Skip to content

The Highly Appalling Plagiarism of the Filipino Free-farters

April 12, 2010

This blog article has to be very long, because I have to detail the immoral, irrational, un-academic, unprofessional, and

A bunch of plagiarists cannot claim to be an advocate of reason!

A bunch of plagiarists cannot claim to be an advocate of reason!

“un-freethinking” act of one member of the Filipino Freethinkers, a neo-mystic collective which I passionately call Free-Farters. On March 27, a day after I published my blog article entitled Filipino Free-Farter: The New Mystics, a Free-Farter named Karlo Espiritu came up with his most applauded entry on the FF website, What’s So Wrong With Objectivism.

In his cause célèbre article that somehow drew online traffic for the Free-farters’ website, Mr. Espiritu, who now deserves the moniker “The Plagiarist cum Artist” of the Filipino Freethinkers, came up with a well-written, well-documented deposition against Ayn Rand, a novelist-philosopher who conceptualized and popularized the philosophy of Objectivism. Perhaps Mr. Espiritu’s article is one of the best-written, if not the best, articles on the Free-Farters’ website. Almost but not quite.

Now let me show you the creativeness and resourcefulness of the Free-Farters—well, not all of them—when it comes to contriving ‘effective’ smear campaign and propaganda. A two-hour online investigation revealed that the main author of the most commented and most celebrated blog article of the Free-farters is nothing but a piece of plagiarized crap! Since I’m the one making this allegation, it is only proper for me to provide the necessary proof or evidence, and I’d like to tell you that almost 90 percent of the entire article was copied, borrowed, plagiarized (call it what you will) from various online sources.

After a two-hour online probe, I concluded that Mr. Espiritu is guilty of the unprofessional, un-academic, unethical act of plagiarism. But first let me define plagiarism. Based on this reliable online source, plagiarism is the act of stealing a person’s writing or ideas. There are two kinds of plagiarism: 1) intentional or deliberate, and 2) unintentional.

According to this online source, intentional plagiarism is committed if the writer or author:

  • Asked someone to write a research or writing work for him;
  • Stole another person’s writing work;
  • Purchased someone else’s research;
  • Intentionally lifted portions of another person’s work without attribution;
  • Intentionally paraphrasing another person’s work without acknowledging the source.

However, accidental or unintentional plagiarism is committed if the author:

  • Forgot to put quotation marks around an exact quote from another person’s work;
  • Failed to paraphrase correctly another person’s work;
  • Forgot to cite the source;
  • Incorrectly referenced the main source of information.

Is Mr. Karlo Espiritu guilty of plagiarism? Let the pieces of evidence I’m about to show you speak for themselves.

Karlo Espirtu’s Claim

Based on his online article, Mr. Espiritu claimed that he read at least three books of Ayn Rand— The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Virtue of Selfishness. The first time I saw his work I gave him the benefit of the doubt, although I did not read the entire article. In my case I finished reading The Fountainhead after more than 10 months, Atlas Shrugged in one year, whereas I only read a few sections of The Virtue of Selfishness. If you want to attack Ayn Rand and her philosophy, you have to read her books and understand her philosophy.

So what’s so wrong with Mr. Espiritu’s most celebrated article? Well, everything!

Here’s what he said:

“I seem to encounter a recurring discussion about Ayn Rand and Objectivism but I only had a vague idea what it’s all about. And so, I made some research to find out about it. After reading works of Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Virtue of Selfishness), I think I now understand why Rand’s philosophy has such a cult following. To begin with, I found out that Objectivism is just pure philosophy, it’s not science. There is no evidence to support its claims and therefore it is not scientifically justifiable. Let me emphasize that again — it is NOT SCIENCE.”

Just a slight side comment: If Objectivism is not science, or not scientific, then is there any philosophy which he considers scientific? Or, does Mr. Espiritu regard all philosophies as non-scientific? If there’s no such philosophy as scientific, then what determines reason and why do we have to embrace it? The Filipino Free-farters have to answer the following questions:

  • What do they mean by science or scientific?
  • Is science a cause or an effect? If it’s a cause then is it the same as reason? If it’s an effect what makes it possible?
  • How do they define reason? How can man achieve rationality and what should guide man’s conduct and standard of values– science or reason?
  • What is their view of reality? Is it indivisible or divisible? Are there two realities or relative realities? Do they believe in absolute reality?
  • How do we know we know? Do they believe in absolute or relative truth?
  • What is their code of ethics? Do they regard man as an end in himself or the means to the ends of others? Should he focus on his self-interest or on the interest of his neighbors?
  • What is their politics?

