Don't Gaslight Us Please!

 

In the grand, high-ceilinged Senate Impeachment Court, a historic precedent in courtroom strategy has been established: the Law of Absolute Infallibility.

THE THREE-STEP GASLIGHTING PROTOCOL

[ STEP 1: THE VERBAL BLUNDER ] - "Misleading questions are allowed!

[ STEP 2: THE REVISIONIST MANIFESTATION ] - "What she actually meant was leading questions! Stop being so literal!

[ STEP 3: THE DEFLECTION OF OUTRAGE ] - "Publishing basic court rules on Facebook is an insult to our dignity!"

Act I: The Birth of a New Legal Doctrine
During the cross-examination of state auditor Xylene del Campo, the nation watched live, high-definition television as prosecution counsel Atty. Lorna Kapunan reminded the court that misleading questions are strictly prohibited.

Without missing a beat, defense counsel Atty. Kristine Ferrer delivered a confident rebuttal for the history books: "They are allowed!"

THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE

RULE 132 (CLASSIC): Misleading questions are strictly banned in all examinations to prevent the distortion of the truth.

RULE 132 (DEFENSE): Misleading questions are allowed if spoken with sufficient confidence on national TV.

In any ordinary reality, a lawyer who accidentally substitutes "misleading" for "leading" during a heated generational clash would simply say: "Apologies, Your Honor, a slip of the tongue—I meant leading questions."

Four words. Two seconds. Issue resolved.

Act II: The Art of Rewriting Live Television
Instead of a two-second correction, the defense team launched a high-wire damage-control campaign that relied on a bold premise: The Filipino public doesn't know how to listen.

[ THE DEFENSE MANIFESTATION MATRIX

-WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARD ON LIVE TV:

Kapunan: "Misleading questions are not allowed!"

Ferrer: "THEY ARE ALLOWED!"

-WHAT THE DEFENSE CLAIMS THE PUBLIC WAS SUPPOSED TO HEAR:

Kapunan: [Inaudible legal context]

Ferrer: "Leading questions answerable by yes or no are permitted under Rule 132!"

During her formal manifestation, lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison performed an astonishing feat of narrative gymnastics.

She expected millions of viewers to pretend that the word "misleading" was never spoken, the context didn't exist, and that everyone watching live stream playbacks was merely suffering from collective auditory hallucinations.

Act III: The Facebook Post Outrage

When prosecution counsel Atty. Amando Ligutan posted a basic legal refresher on Facebook reminding his followers that misleading questions are indeed banned, the defense team's indignation reached peak performance.

THE OUTRAGE PARADOX FLOWCHART

-PROSECUTION POSTS A BASIC RULE OF COURT - "Rule 132 prohibits misleading questions."

-DEFENSE REACTS WITH DEEP OFFENSE - "This is troubling, in bad taste, and an insult!"

-THE PUBLIC'S CONCLUSION - If stating a basic law feels like a targeted attack, the problem isn't the law—it's the conscience!

A slip of the tongue in a high-pressure, televised impeachment trial does not strip a lawyer of their bar credentials or professional competence. Human errors are easily forgiven.

What is far harder to digest is the arrogance of a cover-up.

By treating the public like naive spectators who cannot process verbatim video receipts, the defense team proved a fundamental truth of legal theater: a momentary verbal blunder does very little damage to your credibility, but insisting that the whole world misheard you will shatter it completely.

Are You Kidding?

:Piliin ninyo yung lider na kung saan ninyo nakikita yung nakita ninyo sa tatay ko/ninyo.:

The statement, if misinterpreted, can be a double entendre. (A double entendre is a figure of speech or phrase designed to have two interpretations. The first meaning is straightforward and innocent, while the second—often revealed through wordplay or puns—is risqué, sexually suggestive, or socially inappropriate)

If you heard ... (sa Tatay ninyo), you choose leaders where you can "see your own Father," and you are looking for mentor figures whose values and actions reflect the qualities you most admired in your own father.

But if you hear ... (sa Tatay ko), it is the height of Political gaslighting, where Davao City Mayor Baste Duterte recently looked a crowd dead in the eye and delivered the ultimate comedy advice for the upcoming election season: “Piliin ninyo ang mga lideres ninyo na nakikita ninyo ang Tatay ninyo ko” (Choose leaders where you can see my Father).

You really have to admire the absolute, gold-medal audacity of this statement. The public immediately spat out their coffee, rubbed their eyes, and asked the universe: You gotta be kidding.

