atrocities over Santiago while Spaniards deeming their caudillo as a blatant reactionary, "the kid" would amit that he is fascinated by military rulers, thinking that military rule meant stability and order although he insisted that kind of rule as meant to be "short term" and be acquired its "democratic legitimacy". The former for instance, "that kid" would oppose him for his human rights violations that brought him notoriety, while at the same time praising for reinstituting free market with its privatisation and deregulation as its policies, and from there would praise the Chicago boys, Milton Friedman, and the almost nightwatchman state setting over Chile (that Libertarians praised about), not knowing that his procedures also brought the country to its ruin, after all, "better than the Marxist Allende" as what he says.

***

These and more examples may likely to come to a conclusion that in seeing hope on those willing to push an agenda similar to his, that he mistakens freedom for the merchant as freedom for the people. Some would say that the notes appeared to appealing especially to those who wanted a moral-laced answer to socio-economic ills, if not assuming that they are an orderly alternative to a raging mob yearning for change; yet, in claiming to be at the side of reform, its perspective be as those of a conservative, thinking that they're salvaging the order from 'devouring time' even it appears to be 'resisting 'change'' that's the hatred of the people.

Severino intepreted the kid's views that he is a "Liberal fair and square" if not blatantly "cuckold" because of having faith in the order thinking it has the capability to make changes, and wouldn't be surprised that the kid and those similar to him toying with having a military junta "as an action of last resort" to take over in case his  Duterte is incapacitated, or in the case of vital industries by letting a foreigner (like Salim or Rupert Murdoch) take over in the name of 100% Foreign Direct Investment as if it can end the reign of the oligarchs.

But his "side by side" approach to issues seems to be the much familiar one as this writer observed. First it may appear good; but the question is, is he prepared about the consequences? "Without minding the cost" as what he said; but, since he preaches about social safety nets while limiting state interventions within market economy bounds, that he wished for open foreign direct investments thinking it would break Oligarchs while at the same time purusing 'industrialsation', that freedom of speech and expression has to be responded with the "right of reply" especially to a state whom trying to defend itself from criticism, or even the need for school prayer in public schools and making blasphemy illegal despite the fact that the constitution observes separation of church and state, all in all, one would ask: is he really talking about change for the people's welfare or making the country go backwards as entrenched interests still benefited from it especially with a state incapable of asserting and instead submissive to their whims? "Reforms" are sometimes aren't change driven, but rather consolidatory.

Anyway, bluntly speaking, people would say he end himself becoming a living meme especially after reading his posts. By trying to be like Friedman, Dollfuss, Stolypin, or any other western thinker/leader, he end rather a living meme that's full of irony, a target for jokes and crass humour because of a view that's meant to ridicule. For the fact that he is claiming to be at the side of reform he's actually on the side of order-trying to upheld its vestiges while accomodating what is greatly needed to ensure the order's survival, especially when one after thinking about his notes stating about the ideal change as just trying to substitute actually existing partisan politics with his fantasy of social solidarism, citing that his 'positive' reception towards the administration would say that he has faith within the system thinking that it can be changed gradually "for the betterment of the country and its people" although at times babbling critically on the inefficiencies of government service, corruption, or the oligarchs that caused "slowlessness" in his internet hindering his social media posts.

From this no wonder why his views constitute this imaginary ständestat: a strong order to defend free markets, a dictablanda trying to appease one while oppresses the other, a counterreaction to an existing reaction. How fascinating, but turns out to be ridiculous.

Well then, one meme page attests to that levels of irony he hath spoken through, if not his stance in general, of his imaginary standestat that's meant to ridicule.