So Mr. Espiritu claimed that Objectivism is not science and that it is unscientific? This is the crudest, most hilarious, most appalling, and most ignorant idea I have ever seen online. Without philosophy, how can science exist? Is he aware of the philosophical system of Objectivism? The answer here is NO since he’s simply a great pretender, a manipulative liar who conned his fellow Free-farters. In my earlier blog, Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason, I stated the following:

So you also claim that you offer a good defense of science? Did you know that science was born as a consequence or corollary of philosophy? Science cannot survive without an epistemological and philosophical foundation. If philosophy dies, science will be the next to perish. History tells you that the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment saw the propagation of science. I know that some of you utterly reject philosophy and ideas. But did you ever know that it is the philosophy of Aristotle that led to the propagation of science? Aristotle was the first philosopher of science, a fact clearly understood by the scientists and thinkers of the Age of Reason through St. Thomas Aquinas’ revival of Aristotelian philosophy in the medieval age. A true defender of reason and science truly understands what makes reason and science exist and prevail. A truly rational individual understands that science only exists in a free society governed by objective laws and principles and supported by a socio-political system that respects man’s nature and rights- Capitalism.

In fact if he really read the works of Ayn Rand, he should know that she tackled the relation between philosophy and science several decades ago. In a commencement speech she delivered at West Point in March 1974, Ayn Rand said:

They have never discovered the fact that the trouble comes from the three unanswered questions [Where am I? How do I know it? What should I do?]— and that there is only one science that can answer them: philosophy.

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible. (NOTE: You may watch the actual video footage of Ayn Rand’s speech at West Point HERE.)

This simply exposes the Free-Farters as a collective of ignoramuses and brainless fanatics who do not know what they are talking about. If philosophy is not science, then all technological and scientific wonders and discoveries that we enjoy today would not have been possible or discovered.

Perhaps, that plagiarized article is what the Free-farters call a product of science and reason. Perhaps it is what they call scientific since it cites the works of many authors. But is this the case? Did the author resort to evasion and simply try to fake reality?

Mr. Espiritu’s plagiarism

It took me an hour to trace the borrowed sources of Mr. Espiritu’s work, and another hour to write this blog. The result is appalling and disgusting, as it simply shows the dishonesty and lack of decency of the author, including those who are applauding him. I have no problem with the content of the article, but with the very act that led to its consummation. Yes, the act of plagiarism was consummated, yet I don’t expect the Free-Farters to condemn the person responsible for this unethical, unprofessional, and un-academic conduct.

Businessman Manny V. Pangilinan admitted he’s guilty of plagiarism. He merely borrowed a few lines from the various speeches of famous media and entertainment personalities in the world (e.i., Oprah Winfrey, J.K. Rowling, Barack Obama, and Conan O’Brien.) Because of this Mr. Pangilinan offered to quit his post as chairman of the board of the Ateneo De Manila University. But in the case of Mr. Espiritu, he did not just plagiarize three or four entries from various online sources, but more than 10. In fact Mr. Espiritu’s plagiarized work is 99 times worse than the dishonesty of Mr. Pangilinan.

Now if Mr. Espiritu is rational and honest enough, he must have the humility to admit that he’s guilty of plagiarism.  But first, let me show you how Mr. Espiritu came up with his well-written bash-Ayn Rand blog.

Here’s one portion that was apparently lifted from an online source.

Karlo Espiritu: What’s So Wrong with Objectivism?

Now, what’s wrong with Objectivism? Well, basically, everything. To begin with, Objectivism’s claims are simply asserted as self-evident philosophical truths.

Even the sub-title “What’s so terribly wrong with Objectivism” was copied verbatim from an online source. Here’s the very source of that plagiarized entry somehow authored by Karlo Espiritu. An online article from a website called Antirand.org came up with the following undated statement:

Antirand.org: “What is so terribly wrong with Objectivism? To begin, it’s so-called “axiom of existence” which says that existence exists is  outright false.”

Any rational, educated, observant reader would readily notice the similarities between the two above-quoted entries.

Karlo Espiritu: Objectivism starts with reasonable ideas, and quickly descends into ironies. “Existence exists” is as far as you can get with philosophy as it relates to reality. After that, assumptions start. Those assumptions are held as real, objective truths, that lead to bullshit.

The second line was copied verbatim from a forum tread (topic: Objectivism sucks) written by a certain Euri on Feb. 28, 2005. Here’s what Euri said:

Euri: Objectivism starts with reasonable ideas, and quickly descends into ironic rambling. “Existence exists” is as far as you can get with philosophy as it relates to reality. Well, identity as well. After that, assumptions start. Those assumptions are held as real, objective truths, and lead to bullshit.