If we are strictly looking for a leader who acts exactly like his "Tatay," let us review the incredibly specific job description Baste is asking the Filipino nation to sign up for:

The "Tatay-Style" Leadership Checklist - According to the historical receipts of the past few years, a true "Tatay-approved" national leader must possess the following elite qualifications:

-The Domestic Specialization: Must be comfortable being caught on national television casually violating the personal space of a sleeping domestic helper. Nothing screams "paternal care" quite like a complete lack of basic workplace boundaries.

-The Theological Upgrade: Must be brave enough to casually look up at the heavens and hurl profanities at God Himself whenever standard rules get inconvenient.

-The Financial Alchemist: Must have the divine ability to pull off a Procurement Miracle. If you can take a small, random company with a tiny ₱625,000 paid-up capital and somehow hand them ₱10.85 billion in government contracts in the middle of a global health crisis, you have passed the test.

Tatay's Pandemic Math: ₱625,000 Capital >>> Magic Scanner >>> ₱10,850,000,000 Contract

If you want to be a leader like Baste’s father, you must also be an expert in structural favoritism. True leaders don't just create public infrastructure; they create a booming ecosystem of Discaya-style mega-contractors, wealthy political middlemen, and well-fed cronies.

And let’s look at their spectacular, flawless track record with the justice system:

A. Target Demographic- Big-Time Corrupt Politicians
-The Standard "Tatay" Procedure - Extensively protected, coddled, or magically granted early release papers.
-The Statistical Outcome - Zero big fish behind bars. The VIP revolving door works perfectly!

B. Target Demographic -The Unrepresented Poor
-The Standard "Tatay" Procedure - Subjected to a brutal, merciless "War on Drugs."
-The Statistical Outcome - Thousands dead. Collateral damage included innocent children who lacked a lawyer, a bodyguard, or a political backer.

What Baste is fundamentally asking the country to do is vote for a specific, highly toxic political brand.

It’s a governing style where profanity replaces actual national policy, fear replaces structural justice, and high-budget propaganda completely deletes objective truth.

When Baste says, "Look for a leader like my Dad," the internet is looking at the history books, the ongoing ICC developments, and the current economic reality.

Are we actually looking for a visionary national leader to guide us into the future, or are we just standing in line to purchase a ticket for a sequel to the exact same national nightmare?

Thanks, Baste, but the country has officially run out of patience for your family’s version of fatherly love.

We’d rather be orphans.

When Ther Obvious Threat Is Not A Threat!

In a move that has left standard legal scholars clutching their textbooks, the defense is attempting to convince the Senate Impeachment Court that a widely viewed, internationally covered, raw livestreamed video of the Vice President is just a product of the mind - actually a mass collective hallucination.

The law, however, does not reward theatrical amnesia.

The new PR script is as simple as it is insulting: if you mess up on camera, file a lawsuit against the camera. If the entire nation hears you launch into an unfiltered assassin fantasy, file a motion to cross-examine the nation's ears.

According to the defense, "Not Authentic" is almost equivalent to a magical incantation.

You don’t need forensic data; you just need to whisper it into a high-end microphone and poof—the video evidence is supposed to evaporate from the national memory.

Legally speaking, it takes a lot more than wishful thinking to delete a file from a trial.

Authentic verification requires source tracking, metadata analysis, preservation records, a secure chain of custody, and verified forensic manipulation trails.

Evidence is not defeated by vague insinuations; it is defeated by contrary evidence.

A, -The Legal Framework for Verification - Forensic Audit: Call digital experts, analyze the original file format, check the code structure, and map the upload timestamp

-The DDS Propaganda Strategy - Vague Doubts: Squint at the giant projection screen, look visibly confused, and imply the internet made it up.
B.
-The Legal Framework for Verification: Cross-Examination: Test the consistency of the stream data and compare it against verified mirrors.

-The DDS Propaganda Strategy: National Gaslighting: Look 117 million people dead in the eye and say, "Are you sure it wasn't raining indoors?"

To claim that a broadcast-quality livestream—which was instantly clipped, reposted, analyzed by international intelligence agencies, and archived by local media—might be an illusion is a special breed of fiction.

It’s the equivalent of standing in the middle of a tropical storm, drenched from head to toe, and arguing that the weather forecast is technically unverified.

The absolute highest peak of this comedic tragedy is the timeline of the defense's excuses. Let’s look at the rapid evolution of the narrative since the video first dropped:\

[Day 1] "It's not an assassination threat! It's just a metaphorical expression of frustration!"

[Day 2] "You are taking the words out of context! It was a hyper-specific emotional reaction!"

[Trial Day] "Wait... what words? Who said that? Is that video even real?

Initially, the defense didn't run away from the text; they just ran away from the legal definition of the text.

