The Philippine political landscape is currently witnessing a volatile and highly polarized phenomenon that has observers, critics, and the general public expressing a mixture of disbelief and frustration regarding the behavior of the staunchest supporters of the former administration. In a scathing commentary that has recently surfaced and gained traction across social media platforms, the so-called die-hard followers are being scrutinized for actions and rhetorics that are described as increasingly irrational, stubborn, and completely detached from the norms of civil discourse. The narrative emerging is one of a collective behavior that mirrors the controversial and often defiant style of the leader they revere, leading many to suggest that the fan base has essentially absorbed the personality traits of their idol, resulting in a chaotic environment that is becoming difficult to manage or reason with.

The criticism centers on the observation that these supporters, often referred to by their acronym, are no longer just engaging in political debate but are displaying a level of fanaticism that borders on the delusional. Commentators have pointed out that their refusal to accept facts, coupled with a tendency to aggressively attack opposing views, mimics the “pasaway” or hard-headed nature often attributed to their political patron. It is as if the disregard for rules and the penchant for shocking statements have trickled down from the top, creating a ripple effect where the followers feel emboldened to act with impunity. This dynamic has created a toxic atmosphere online and offline, where logical reasoning is often drowned out by noise, insults, and a steadfast refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing or shortcomings within their camp.

Furthermore, the public sentiment suggests a growing fatigue with what is perceived as the “hallucinated” state of these supporters, who seem to be living in an alternate reality constructed by their leaders. The commentary highlights how this group often twists narratives to fit their agenda, regardless of the evidence presented to the contrary. This behavior is being likened to a contagion, where the aggressive and erratic style of the leader has “infected” the base, stripping away their ability to think critically or independently. The loyalty displayed is not based on policy or principle, but rather on a personality cult that demands absolute submission and defense, even when the actions being defended are questionable or detrimental to the national interest.

As the situation intensifies, the clash between this group and the rest of the public is becoming more pronounced. The “pasaway” attitude—a refusal to follow order or listen to reason—is causing friction in various sectors of society. Whether it is disregarding legal processes or spreading unverified information, the actions of these supporters are being viewed as a significant hurdle to national unity and progress. The fear among observers is that this behavior has become normalized, setting a dangerous precedent for future political engagement where loudness and defiance are valued over truth and cooperation. The narrative suggests that as long as the “master” continues to exhibit these traits, the followers will continue to emulate them, trapping the political discourse in a cycle of chaos and irrationality that shows no signs of slowing down.