Path to Ochlocractic Dictatorship: Promotion of State Atheism through the War on Religion

The incumbent leadership’s war on everything has taken a new twist. In defense of the proposed reimposition of the death penalty, the leadership has invoked (a strawman argument) through the metaphysical debate on the existence of God.

From GMA

President Rodrigo Duterte on Monday questioned God Himself on why heinous crimes are committed in the Philippines and other parts of the world.

Duterte made the remarks while defending his preference for the reimposition of the death penalty and his willingness to be investigated on account of his human rights record but only under the jurisdiction of the Philippine government.

"Hindi tumalab yung death penalty nooon kasi hindi in-impose. One, because of the Catholic church. Second, the bleeding hearts, because only God can kill. Ang problema niyan, I ask you, what if there is no God?" Duterte said in a speech before media professionals in Malacañang.

"So where is now God when a one year old baby, 18-months-old baby is taken from the mother's arms brought under a jeep and raped and killed. So where is God?" he added.

Curiously, Mr. Duterte didn’t apply the same logic to the slaughter of the countless number of innocents by his police/military forces and by vigilantes (whom seem to either function as government mercenaries or have been condoned by the administration). Or, Mr. Duterte didn’t apply the same logic to the substitution of a society plagued by drugs with a society that promotes murder.

Most people think that such radical propositions constitute as impulsive or instinctive remarks. They aren’t. Instead, such appear to represent a stage in a process or a means to an end. The objective appears designed to indoctrinate or brainwash the public to reach his implicit desired end—an ochlocractic (Maoist) dictatorship

If you haven’t noticed, the leadership has been impugning on the established beliefs or the culture of the domestic denizens.

First, through the geopolitics of ad hominem and blackmail, the political leadership has effectively challenged Filipinos’ affinity with Americans through the incitement of rancorous relations with the US counterparts

According to Pew Research, in 2015, “America’s image is mostly positive among the Asian nations polled. Particularly large majorities see the U.S. favorably in the Philippines (92%), South Korea (84%) and Vietnam (77%).”

The Philippines have the highest favorability rating for Americans in the world. And as the table above shows, that Filipinos positive reception to Americans has been entrenched (since 2002 and possibly even earlier).

While the Philippine senate did boot out the US bases in 1991, it was a verdict reached by a slim majority (12-11) [New York Times September 16, 1991] or this was hardly about popular sentiment.

And while it is true that the US government does not signify America, the Philippine leadership has used the war on drugs as a fulcrum to pivot against US government thereby putting in jeopardy bilateral political and economic relations.

And as proof to increasing strains, “The Philippines stands to lose the $6.7-million law enforcement assistance from the United States if the two governments fail to agree on how the funds would be used.” (GMA September 27, 2016)

The leadership appears to put emphasis on the importance of a radical shift in foreign policy--the swing towards China.

And going against popular belief has more than just been about bilateral relationships.

Through raising a strawman argument, the leadership has now assaulted on Filipinos’ penchant for religion.

The Christian faith accounts for about 92% of the population with Catholics taking the largest share 81%, according to Wikipedia.

The leadership has taken issue with the Catholic church because of the latter’s vehement opposition to his pet programs. As examples, not only has the leadership cursed on the Pope (during the latter’s visit here), he has openly mocked Catholic bishops for going against him during the last elections.

Since there was no such thing as a Catholic vote, Mr. Duterte seems to believe that he can sway the public’s embrace of religion towards blind devotion on him.

This has political bearing that has not been recognized by the public

I have repeatedly raised the point that the political leadership is not only been a self avowed socialist, but one who espouses Mao leanings or a neo-Maoist.

Practically, the proposals which he publicly promotes (e.g. 3 child policy of family controls, the death penalty, economic zones and etc…) have been imported or copied from communist China. His indulgence and generous accommodations of the rebel communist group, the maoist NPA has only reinforced such ideological preference.

Understand that communist China is a militant atheist government or a government which practices state atheism.

That’s because as a political philosophy, communism sees religion as a contravention to their interests.  Marxists views religion as “an opium of the people”, China’s state atheism has partly been assimilated from the Marxist.

China’s state atheism as described by Wikipedia (bold mine)

After the 1949 Chinese Revolution, China began a period of rule by the Communist Party of China. For much of its early history, that government maintained under Marxist thought that religion would ultimately disappear, and characterized it as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism.