Here’s another plagiarized entry from an online source. The author of the bash-Ayn Rand article states:

Karlo Espiritu: To demonstrate, let us look at its most basic tenet, its so-called “axiom of existence”, which states that “existence exists”. If you think about it, you’ll realize that it is flat out wrong. Try that statement to different words – “abstinence abstains, difference differs, excellence excels, obedience obeys, persistence persists, life lives, etc…“. Do any of these statements make sense? Of course not. That is to say, you exist, I exist, the universe exists— but existence doesn’t exist. This is because as even Rand herself admits in her writings, only concretes exist. And existence is clearly not a concrete, because you cannot ascribe any specific characteristics to it. Existence, out of context means nothing, and hence, to say out of any specific context that “existence” exists is to effectively say that nothing exists. No other philosopher I know has ever claimed that “existence exists”. Why not? Because every other philosopher has realized that the assumption is not only meaningless but outright false. It’s ironic that Rand is also famous for saying the words — “Check your premises…”

Now try to read carefully the entry above and compare it with the following paragraph from a website called Antirand.org.

Antirand.org: The same can be said about existence. Living things, and inanimate things now as well, exist. We prove this by pointing to them, and describing their properties (e.g., John is tall).  But we can do no such thing with existence because existence has no properties. It has no properties because it has no existence of its own, save as a topic or topos or place in human discourse.  That is to say, existence most definitely does not exist. What is more, Aristotle never said  it did—  for the simple reason that he was too intelligent to ever say anything so ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Because if you think about it, you’ll realize it’s flat out wrong. That is to say, you exist, I exist, the universe exists— but existence doesn’t exist. This is because as even Rand herself admits elsewhere in her writings, only concretes exist. And existence is clearly not a concrete, because you cannot ascribe any specific properties to it.”

Filipino Free-farter plagiarist Karlo Espiritu went on with his shameless act of copying other people’s works. The seventh paragraph of his long article states:

Karlo Espiritu: “Another fundamental tenet of Objectivism is the axiom of identity: “A is A”. This statement is by itself useless. Basically, the axiom of identity is the first indication of Objectivists’ overuse of deductive reasoning. The law of identity is meant to assert that there are some truths that are absolute. We know they absolutely must be true, with absolute certainty, because they are derived through reason. Objectivism’s truths seem to be entirely built around this idea. It starts with a few axioms, and from there, everything else follows. Just as “A is A” is an absolute truth, so too, is capitalism. I found an Ayn Rand quote to that effect:

“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”

Unfortunately, Google search engine turned in an entry, which is almost the same as the above-quoted paragraph. A blogger named Miller whose blogsite Skeptic’s Play wrote an anti-Ayn Rand blog article on September 29, 2008, about two years after Espiritu published his plagiarized article on the Filipino Freethinkers’ website. Here’s what Miller wrote on his blog entitled What’s With Objectivism:

Miller: “The first time I ever encountered Objectivism, I was perusing a group’s website, and they had the oddest statement among their fundamental tenets. The axiom of identity: “A is A”. No, it’s not wrong per se (except I would call it a tautology, not an axiom). No, of course, it’s correct, it must be correct. But what of it? This is a tenet? Because the statement is by itself is useless, I had to read between the lines. I didn’t like what I saw there. Basically, the axiom of identity is the first indication of Objectivists’ overuse of deductivism. The law of identity is meant to assert that, yes, there are some truths that are absolute. We know they absolutely must be true, with absolute certainty, because they are derived through reason.

“Objectivist epistemology seems to be entirely built around this idea. We start with a few axioms, and from there, everything else follows. Just as “A is A” is an absolute truth, so, too, is capitalism. Oh, look, I found an Ayn Rand quote to that effect:

“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”

KArlo Espiritu also plagiarized another entry from Miller’s blog. Observe the striking similarity between Karlo’s paragraph and Miller’s work:

Karlo: “Another big mistake of Objectivism is that every idea can be derived from deductive reasoning, which is reasoning that leaves no doubt about its conclusions. But that is simply not true. The vast majority of other knowledge requires inductive reasoning which leaves at least little doubt about its conclusions.”

Miller:The mistake that Objectivism makes is that they think every idea can be reduced down to something like “A is A”. They think every idea can be derived from deductive reasoning, which is reasoning that leaves no doubt about its conclusions. But that’s not the case. There is a major field that investigates what we can know through deductive reasoning; we call that field “mathematics”. The vast majority of all other knowledge, most especially including politics, requires inductive reasoning, which is reasoning that leaves at least a little doubt about its conclusions.”