They tried to rebrand an explicit THREAT as a colorful workspace figure of speech.

But now that the prosecution has formally entered the digital receipts into the record, the script has flipped completely. Suddenly, the words don't exist, the video is a deepfake, and the public square has apparently suffered a synchronized neurological glitch.

The law is highly sensitive to context, but it isn't stupid enough to ignore plain text. You cannot scream fire, blood, and fury into a public square, then send a team of suits to argue that the public square imagined the echo.

At this point, the defense is no longer just arguing a standard legal case; they are actively auditing the cognitive capacity of an entire country. They are treating the national memory like a temporary social media story that automatically deletes itself after 24 hours.

Let's look at how this scenario plays out across different strata of society:

Ordinary Employee Threatens Boss on Live >>>Terminated before Lunch Break

Vice President Threatens President on Live >>>Constitutional Seminar on Authenticity

If an ordinary corporate worker went live on TikTok and announced a strategic hit plot against the CEO, security would have them out of the building before their morning coffee got cold.

But when you hold a high constitutional office, a violent livestream unlocks an automatic multi-week lecture series on media literacy, procedural technicalities, and political persecution.

The Senate Impeachment Court has the constitutional duty to weigh the evidence. That is the process, and the public respects it.

But there is a massive line between a vigorous legal defense and national gaslighting.

A loud denial cannot function as detergent for dirty facts. There are physical receipts. There are unedited replays. There are digital metadata trails. And most importantly, the Filipino people still possess working eyes, ears, and common sense.

If the ultimate defense strategy is to pretend the nation went blind and deaf at the exact same moment, the only thing they are successfully proving is the sheer depth of their desperation.

The Fugitive's Sermon

In a plot twist that sounds like it was written by a comedian undergoing a midlife crisis, former Presidential Spokesperson, certified TikTok dancer, and currently hiding-in-plain-sight lawyer Harry Roque has re-emerged from the digital shadows.

While the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) was busy turning the EDSA Ortigas flyover into a massive, unauthorized parking lot to defend a politician facing a 75 million pesos plunder case, Harry looked at the sea of uniform polo shirts and had a profound spiritual awakening.

He didn’t ask about the plunder. He didn’t ask about the traffic.

Instead, he shook his fist at the heavens and yelled a question that echoed across social media: “Catholic Church, where are you in the people’s fight against evil?!”

He then delivered the ultimate theological threat: “Your ranks will wither, and the ranks of the INC will balloon!”

Let us marvel at the sheer, unadulterated comedy of Harry Roque lecturing the Catholic Church on morality.

According to the Gospel of Harry, "fighting evil" does not mean standing up for human rights, feeding the poor, or demanding accountability from public officials.

No, true righteousness is apparently achieved by standing on EDSA on a Tuesday morning to make sure a senator who confessed to taking millions of pesos from private individuals doesn't have to go to jail.

If the Catholic Church isn't joining a flash mob to protect a non-bailable plunder defendant, Harry considers them spiritually bankrupt.

Unfortunately for Harry, the internet does not suffer from short-term memory loss. Netizens immediately unleashed a tidal wave of reality checks that sent his sermon straight to the digital garbage bin:

-The "Not an Appendage" Doctrine: Netizens quickly reminded Harry that Catholics do not operate on a hive-mind system. As one comment noted: "Catholics move by choice, not by the command of a church leader. We aren't yes-men. Does the INC not have its own brains that their leaders have to decide everything for them?"

-The Litmus Test for Rallies: Other netizens pointed out that the Catholic Church actually does go to EDSA—but usually for minor things like toppling dictatorships or fighting systemic oppression, not acting as a corporate legal defense team for a politician's questionable campaign donations.

The Church tends to reserve its presence for leaders who are honest, trustworthy, and not currently being investigated by the Ombudsman.

The Legal Standing of the Preacher: But the absolute gold-medal internet clapbacks targeted Harry's current "residential status."

"How can we believe a word you say when you are literally a fugitive? Roque, come home first before you tell us to go to EDSA!"

It is beautifully ironic. A man who spent years defending the drug war and is currently evading legislative hearings is standing on a virtual soapbox, telling millions of Catholics that their souls are in danger because they refuse to join a traffic-stopping protest for Rodante Marcoleta.

Don't worry, Harry. The Catholic Church has survived Roman emperors, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Protestant Reformation.

It will probably survive your prediction that everyone is going to convert to the INC just because they missed out on blocking the EDSA Carousel busway.

In the meantime, the public has a counter-question for the former spokesperson: "Harry, nasaan KA?" (Harry, where are YOU?)