During the Cultural Revolution, student vigilantes known as Red Guards converted religious buildings for secular use or destroyed them. This attitude, however, relaxed considerably in the late 1970s, with the reform and opening up period. The 1978 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guaranteed freedom of religion with a number of restrictions. Since then, there has been a massive program to rebuild Buddhist and Taoist temples that were destroyed in the Cultural Revolution.

The Communist Party has said that religious belief and membership are incompatible. However, the state is not allowed to force ordinary citizens to become atheists. China's five officially sanctioned religious organizations are the Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, Islamic Association of China, Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. These groups are afforded a degree protection, but are subject to restrictions and controls under the State Administration for Religious Affairs. Unregistered religious groups face varying degrees of harassment. The constitution permits what is called "normal religious activities," so long as they do not involve the use of religion to "engage in activities that disrupt social order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious organizations and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign dominance

The ‘war on everything’ has been initially aimed at the besmearing institutions through character assassination of personalities behind them who are opposed to the leadership.

Now this has expanded to cover entrenched ethics and beliefs.

The point here is that war on everything, which now includes the war on religion, has been aimed at solidifying the faith of his followers by charging against traditions and established dogmas. The war on religion may expand to include eventual harassments and restrictions on religious institutions.

Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist theoretician, politician and a major influence on the progressive movement once talked about how to ensnare the public towards socialism

Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order,Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.

"Transforming the consciousness of society"…to a tee!

Upping the Ante of Geopolitical Blackmail: Duterte Tells US Government: Time for You to Leave!

Last weekend I wrote,

The administration seems to be applying a tacit blackmail stratagem at the US: “if you push hard on my war on drugs, then we will shift allegiance to China!”

It’s not tacit anymore.

From today’s headlines (Inquirer):

PRESIDENT Duterte said on Monday he wanted U.S. forces out of his country’s south and blamed America for the restiveness of Muslim militants in the region, marking the first time he publicly opposed the presence of American troops in the country.

Duterte has had an uneasy relationship with the U.S. since becoming president in June and has been openly critical of American security policies. As a candidate, he declared he would chart a foreign policy that would not depend on America, his country’s treaty ally.

The U.S. military in 2002 deployed troops to train, advise and provide intelligence and weapons to Filipino troops battling the al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf militants in the southern Philippines. When the American forces withdrew in February last year, U.S. officials said a smaller contingent of U.S. military advisers would stay. Details of the current U.S. military presence in the south were not immediately available.

Duterte did not mention any deadline or say how he intends to pursue his wishes. The U.S. Embassy did not immediately issue any reaction.

(bold mine)

I’m all for “independent foreign policy” and “non intervention”, but then again that’s not the real issue. It’s a smokescreen. The main issue has been the ochlocratic ad hominem (path to dictatorship) politics that has now been reinforced through “geopolitical blackmail”.

Actions have consequences.

In the same weekend note I observed: “much will now depend on the feedback mechanism between the parties involved as with those associated with them.”

If the Philippine government makes real of the threat to undermine the interests of the shadow but powerful and highly influential political forces behind Washington—the neo-conservative and military industrial complex—then potential responses or repercussions may have already been set in motion. To repeat:

 -This would eventually prompt US rating agencies credit downgrades—especially if US military interests are compromised.

-This would reduce investment and portfolio flows from US and allied nations.

-Credit flows will likely ebb too, thereby putting pressure on access to international credit markets and thereby tightening financing conditions. This will be baneful to a leftist government with a penchant for political spending profligacy: social spending (welfare state), bureaucracy, infrastructure, and most importantly, the military institution.

 The reduced access to credit and fund flows will likely accelerate on the unraveling of the mounting economic and financial imbalances inherited by this government from the previous two regimes.

-The Philippine government will be alone to deal with territorial disputes. (This should be a good thing if only the Philippines government’s response would be to increase trade rather than through brinkmanship politics)

-Finally, it would be a lot cheaper or cost effective for the US government to engage in covert operations to influence the domestic political environment than to pullout from the country. The US government may surreptitiously work to offset whatever leverage the administration has been building to countermand the US government’s influences in the country. The US government has been no stranger to the financing, influencing and orchestrating destabilization to regimes it perceives as hostile to its interests. Operation Gladio should be stark reminder.

Unpredictable behavior?

Leftist governments virtually operate on the same set of actions