More plagiarized entries

What’s admirable about this Karlo Espiritu is his ability to use the google search engine and look for appropriate blog lines and online articles that would serve his purpose, which is to expose what’s wrong with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. As I went along, I discovered more skeletons in the Filipino Free-farters’ online closet. Compare this line purportedly written by Karlo with its alleged online source: an online article entitled “My Country ‘Tis of ME: The United States of Ayn Rand” published on Salon.com.

Karlo Espiritu:Being independent, having happiness as a primary goal, being an individual, taking pride in your accomplishments, striving for high goals and personal excellence are captivating ideas. I am for individualism! Of course it got attention.”

Salon.com: “Now, some of her concepts are very appealing.  Being independent, having happiness as a primary goal, being an individual, taking pride in your accomplishments, striving for high goals and personal excellence are captivating concepts. I am for individualism! Of course it got attention.”

Karlo Espiritu: “Don’t like how things are going? Then blow things up. This is the basic message of her book, Fountainhead — you can be as much of a complete asshole as long as you preserve your individualism.”

Salon.com: “Don’t like how things are going? Then blow it up. The basic message of this book is that you can be as much of an asshole as you want as long as you are an individual.”

Karlo Espiritu: “In both novels, there were the top elite of people who were productive and always rational. All others were parasites, looters, second-raters, irrational ones who lived off the fruit of the productive, intelligent ones. No gray areas. Always black and white with no room for disagreement.”

Salon.com: “In her world, there were the top elite of people who were productive and always rational.  All others were parasites, looters, second-raters, irrational ones who lived off the fruit of the productive, intelligent ones.  No gray areas with her.  Always black and white with no room for disagreement.”

Karlo Espiritu “The Plagiarist” also lifted an entry from a popular website About.com that published an article by Austin Cline entitled “Cult of Ayn Rand & the Worship of Fascist Supermen” on February 4, 2006.

Karlo Espiritu: “It seems to me that Objectivists never realized that real people aren’t characters — their ideas about human beings are more caricatures than real-life understandings about how real-life people work.”

Austin Cline: “Perhaps Rand and her followers have never realized this because they don’t realize that real people aren’t characters — their ideas about human beings are more caricatures than real-life understandings about how real-life people work.”

Mr. Espiritu’s disgusting act of plagiarism continued wherein it appears that he merely googled online sources that could fit his dishonest purpose: again, to expose the what’s wrong with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. The paragraph below apparently shows that he cited the work of Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, published in 2004. But this is not the case, as the evidence that I’m about to show you speaks otherwise. It appears that he almost copied verbatim the article of Carlos W. Porter entitled An Analysis of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Karlo Espiritu: “Morals don’t exist in nature and so, it cannot be discovered (The Science of Good and Evil. Shermer, M. 2004 ). In nature there are only actions — physical actions, biological actions, human actions. Humans act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral only when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is strictly created by humans, subject to all sorts of cultural influences and social constructions. Since almost every person and every social group claims they know what constitutes right versus wrong human action, and since almost all of these moralities differ from all others to a greater or lesser extent, reason alone tells us they cannot all be correct. In this respect, morality is not absolute. Just as there is no absolute right type of music, there is no absolute right type of human action. The broad range of human action is a rich continuum that makes it impossible to categorize into the discrete rights and wrongs that political laws and moral codes tend to require.”

Carlos W. Porter: “Morals do not exist in nature and thus cannot be discovered. In nature there are just actions–physical actions, biological actions, and human actions. Human actors act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is a strictly human creation, subject to all the cultural influences and social constructions as other such human creations. Since virtually everyone and every group claims they know what right and wrong human action is, and since virtually all of these moralities are different from all others to a greater or lesser extent, then reason alone tells us they cannot all be correct. Just as there is no absolute right type of human music, there is no absolute right type of human action. The broad range of human action is a rich continuum that precludes its pigeonholing into the unambiguous yeses and noes that political laws and moral codes require.”

This most applauded article writer of the Filipino Freethinkers, whose work was reportedly one of the most viewed entry of the Farters’ website, also copied entries from an online article written by Michael Shermer entitled Why People Believe Weird Things.

Karlo Espiritu: “Morality is relative to the moral frame of reference. As long as morality is recognized as a human invention influenced by human cultures, one can be more tolerant of other human belief systems, and thus other humans. When a social group sets itself up as the final moral authority of other people’s actions, especially when its followers believe they have discovered absolute standards of right and wrong, it marks the beginning of intolerance, and thus, the end reason and rationality. This attribute is what makes a cult, a religion, or any other group harmful to individual freedom.”

Michael Shermer: “Morality is relative to the moral frame of reference. As long as it is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by human cultures, one can be more tolerant of other human belief systems, and thus other humans. But as soon as a group sets itself up as the final moral arbiter of other people’s actions, especially when its members believe they have discovered absolute standards of right and wrong, it marks the beginning of the end of tolerance, and thus reason and rationality. It is this characteristic more than any other that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any other group dangerous to individual freedom.”