Because the police and the House of Representatives would really love to know.

Do You Believe Bato de la Rosa?

In the last impeachment hearing, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) can find 144 "Irene Tans" faster than you can order a milk tea.

But when they were searching for Mary Grace Piattos. They could not find a trace.

That was not a technical glitch ... but more of  a spiritual anomaly. 

It appears the Office of the Vice President (OVP) ... when they want a name to appear badly ... the opposite happened.

During the April 14 impeachment hearing, the PSA confirmed what we all suspected: Mary Grace Piattos, Kokoy Villamin, and Milky Secuya do not exist. 

They haven't been born, they haven't married, and they haven't died. 

They are the ultimate "Confidential" citizens—so private that even the government that gave them money has no idea who they are.

But wait! Before we call for an exorcism of the OVP’s ledger, Senator Bato Dela Rosa is here to save the day with some "expert" local knowledge. 

According to the Senator—who definitely isn't just making things up with his interview with Karen Davila—the Piattos family is real, wealthy, and lives in Davao.

Apparently, in the Davao social registry, "Piattos" isn't a hexagonal potato chip with a satisfying crunch; it’s a prestigious surname. 

Perhaps they are cousins to the "Chippy" clan of Cebu or the "Nova" aristocrats of Northern Luzon?

• Bato’s Logic: "I’ve seen them! They aren't snacks, they’re people!" Karen D. can't hold her laughter ... but she tried to control it ... as she protested: With all due respect.

• The Reality: The Senator is "lying through his teeth" with such vigor that he might need a dental referral. When your boss’s budget is on the line, apparently the first thing to go isn't the fund—it's your grip on reality.

• While "Irene Tan" is so common she has 144. birth certificates, Milky Secuya and Kokoy Villamin remain as elusive as a politician’s promise

• Milky Secuya: Sounds less like a confidential fund recipient and more like a rejected brand of evaporated milk.

• Kokoy Villamin: Sounds like the name of a character in a 1980s sitcom that was cancelled after one episode.

The PSA’s "Negative Record" is essentially a polite way of saying, "These people are imaginary friends who happen to be very expensive to maintain." 

It’s a miracle! The OVP has managed to distribute millions of pesos to people who don't have biological footprints. It’s not just "Confidential Funds"; it’s Supernatural Finance. 

The Commission on Audit (COA) is now in the awkward position of trying to track down receipts from ghosts. 

How do you issue a subpoena to a potato chip? How do you verify the signature of a man named "Milky" who has some feminine undertones?

This isn't just a "technicality" or a "clerical error." This is Narrative Absurdism (a kind of storytelling that is irrational .... illogical ... and nonsensical).

If the OVP’s defense is that these are "real people," then we are witnessing the greatest witness-protection program in history—one that protects people from the burden of ever being born.

Senator Bato can keep insisting that the "Piattos" family is a prominent Davao fixture, but until Mary Grace shows up at the PSA with a birth certificate and a bag of her namesake chips, we have to assume the only thing "wealthy" about this situation is the imagination of those writing the reports. 

So next time, if you’re going to invent names for your confidential liquidation, maybe pick something less likely to be found in a vending machine. 

Because when the PSA starts looking for "Mary Grace Piattos," the only thing they’re going to find is a lot of salt ... and very little substance.

When What You Say Boomerang To You

Time and again, Inday Sara issued statements that oftentimes iniisip mo kung pinagisipan ba niya iyon.

Or talagang impulsive talker siya at one wonders kung ano ang nararamdaman niya pagkatapos lumabas ang mga maanghang and scathing  remarks sa bibig niya.

I am bringing this up to her attention dahil hindi lang iisang beses na wala siyang preno sa pag-rant niya ... at kung ano ang sinasabi niya kusa itong BUMABALIK sa kanya at nagbo-BOOMERANG.

                                         >>>>>>>>>>>

Huwag sana siyang maging IMPULSIVE ... at hindi niya iniisip kung ano ang binibitawan niyang mga salita.

At huwag sana siyang maging COMPULSIVE ... na everytime na magalit siya magwawala siya at gusto niya saksi ang buong mundo at buong ningning na ipakita niya that she was a chip of an old block ... at manang-mana sa ama.

However, she fell short ... because she is no Digong. Others believe she wants to mimic her mentor's grit and iron will. Sadly, she failed to meet the standard and the people's expectations and happened to be just in a level of nothing but a second-rate, trying-hard copycat. Thanks, Sharon Cuneta!

