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!

Quote of the Day: Universal Values

What happened in Paris, said President Obama, “was an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”

And just what might those “universal values” be?

At a soccer game between Turkey and Greece in Istanbul, Turks booed during the moment of silence for the Paris dead and chanted “Allahu Akbar.” Among 1.6 billion Muslims, hundreds of millions do not share our values regarding women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, free speech, or the equality of all religious faiths.

Set aside the fanatics of ISIS. Does Saudi Arabia share Obama’s views and values regarding sexual freedom and the equality of Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Is anything like the First Amendment operative across the Sunni or Shiite world, or in China?

In their belief in the innate superiority of their Islamic faith and the culture and civilization it created, Muslims have more in common with our confident Christian ancestors who conquered them than with gauzy global egalitarians like Barack Obama.

“Liberté, egalité, fraternité” the values of secular France, are no more shared by the Islamic world than is France’s affection for Charlie Hebdo.

Across both Europe and the United States, the lurch away from liberalism, on immigration, borders and security, fairly astonishes.

But again, understandably so.

This quote is from an article of conservative Pat Buchanan at his website

"Universal values": War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Apply this to the above: Islam/Judaism/Buddhism is Christianity. Arabs/Africans are Europeans/Americans, and so forth...

Quotes of the Day: How Four Popes Viewed Socialism

From AEI’s Mark Perry: (bold and italics original)

Some historical perspective on what four of the last five previous popes had to say about socialism over the last 50 years (emphasis added)……

1. Pope John XXIII (1958-1963)

Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production; it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

~Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna, September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, Vol. XIV, p. 314

2. Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)

Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.

~Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31

3. Pope John Paul II (1978-2005)

The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call “his own,” and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.

Encyclical Centesimus Annus − On the 100^th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12

4. Pope Benedict XVI (2005 – 2013)

The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces.

~Encyclical Letter of Pope Benedict XVI

Bonus..

Cato Institute’s graph comparing Pope Francis’ Argentina and the US. Writes Cato’s  Ian Vasquez 

It shows that in 1896, income per person in the United States and Argentina, two of the richest countries in the world, was about identical. Argentina subsequently eschewed the free market, replacing it with trade protectionism and other corporatist policies intended to help the poor by redistributing wealth. By 2010, Argentine income was a third of that of the United States.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Is the Pope a False Prophet?

At the LewRockwell.com. Judge Andrew Napolitano questions the regime of Marxist leaning* and rock star /celebrity Pope Francis: (bold mine)

The papacy is an office created personally by Our Lord. Its occupants are direct descendants of St. Peter. Its role and authorities have evolved over the centuries, but the core of its responsibilities has always been the preservation of traditional teachings about faith and morals and safeguarding the sacraments. While the papacy is a monarchy, the teaching authority in the Church is “the bishops under the pope.” This means that a pope intent on change ought to consult with his fellow bishops.

Before the monumental Church changes of the 1960s and 1970s that trivialized the Mass and blurred the distinctions between the clergy and the laity, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI consulted their fellow bishops at Vatican II. The consultations were fractious and belligerent, but both popes got what they wanted: a watering down of liturgical practices and an easing of rules safeguarding the sacraments, so as to make the Church more appealing and accessible to former and non-adherents.

The result was a disaster. Fewer Catholics went to Mass, confusion about former theological norms reigned, and a general tenor pervaded the faithful that the Church never really meant what it preached. Former Catholics continued to stay away, new Catholics barely showed up, and many traditional faithful became demoralized.

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI attempted to roll this back. They succeeded in part by emphasizing traditional orthodoxy and personal piety to youth. Today, Catholic seminaries throughout the world are filled with young men who are more faithful to traditional practices and beliefs than many of their professors are.

Comes now Pope Francis to use moral relativism to take the Church in two dangerous directions. The first is an assault on the family, and the second is an assault on the free market — two favorite political targets of the left.

In the past month, without consulting his fellow bishops, the pope has weakened the sacrament of matrimony by making annulments easier to obtain. The Church cannot grant divorces because Our Lord used his own words to declare valid marriages indissoluble. But it does grant annulments.