Karlo Espiritu “The Plagiarist”, of the Filipino Free-farters, successfully proved that he’s good at copying other people’s works in that he even lifted verbatim the entries published on online forums. For example, Mr. Espiritu copied the whole paragraph of an online article entitled The Vice of Selfishness posted by Dr. Chiil.

Karlo Espiritu: “A perfect example of how an Objectivist would act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in New York. Ms. Genovese was murdered while 38 of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or even calling the police. Such bystander inaction is clearly undesirable and self-defeating because of the dangerous social situation it defines. An Objectivist, however, at least according to John Galt’s oath (Atlas Shrugged, 1957), would be required to abstain from action. He certainly could not intervene and put his life and love of it in danger. Furthermore, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese’s sake even long enough to make a phone call.”

Dr. Chiil: “A perfect example of how an Objectivist is required to act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in Queens. Ms. Genovese was murdered while thirty-eight of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or even calling the police. Such bystander inaction is both obviously intuitively wrong and also self-defeating to the actor (or, more correctly, non-actor) because of the dangerous social situation it defines. An Objectivist, however, at least according to John Galt’s oath, would be required to abstain from action. He certainly could not intervene and put his life and love of it in danger. Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese’s sake even long enough to make a phone call.”

Here’s another borrowed, lifted, plagiarized entry from the article of Chris Wolf entitled What’s Really Wrong With Objectivism?

Karlo Espiritu: If you have ever wondered why so many Objectivists are so quick to judge their opponents as evil and dishonest, it’s because they are seriously convinced that their opponents are evil and dishonest. If your only criterion for pronouncing someone to be evil and dishonest is the conclusion, “He can’t be holding that idea honestly,” then virtually anyone who opposes you can be instantly transformed into a dishonest evader. This also means that Objectivists who agree with Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff’s psychological concepts of ‘evil’, ‘evasion’, and ‘inherently dishonest ideas‘, will undoubtedly end up insulting many of their opponents. Such an Objectivist, upon deciding that his opponent is expressing an inherently dishonest idea (and is therefore evading), will immediately proclaim his opponent to be a dishonest evader. Naturally, if the opponent is holding his idea honestly, he will be immediately offended at having his character and honesty smeared in so unjust a manner. He will quite properly take it as an insult.

Chris Wolf: “If you have ever wondered why so many Objectivists are so quick to pronounce their opponents as evil and dishonest, it’s because they are honestly convinced that their opponents are evil and dishonest. If your only criterion for pronouncing someone to be evil and dishonest is the conclusion, “He can’t be holding that idea honestly,” then virtually anyone who opposes you can be instantly transformed into a dishonest evader. This also means that Objectivists who agree with Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff’s psychological concepts of ‘evil’, ‘evasion,’ and ‘inherently dishonest ideas,’ will automatically end up insulting many of their opponents. Such an Objectivist, upon deciding that his opponent is expressing an inherently dishonest idea (and is therefore evading), will immediately declare his opponent to be a dishonest evader. Needless to say, if the opponent is holding his idea honestly, he will be immediately offended at having his character and honesty smeared in so unjust a manner. He will quite properly take it as an insult.”

Karlo Espiritu: “A technique called ‘guessing‘ is one very common technique that most Objectivists use to determine the mental state of another man. It’s a way for them to determine if an opponent has an ‘inherently dishonest idea’. This is why most Objectivists often start their statements with questions. Doesn’t that ring a bell? How many times have you encountered “What is…?”-type of questions from Objectivists? Well, now you know why. Always keep in mind, they’re mostly Ayn Rand copycats.

“Ayn Rand wrote that, “Morality is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions, that determine the purpose and the course of his life.” Accordingly, to an Objectivist, judging the morality of others requires that we judge how well they are adhering to a code of rational values, rather than trying to recognize the actual motivations of another man’s mind. In broadest terms, are other men acting in a pro-life, or anti-life manner? Are they being rational, or irrational? Are they using reason, or emotion? Do they tell the truth?”

Chris Wolf: Actually, there is one very common technique that most Objectivists use to determine the mental state of another man. This technique is called ‘guessing’.

“Any proper moral judgment of other men must rely on facts that are readily available to anyone; not facts that only a trained psychiatrist could hope to obtain. What are the facts that can be used for moral judgment?

“Ayn Rand wrote that, “Morality is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions, that determine the purpose and the course of his life.” Accordingly, judging the morality of others requires that we judge how well they are adhering to a code of rational values, rather than trying to discern the actual motivations of another man’s mind (as Rand and Peikoff would have us do). In broadest terms, are other men acting in a pro-life, or anti-life manner? Are they being rational, or irrational? Are they using reason, or emotion? Do they tell the truth?”