                                          >>>>>>>>>>>

Katulad niyan, when she made a clear and unequivocal statement that she had contracted an assassin to kill the President, the First Lady, and the House Speaker if an alleged plot against her succeeds. Hindi raw ito joke at inulit pa mandin ang threat in a separate incident. Because she was stubborn ... at walang makapigil sa kanya ...ayan kasama ito sa impeachment complaints at tila ngayong lang nahimasmasan si Inday sa kayabangan niya.

And she has the gall and the audacity to DENY that? That was classic GAS-LIGHTING ... ipamukha mo ba naman sa buong sanlibutan na kung ano man ang nakita nila sa infamous video niya ... ay hindi totoo? 

Reaction tuloy ng mga tao ...isang pagkamangha. PANAGINIP lang ba ito or GUNIGUNI? Hindi ... this strange phenomenon ay parang Haley's comet ... or blue supermoon making its  appearnce every 76 and 10 years respectively. Ngayon lang nangyari ito pero sabay-sabay ang buong mundo nagkaroon ng isang BANGUNGOT who was too vivid ... akala tuloy ng marami ay totoo. O huwag kalimutan ... courtesy ito ng bratinella ng Davao ha!

                                       >>>>>>>>>>>

There was also a time na nagkasunod-sunod ang tatlong bagyo ... ano pa ba ang aasahan natin kundi baha? Pero ang prinsesa ng Davao (imbes na tumulong, nakuha pa niyang nangutya at sinabi ang isang statement na hindi mo inaasahan manggaling sa isang Vice President. Ipunin daw ang lahat ng tubig at dalhin sa Malacanang to spite the government of their failed flood projects?

May amnesia ba siya or Alzheimers? Davao is experiencing the same problems dahil sa palpak na mga flood programs ng mga kapatid. 

And not to be forgotten ay ang ilang build-build projects ng kanyang ama sa Metro Manila ... na siyang rason kung bakit bumabaha. na itinuloy lang naman ni BBM. Ngayon fair bang mangsisi na lang ... and not do her share para makatulong man lang?

                                        >>>>>>>>>>>

Lately binanatan niya si Jonvic Remulla.  She was referring to this statement where people were waiting for weather advisories, and in her estimate, Remulla's typhoon informatories were short of being inappropriate, "Mga abangers ang sarap ng bogchi ko. Sa kabusugan ko naidlip ako sandali. O ito na ang weather update."

Inday was right, and I agree with her na sana naging professional ang mga nasa gobyerno sa kanilang pakikitungo sa mga tao. Masamang tingnan.

Pero kung ang advise ay manggaling pa sa kanya ... at buong dalisay niyang ipagngudnguran and have that "holier than thou attitude" na magsabi na "BE PROFESSIONAL ..." eh hindi pa natunawan ang mga tao sa mga sinabi niya noon: "Mga p..tang ina ninyo lahat ... hindi pa kayo nakakita ng kalaban tulad ko."Isama pa natin yong pang- okray niya kay Bishop Benny Abante, Joel Chua and Rolando Valeriano. That was so low!

>>>>>>>>>>>

Then in her Drag Me to hell press conference, she said: "I am UNFORGIVING ...UNYIELDING, & UNBOWED ..." obviously rejecting claims fired by some lawmakers that she is UNSOUND, UNHINGED, and UNBECOMING.

The situation escalated when she hurled fire and brimstone at her critics, most especially to the private and reticent BBM,

If all the impeachment complaints were true (?) how can the people FORGIVE and FORGET the UNFORGIVING VP? Just wondering.

>>>>>>>>>>>

There are still other instances where whatever Inday says ... her words have their way of BOUNCING back and BOOMERANG in her direction.

There's the myth that they are only living a simple life in Davao, ... that Leila De Lima is one narco-politician ... the beheading of her political foes ... her blood bath remarks ... kalkalin si FM at itapon sa West Philippine Sea ,,, and who could forget her rants about the rule of law and due process ad nauseam.

If the congressmen criticized her ... they were not objective and they are biased ... hence she is POLITICALLY PERSECUTED. When the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment complaints were unconstitutional ... for personal expediency, they are HEAVEN SENT.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dapat isaisip ni Inday yong GOLDEN Rule ... "Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you."

Pwede din yong SILVER Rule ... Gumawa ka nang mabuti ... para ikaw ay ipagbunyi. 

Kung ayaw mo ... e di ikaw ang lugi.

                                       >>>>>>>>>>>>

Gas Lighting

Gaslighting is a slang word for making someone question their sanity or their powers of reasoning.

When someone suggests that you are losing your mind (that may not be his real intention) ... but he makes you question your mental health ... teases you that you are forgetful and you don't hear well and your eyes are failing you... and accuses you that you are oversensitive and over-emotional ... that is the start of the vicious cycle of gaslighting.