An annulment is a judicial finding that a valid marriage never existed. This generally requires a trial, at which the party seeking the annulment must prove the existence of the marital defect from the beginning.

Fair annulment trials are costly and time consuming, often taking years from the initial filing to the final appeal. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis arbitrarily ordered the entire process to be completed in 45 days or fewer. For contested matters, a fair trial in 45 days is impossible. So, to meet his deadline, more annulments will be granted administratively, not on the merits.

It gets worse.

The Church has taught for 400 years that abortion is murder. Because the victim of an abortion is always innocent, helpless and uniquely under the control of the mother, abortion removes the participants from access to the sacraments. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis, without consulting his fellow bishops, ordered that any priest may return those who have killed a baby in a womb to the communion of the faithful. He said he did this because he was moved by the anguished cries of mothers contemplating the murder of their babies.

I doubt he will defend these decisions before Congress. He will, instead, assault the free market, which he blames for poverty, pollution and the mass migrations into Europe away from to worn-torn areas in the Middle East.

Pls read the rest here

* as for Marxism, let me quote Austrian economist Thomas DiLorenzo last January (bold mine, italics original)

Is the old Marxist ideologue (a.k.a. “a Jesuit”) just trying to deceive everyone when he says that “markets and financial speculation” operate “in absolute autonomy” with no government regulation at all?  He said that yesterday in yet another  Nixonian “I am not a crook”-style denial that he is a Marxist.  (Was that a thunder bolt I just heard?)

In reality, markets have long been swamped in regulation from all levels of government.  As George Reisman pointed out, in the U.S., for beginners, we have a government that spends almost 50% of GDP; there are 15 cabinet departments that exert controls over markets; there are more than 100 federal regulatory agencies and more than 75,000 fine-print pages of regulation of markets in The Federal Register.  Then there’s almost as much regulation of markets from all the state an local governments as well.

And there’s the Fed, which in addition to regulating the money supply, regulates all aspects of all financial markets as well.  And the SEC, the FDIC, Office of Thrift Supervision, etc., etc.

The pope ignores all of this reality to once again repeat the main theme of his papacy:  That “world resources” should be allocated according to the dictum of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  This is the Jesuit version of Catholic doctrine, but of course it is in reality propaganda from The Communist Manifesto.  No wonder Pope John Paul II criticized “liberation theology,” the “bible” of Jesuit political activists, as a danger to the teachings of the church because it is little more than Marxism masquerading as Catholicism.

I have been saying here that the Pope keeps denouncing 'trickle down economics' which he blames to capitalism. This isn't true. Trickle down economics exists nowhere in Laissez-faire capitalism. Instead it is a practice of state capitalism mainly channeled through financial repression (central bank monetary policies) or government spending (PPPs, infrastructure) where the latter breeds cronyism and corruption.

Charts of the Day: Why a Pope from a ‘Poor’ Country

Domestic media inquires: Why has the incumbent Pope been chosen from a ‘poor’ country (emerging markets)?  Pope Francis hails from Argentina. Previously Popes were elected from mainstream Europe

The following charts from Pew Research via washingtonpost.com may explain why:

Bluntly put, to revive Catholicism in Latin America, a Pope must represent the region.

However so far this doesn't seem to be working. Again the Washington Post (November 2014):

Pew notes that its own data may not show the "Francis Effect," as he only took the papal position in March 2013. However, the report then adds: 

[Former] Catholics are more skeptical about Pope Francis. Only in Argentina and Uruguay do majorities of ex-Catholics express a favorable view of the pope. In every other country in the survey, no more than roughly half of ex-Catholics view Francis favorably, and relatively few see his papacy as a major change for the Catholic Church. Many say it is too soon to have an opinion about the pope.

Chart of the Day: First Non European Pope in Nearly 1,300 Years

Chart from Reuters

Short non-related personal opinions

From the way headlines on the domestic mainstream media looked, it would seem that the Philippine candidate, Cardinal Luis Tagle, was shoo-in for the Papacy. [Sorry I didn't dwell on the articles] But this has hardly been the case from the perspective of international media.

Domestic media’s elaborate drumming up of the local cardinal represents no more than the sustained indoctrination of “nationalism”, which comes at the exclusion of the minority religions practiced locally.