Karlo Espiritu: “But such judgments are not always easy to make, and they can never be made quickly, and none of them requires us to determine if a man is ‘evading,’ or is advocating an ‘inherently dishonest idea,’ or is ‘evil.’ Trying to answer any of these last three questions, is to push moral judgment into the realm of unjust fantasy.”

Chris Wolf: Such judgments are not always easy to make, and they can never be made quickly, but none of them requires us to determine if a man is ‘evading,’ or is advocating an ‘inherently dishonest idea,’ or is ‘evil.’ To try to answer any of these last three questions, is to push moral judgment into the realm of unjust fantasy.”

Plagiarized Conclusion

Unfortunately, even the opening paragraph of Karlo Espiritu’s amazingly plagiarized, err, borrowed, bash-Ayn Rand conclusion was apparently lifted from several online articles.

Karlo Espiritu: “Objectivism is a radical and mostly unoriginal combination of old ideas pieced together and filled with contradictions. The most obvious of these contradictions is that Ayn Rand took individualism which would seem to encourage all types of thought and questioning and turned it into a simplistic black and white way of interpreting the world.”

Again from Salon.com: “Her Objectivism is a radical and mostly unoriginal conglomeration of old ideas pieced together and filled with contractions.  The most glaring of these contractions is that she took individualism which would seem to encourage all types of thought and questioning and turned it into a simplistic black and white way of intrepreting the world.”

Karlo Espiritu: “John Galt or Howard Roark, her two famous protagonists in Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, would have never joined her collective group if they had magically come alive. Rand did not tolerate individualism in her inner circle. If you liked Mozart, you were gone. If you had any questions about the concepts of Objectivism you were labeled irrational and scorned.”

Again from Salon.com: “John Galt or Howard Roark, her two most famous literary perfect  supermen, would have never joined her collective group if they had magically come alive.  Rand did not tolerate individualism in her inner circle.  If you liked Mozart, you were gone.  If you had any questions about the concepts of Objectivism you were labeled irrational and scorned.”

Karlos Espiritu: “Ayn Rand lived a lonely, isolated life which is a contradiction for one who claimed her way was the best and only way to personal happiness. She despised all things mystical or religious yet her followers worshiped her which she not only accepted but demanded. Her Objectivism became more than a philosophy but a religion if not a simple cult (Walker, J. The Ayn Rand Cult. 1999).”

Observe that Mr. Espiritu, AKA “The Plagiarist cum artist” of the Filipino Free-farters, provided an alleged source for the above-quoted paragraph. But evidence below shows that the source of this entry was posted on Salon.com on March 6, 2010, and that the article was titled My Country ‘Tis of ME—The United States of Ayn Rand.

Salon.com: “She lived a lonely, isolated life personally which is a contradiction for one who claimed her way was the best and only  way to personal happiness.  She despised all things mystical or religious yet her followers worshiped her which she not only accepted but demanded.  Her Objectivism became more than a philosophy but a religion if not a simple cult.”

It’s both funny and pathetic that even this single line had to be copied word for word from another online source:

Karlo Espiritu: “She believed that it was more important to adhere to a principle than to behave well.”

From Standard.ca (To the Ashcan—go!, published on February 7, 2010): “She believed that it was more important to adhere to a principle than to behave well.”

And, as I suspected, even the final, last, ending paragraph of Mr. Espiritu’s most celebrated article was borrowed from the concluding paragraph of Michael Shermer’s The Unlikeliest Cult in History.

Karlo Espiritu: “What makes science light years away from all other disciplines is its commitment to the tentative nature of all its conclusions. In science, there are no final answers, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific “facts” are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but that acceptance is never final. Science is not the declaration of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at building a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection or confirmation. And that is at the center of its limitations. It is also its greatest strength. Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding our world, and we should love and use it.”

Michael Shermer: What separates science from all other human activities (and morality has never been successfully placed on a scientific basis), is its belief in the tentative nature of all conclusions. There are no final absolutes in science, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific “facts” are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but never final assent. Science is not the affirmation of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at building a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection or confirmation. In science, knowledge is fluid and certainty fleeting. That is the heart of its limitation. It is also its greatest strength.”

Ergo, he’s guilty of plagiarism

Evidence shows that Mr. Karlo— the most celebrated, applauded blog writer of the Filipino Free-Farters— is guilty of the unethical, un-academic, irrational act of plagiarism. Perhaps this is how the Farters view reason and science.