The gaslighter often tricks you to make you uncertain about what is real and what is not. So when he says, pointing to the sky, "Look ... what was that ... and you said 'it is an airplane" and he insists "that was Superman," he was there to confuse you.

He was there invalidating what you saw ... contesting your feelings ... and in some part challenging your point of view.

The origin of the phrase began when a stage play was performed under the same title, GAS LIGHT. It is a story of a husband trying to drive his wife crazy by dimming the lights (which were powered by gas) in their home, and then he later denies that the light changed when his wife points it out.

Back to the topic ... people who gaslight feed you with lies, and the victim is aware that they are being lied to. The gaslighter's main concern here is how they were able to inject some kind of doubt into the person, doubting their REALITY when the incident is crystal clear and lucid, and they have seen everything en toto and heard enough.

Telling the victim their eyes and ears are not reliable is the start of the abusive template, and when the victim shows signs that they are wobbling in their position, especially with what they saw and heard, gaslighting is up for a good start.

I know of somebody who is quite savvy with gaslighting as a child (although I doubt if he knew what he was doing ... he was only seven then.) He woke up one December morning ... and I said: "Where are you going?" and he told me that he was going to attend and serve in the MASS."

Doubting what he is up to, I also went to church just to find out. I personally chose the seat in the last pew. He was not serving in the mass (I can see the acolytes in front from where I sit) ... and then I heard a familiar laughter at the back of the church ... it was him together with his friends. The REALITY was ... he woke up early to meet with his friends, and not because he became a holy convert that morning.

He told me lies ... and what was worse was ... he believed his lies. He looked me in the eyes, without batting an eyelash despite the blatant lies ... he maintained his claim that he served in the mass.

Pwede ba yon? Nagiging acolyte siya that morning pero hindi ko siya nakita sa harap ng altar ... kundi sa pintoan ng simbahan?

Bakit hindi na lang aakuin na sigi na nga ... nahuli mo ako. I woke up this early to be with my friends. Bakit kailangan paglaruan pa ako at questionin kung ano ang nakita at narinig ko?

And why do I have to question my sanity or my visual and hearing acuity .... or ask myself, was I dreaming (eh maliwanag pa sa tanghaling tapat ang chronology ng mga pangyayari??

At ako naman bakit kailangan maniwala ako sa sinabi niya ... eh ang nakita at narinig ko ay taliwas lang naman sa kung ano ang gusto niyang paniwalaan ko at kung ano ang gusto niyang palabasin.

And here's the twist of the story: I don't know what gaslighting was back then. But despite seeing that he was there at the back of the church with friends, I did not see him in front of the altar, either.

The REALITY was he did not ... but he succeeded in making me let go of the story by making me doubt and question my REALITY ... my sanity ... and my senses! Was I dreaming ... I painfully asked myself while rubbing my eyes (or in Tagalog, namamalik-mata ba ako?)

Having earned more units in General Psychology, Abnormal, Cognitive, Developmental, and Physiological Psychology, I taught Mental Hygiene and Psychiatry at the university and followed up with students in Psychiatric hospitals ... I can't believe a seven-year-old child has done that number to me.

Mind Control

Netizen: I read your post about gaslighting. Can you give me a more graphic illustration of how it works?

Response: Gaslighting is a devious and scheming maneuver where the gaslighter tries to take advantage of the victim by gaining authority and jurisdiction over his mind by sowing the ovum of mistrust and doubt.

The cloud of uncertainty and persistent mental arguing erodes the victim's confidence which leads him to question his senses, sanity, and his sense of reality.

The process is almost akin to brainwashing (although there may be some difference) where somebody funnels coercive persuasion and thought reforms into somebody's mind ... and the human mind can be altered and controlled by certain psychological techniques.

The Anatomy of Gaslighting

Netizen: You mention gaslighting and brainwashing operating in a similar fashion. What is the difference?

Response: Gaslighting is being funneled to the victim thru lying. Whereas brainwashing uses far-out and more progressive cognitive and psychological techniques.

People who gaslight feed you with lies, and the victim is aware that they are being lied to. The main concern here is how they were able to inject some kind of doubt into the person, doubting their REALITY when they are present during the incident and have seen and heard enough.

Telling the victim their eyes and ears are not reliable is the start of the abusive template, and when the victim shows signs that they are wobbling in their position, especially with what they saw and heard, gaslighting is up for a good start.

I know of somebody who is quite savvy with gaslighting as a child (although I doubt if he knew what he was doing ... he was only seven then.) He woke up one December morning ... and I said: "Where are you going?"  and he told me that he is going to attend and serve in the MASS."