Nevertheless, like his predecessor, the new Pope, Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis I, has been said to be another anti-free market or pro-big government activist. [The Pope should see what big government has been doing to his homeland.]

We shall soon see.

Has the Pope’s Resignation Been About Vatican’s Controversies?

Pope Benedict XVI took the Catholic world by surprise by announcing his resignation at the end of the month allegedly "because of advanced age." (CNN)

While it may be true that part of his calling it quits may be due to health, where the Vatican confirmed that Benedict has had a pacemaker for years, which may have been an aggravating factor, pressure from the Vatileaks scandals could have been the trigger (Huffington Post).

The Vatileaks scandal, according the the Huffington Post in 2012, exposed alleged corruption that “cost the Holy See millions of euros (dollars) in higher contract prices”

Further the article added that this revelation “laid bare power struggles inside the Vatican over its efforts to show greater financial transparency and comply with international norms to fight money laundering. There was even a leak of a memo claiming that Benedict would die this year.”

I guess in lieu of death, resignation may have been the outcome. I blogged about this scandal last year.

Add to this other controversies that has plagued Pope Benedict’s reign.

From Reuters

The child abuse scandals hounded most of his papacy. He ordered an official inquiry into abuse in Ireland, which led to the resignation of several bishops…

Benedict confronted his own country's past when he visited the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. Calling himself "a son of Germany", he prayed and asked why God was silent when 1.5 million victims, most of them Jews, were killed there.

Ratzinger served in the Hitler Youth during World War Two when membership was compulsory. He was never a member of the Nazi party and his family opposed Adolf Hitler's regime.

Of course most of mainstream media has been silent about this.

Yet in support of Occupy Wall Street, the Pope has spoken, if not ranted, against alleged “greed”, which he mistakenly had attributed to laissez faire capitalism. 

Obviously, he had most likely been utterly confused or deliberately misled (by influence peddlers) in associating cronyism or corporatism for free markets. 

And even more bizarre is that the Vatican has even endorsed the ECB’s inflationism! Redistribution from society (or transfer of wealth) to rich bankers and the political class has been by the Vatican as moral??!!

On the other hand, the Pope’s foray into politics by misreading and distorting economics could have been that capitalism served as convenient smokescreen from the internal controversies, wrangling, and power struggles that put pressure on the Pope and the Vatican.

As I previously wrote,

Is it not that the Bible warned that “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”? (John 8:7)

Does this not apply to the Vatican too?

Whether due to health or political controversies or both, this shows that Pope Benedict is just human, and thus subject to the frailties of humanity as shown whether in health, moral, organizational or even political economic issues.

Chart of the Day: World’s Religion

From the Economist

RELIABLE data on the age and whereabouts of the religious and irreligious are hard to come by, which makes a new report on the topic from the Pew Research Centre welcome. Among its many findings is that Jews and Buddhists make the biggest religious minorities, in the sense of living in a country where another religion is dominant. Asia has by far the largest number of people who claim not to believe in any religion, something that is explained by China's official godlessness. Despite this, though, China has the world's seventh-largest Christian population, estimated at 68m. The report also contains data on people who call themselves religious but do not adhere to any of the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or Buddhism. Here again Asia is dominant, largely thanks to the popularity of Shintoism in Japan.

Some observations

-Considering that many have used “religion” as an excuse in justifying imperial wars, note that the second largest religion or the Muslim share of the global population is 23.2% or about 1.61 billion out of the nearly 7 billion people.

In other words, while extremism exists—as they apply to every religion not limited to Muslims—they are a fragment of the total. Thus, war grounded on religion signifies as a fallacy of composition.

I might as well add that religious conflicts can also be triggered by political intolerance vented through various forms of political interventionism. Obviously the way to peacefully coexist is through the opposite tolerance and adapting freedom in religion

As the great Ludwig von Mises pointed out

Domestic political and religious persecutions had ceased, and international wars began to become less frequent.

-The share of agnostics, atheists or those with no religion ranks third or has grown in size to edge out Hinduism. As the article pointed out, much of the unattached are in Asia.