In fairness to Mr. Espiritu, he provided a list of sources, however, of the many online sources from which he copied entries for his article, only Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Believe in Weird Things” was cited.

I have to repeat verbatim what I wrote in my earlier blog:

“So far, I have not found a single honest critic who was able to expose “the mythology about the philosophy of Ayn Rand.” Like I stated in my blog entitled ‘Ayn Rand: The Greatest Philosopher On Earth,’ “I’ve encountered a lot of people who denounced Ayn Rand but never read any of her works. These neo-Ayn Rand critics simply echo the old canard manufactured by her dishonest fabulist and/or equivocators who were simply good at myth-making and unscrupulous propaganda campaign.  There are some who even claimed they clearly understood her philosophy, yet uttered nothing but downright lie and/or distortions of her works and ideas. Like I said to a blog critic of mine, “If there’s a philosopher of the past century who was a victim of grave injustice, ignorance, and leftist-conservative propaganda, it would be Ayn Rand.”

We hope Mr. Karlo Espiritu would also have the courage of Mr. Manny Pangilinan who owned up to his mistakes. An advocate of reason, science and logic? Give me a break!

  • Note to the Filipino Freethinkers: Do not attempt to edit or revise Mr. Espiritu’s article to evade any responsibility or to avoid being exposed as dishonest Farters. I have  screen-shots of his blog.

Find out the EVIL and IRRATIONALITY of the Filipino Free-farters:

Exposing the evil and lies of the Filipino Freethinkers: Filipino Free-farters: The New Mystics of Our Age

On how and why they distort the concept of reason: Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason

What is their morality or code of ethics: Freethinkers or Free-farters?

On their being state-welfarists: Why the Filipino Free-FARTERS Would Love Universal Health Care?

On their IRRATIONALITY and pragmatism: Of Utter Dishonesty and Misrepresentations

On how they formed a cult of anti-reason: The Psychology of the Anti-Population Cult

23 Comments
  1. April 12, 2010 3:38

    Totally disgusting! I think the article was 99 percent lifted from online sources! lol!

  2. April 12, 2010 3:38

    I guess my question would be why waste your time putting in so much work exposing the plagiarism of collectivists? So much work wasted in an effort that cannot lead to productive end. Don’t get me wrong. I post opinions about such things on my blog but plagiarism is the very least of the issues I worry about when it comes to looters. The main point in all that stolen detail that struck me was a collectivist actually writing –

    “What makes science light years away from all other disciplines is its commitment to the tentative nature of all its conclusions. In science, there are no final answers, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific “facts” are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but that acceptance is never final. Science is not the declaration of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at building a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection or confirmation.”

    This statement is laughable given the use of only narrow sets of scientific data, and correlation not causation, to support “man caused” global warming theories used by the collective. This is an area of science that is considered by the left to be established fact ,set in stone, and that any who would question it are “deniers”. Sound bytes containing technical references that the information consumer themselves do not understand are proof against any argument. In the end, directly refuting illogical ideas is the goal, because the collective doesn’t care about plagiarism. The fact that intellectual property has been stolen simply does not matter because to the collective there is no such thing as property. You should know this by now if you have spent as much time as you appear to have, dressing down the collective

    • April 12, 2010 3:38

      Well, this only proves that the Filipino Free-Farters are a bunch of brainless fanatics! They cannot even come up with a well-written, plagiarism-free article. If you’re not part of the inner circle of the Farter, go to their website and look at how stupid they all are.

  3. April 12, 2010 3:38

    Oh this stolen idea by the Free-farters: “What makes science light years away from all other disciplines is its commitment to the tentative nature of all its conclusions. In science, there are no final answers, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific “facts” are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but that acceptance is never final. Science is not the declaration of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at building a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection or confirmation.”

    Do they even know the nature of the very idea which they stole from another idiotic writer? This only proves they are a bunch of morons who do not know how to think on their own.

  4. April 12, 2010 3:38

    Well, here is one moronic author who beats all plagiarists on the web. lol! But in all fairness, the Freethinking author spent so much time, effort and energy googling the right material for his plagiarized work, and it’s now being praised and celebrated by his moronic colleagues who do not have any sense of self-respect and dignity… Freethinking my ass!

    • April 12, 2010 3:38

      went to the freethinkers’ facebook group and it’s sickening to see how they react to one post. One member, Michael Bartolo, seems to be out of synch. people there try to fake reality by ignoring the fact that one of their bloggers stole the ideas of other internet authors. disgusting.
      this michael bartolo posted:
      “Edit? Revise? That blog was there for the past 3 weeks. And all of it is dedicated to you and your god, Ayn Rand and your irrational philosophies.”