Doubting what he is up to, I also went to church just to find out. I personally chose the seat in the last pew. He was not serving in the mass ... and then I heard a familiar laughter at the back of the church ... it was him together with his friends. The REALITY was ... he woke up early to meet with his friends, and not because he became a holy convert that morning.

He told me lies ... and what was worse was ... he believed his lies. He looked me in the eyes, without batting an eyelash despite the blatant lies ... he maintained his claim that he served in the mass. 

And here's the twist of the story: I don't know what gaslighting was back then. But despite seeing that he was there at the back of the church with friends, I did not see him in front at the altar, actually serving either. The REALITY was he did not ... but he succeeded in making me let go of the story by making me doubt and question my REALITY ... my sanity ... and my senses! Was I dreaming ... I painfully asked myself while rubbing my eyes (or in Tagalog namamalik-mata ba ako?)

Having earned more units in General Psychology, Abnormal, Cognitive, Developmental, and Physiological Psychology, I taught Mental Hygiene and Psychiatry at the university and followed up with students in Psychiatric hospitals ... I can't believe a seven-year-old child has done that number to me.

He needs to be grounded and he gets away with it.

Gaslighters Under The Microscope

 

You Are A Gaslighter If:

1. You always offer to interpret things for the victim.

2. You call the victim crazy to others.

3. You are trying to confuse the victim

4. You try to isolate them and hold things back from friends and family,

5. You make them less confident in what they are saying

6. You make them feel, everything they did was wrong

7. You made them second-guess themselves.

8. You blame them that they are not good enough and can't do anything right.

Commonly Used Phrases Used By Gaslighters To Condition Something Is Wrong With You.

1. You always remember things wrong/differently.

2. I am interpreting things for you ... because of you

3. You have a penchant to twist things around.

4. You are so melodramatic/sensitive

5. You sound crazy/insane

6. You always have the wrong points of view/mindset

7. You are overthinking/overreacting

8, Put up or shut up. You're putting words into my mouth

9. Are you okay? You sound confused/sick.

10. You seemed unsure of what you are saying

11. You always say "SORRY" ... and apologize a lot.

12.  I know you are mad/sad ... chill ... in one hour or two you will feel better.

Responding To Netizen's Comment

Netizen: I have read your latest post about lying and gaslighting.  Is there any difference between the two?

Response: Why do people lie? Telling a lie is a defense mechanism.  The person's motivation for this is to protect themselves and avoid trouble.  People utilized this unconscious mechanism to avoid punishments or humiliation and maintain their privacy. Sometimes they have to lie to protect themselves from being judged. The act is not something admirable and it is easy to understand why people are using it because it is readily available.

Gaslighting on the other is venomous and hostile, bordering on malicious. The gaslighter deliberately attempt to rewrite your REALITY (anything you personally experienced) and inject a different memory into you. It goes further than lying as its motivation is not only to deceive but contradict and oppose what the person has seen or heard.

With gaslighting, there is an intent to mask the TRUTH, and things you saw are now being challenged and impugned. If the person cited you and question your sanity, and your memory and accused you of being forgetful and a basket case all your life and that your eyes and ears should not be trusted ... and you don't have the updated version of knowing what is reality and what is a fallacy.

Simply put, all gaslighting has to lie as the basic component, but not all lying is gaslighting.

Calling A Spade a Spade

This is how the mind of a gas-lighter and pathological liar works.  They believe their lies ... even if that means he is alone.  He will hold on to his lies whether there is a CCTV or proof or evidence to debunk and invalidate his claims. No amount of corroborating evidence can change the mind of this person. His theme song is Me and Me Against The World. My friend suggested All By Myself.

When Somebody Believes In His Lies

People who have the habit of making LIES ... normal na lang sa kanya ang pagsinungaling ... like going to the bathroom when he feels like it ... or raiding the refrigerator when hunger pangs strike.

What is alarming is dahil normal na lang ito sa kanya, he doesn't have the slightest idea how his lies broke other people's hearts and they don't have an iota of cognizance of how his lies are affecting the people nearest to him. And the worst of all, dahil normal na lang ang fibbing sa kanya pati siya naniniwala na TOTOO ang mga kasinungalingan niya.

Sometimes he has to resort to gas-lighting to put more salt in the wound. An example of gas-lighting is when an abuser tries to control the victim by twisting their sense of reality. Can you imagine a guy shoplifting and then denying it happened?

Kailangan pa ba ang CCTV para patunayang sinungaling siya? At binaliktad pa nga ang situation ... ngayon siya na ang nagrereklamo sa reklamo mo  despite CCTV footages to verify the veracity of your claims.  He dismiss the accusation non-chalantly ... making you question your sanity: "Tama ba ako?... pero he denied it ... eh ano yong nakita ko sa TV screen? ... nagshoplift nga ba siya?" Poor gaslighting victim ... pati ang katinoan niya ... kinuquestion na niya!

When somebody vacillates to the extremes that anything abnormal becomes normal to him ... he should not dismiss it as a matter of a factly ... and treat that with a cavalier attitude because this is something out of line. 

Pathological lying that segue into gaslighting is a symptom of various personality disorders, including antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic personality disorders. Other conditions, such as borderline personality disorder, may also lead to frequent lies, but the lies themselves are not considered pathological.

Responding To Netizen's Comment

Readers Comment:

In Chris Tan's latest video, he made several examples of gaslighting techniques employed by BBM to confuse the electorate and make you question your belief, your core values (why even your sanity) until you eventually shifted allegiance, from a true Leni supporter to the never say die BBM rah-rah fanatic. Can you explain how gaslighting works?

Response: 

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the person attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in other people's minds. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition.

This form of psychological abuse where one person makes another question his or her sanity, perception of reality, judgment, and memory. The game plan is to stage outlandish narratives or make fearless and courageous statements to muddle and stupefy the victims (the voters). The aftermath of gaslighting on its victims is that it brings about sensory overload or as Chris Tan state in his video cognitive dissonance and a loss of confidence in persons being targetted.

In Chris Tan's video, the classic example of gaslighting was when BBM's propaganda machine and his army of trolls made audacious statements on social media linking Leni to being cuddled by oligarchs.  They bombarded the airwaves and the netwaves 24-7 (almost brainwashing us) that Leni doesn't deserve a day in Malacanang. They harangue us daily with 3 ize's (evangelize, dogmatize and moralize) as they pound the pulpit that their sermon was the gospel truth. They hate and abhor being around oligarchs but fate has his script of outing out their true colors when after winning, BBM was seen around dining and partying with the likes of Aranetas, the Zobels, the Go's, the Tan's of Megaworld, and the Aboitiz. Poor Leni she kotowed too and fall, victim, to this psychological abuse but I still have to see a single photo of Leni in the lap of the oligarchs.

So this is how gaslighting works.  With FEM dancing tango with his cronies, BBM has the oligarchs (the wealthy and the elite) tailing on his rear end and they played sweet music together running the country.  So the LIES will start when what they really are (being friends with the oligarchs) is being projected to Leni, that Leni is being surrounded by oligarchs and the elites. And the narrative is being magnified and amplified by his never-say-die propaganda machine and troll armies. The victims(the Voters) believe in the LIES, and the whole process is consummated when the victims become converts and start passing the LIES to everyone else.

Chris also mentioned another prototypal red-tagging linking Leni to CCP NPA. Was there any truth to that? Nada.  BBM used this scheme just like the scorch earth policy - a military strategy of burning and destroying everything (any assets or resources) that may be useful to the enemy. If one looks at it, how could Leni be involved with the REDS, (may be guilty by association perhaps), but I still have to see a single photo of Leni in the company of the leftist group.  When BBM won, we saw him in his tweets that he thank the Communist Party of China for gracing their home and joining them for lunch. He thanked His Excellency Meng Xiangfeng, the deputy Director, His Excellency Zhao Jianhua the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines, and the esteemed CPC delegation.

You see we almost believed them with their red-tagging accusations, but what are we seeing here? It is barely three days after he won, but starting with the appearance of the missing Picasso painting, the oligarch, and the red-tagging thingies we almost see who really LIED to us. Definitely not Leni.

Another gaslighting example was when BBM urged to public to protect the votes in May 9. "Sa darating na May 9, kailangan din po tayong mapagbantay sa ating boto.  Protektahan po natin ang ating mga desisyon at huwag po nating hayaang ito'y muling nakawin sa atin. To which Rep Arlen Brosas Gabriela's representative countered: "Marcos Jr. is conditioning the public that if he loses, it would be because of fraud. and not because there is a vibrant pink people's movement on the ground."

This is a man full of bravado, saying bold empty words.  They are all staged, a naked attempt to disorient us.  And now that he won, and Leni obviously has not done anything like stealing an election, somebody has to caution him for toning down his over-the-top pronouncements because if my memory serves me right there were something like 8-10 persons commenting, that his call to watch the election process and be wary of thieves lurking in the dark is making him look stupid with a capital S.

GASLIGHTING: Paano nabudol ang mga Pilipino