      “Why would they edit it? It’s a good article. And it’s not dishonest. It’s the truth. And that would be irrational for them to edit it. Why? Just for you? Hey man don’t push it you maybe our favorite Randroid but not everything is about you as you always presume.”

      yeah! freethinking? tell that to the marines!

  5. April 12, 2010 3:38

    The plagiarism is rather bizarre, since I don’t consider myself to be an appropriate source. I will complain to the author.

    • April 12, 2010 3:38

      Plagiarism is a crime. It is a form of intellectual theft or dishonesty. It reveals whether a group of people claiming to be an advocate of reason betrays reason itself. It reveals the personality of the author- whether he is trustworthy or not. It reveals the nature of an organization- whether it is indeed an advocate of reason, science and logic or not.

      In the first place, one does not need to steal the ideas from other people in order to make a point. An act of plagiarism is simply an implied admission that the author is incompetent, dependent upon the works of others, and has no “self” and “mind” of his own– that he cannot produce a well-written, logical writing without copying the works of others. It is not a crime or a form of intellectual dishonesty to borrow the idea of others so long as you cite or acknowledge the source of the information. But in this case, the author copied verbatim the works of other online authors.

      Now, the Free-farters try to fake reality by pretending that what their colleague did is OK since he was simply attacking an “enemy.” But that’s the problem. Attacking an “enemy” is never an excuse for plagiarism. In any case, forum, or proceeding, anyone who tries to impeach or attack the position, idea, philosophy or argument of an actual or perceived “enemy” must be very ready to produce a well-written, logical, rational and plagiarism-free deposition, written argument, or position paper.

      It is an anomaly– a shame– for an organization that claims to be an advocate or defender of reason to praise, promote, and keep a plagiarized piece of crap. It simply shows that they are never an advocate of reason, science, logic and knowledge, but of materialistic mysticism, ignorance and statism.

  6. April 12, 2010 3:38

    Vince, this is wonderful! Hahaha!

    • April 12, 2010 3:38

      Of course it is! Plagiarism is what the Filipino Freethinkers call science, reason and logic.

  7. Lorenz permalink
    April 12, 2010 3:38

    Sources were cited🙂

  8. UtotBalatLumilipad permalink
    April 12, 2010 3:38

    The most viewed article in this site was the most dishonest article…AWww!

    “Yung totoo ikaw (Karlo whoever) ba yung isa sa mga atenistang allegedly nag-plagiarize ng speech ni Manny V. Pangilinan”
    -Vice Ganda

    To Karlo
    Maybe on your graduation speech you can say that “plagiarism is not just a big word, it’s a way of life.” But at least we learned a lesson from you that Plagiarism is very wrong.

  9. Lord Atheist permalink
    April 12, 2010 3:38

    I already had this suspicion the very first time I saw the Freethinkers’ article. In fact I commented on that blog on March 31, 2010 at 11:08 am.

    Here’s my comment:

    “Oh c’mon, MichaelM. Do you think that the one who concocted this worst piece of shit ever read a book of Ayn Rand? I’d like to tell you that Whittaker Chambers actually didn’t read Atlas Shrugged and just based his insane review of the book on what the liberal media said. On the average, it would take more than a year for anyone to read the Ayn Rand book mentioned by their lying, buffoon pighead.”
    “It’s really hilarious to observe that this pighead just came out on this forum and declare, “hey! I read Ayn Rand’s silly books and here’s my silly review.” And it’s no surprise the imbecile and ignoramuses are applauding it. Anyone who really read and understood a few of the writings of Ayn Rand wouldn’t come up with this shitty, crappy piece of rambling. If it’s true that this idiot read the books he mentioned, then it’s either he’s a buffoon or a plain moron. And anyone who believes his stupid ramblings is two-times a moron.”

    Darn I was right! hahahaha!

  10. Anon permalink
    April 12, 2010 3:38

    lol even his wall posts are the same. merely “reworded”

  11. April 12, 2010 3:38

    And ladies and gentlemen, sumagot ang plagiarist ng mga Freethinkers. Look at how Mr. Karlo Espiritu tries to dismiss the issue by saying na blog lang to at “I honestly wrote” my article. Eto sinabi po niya:

    KARLO ESPIRITU (Plagiarist): Just saw this post. Okay guys, first of all, I did NOT expect the blog post to be very sensational. Since it was my FIRST post, it didn’t occur to me that it will be extremely popular. Most of
    the posts I see in FF just average about 10 comments and then it becomes buried by newer posts.

    After reading a lot of discussions about Objectivism in the FF forum, I became curious and started to read about Objectivism and Ayn Rand; and eventually decided to write a blog post about the philosophy.

    I honestly wrote the essay hurriedly and published it without rewriting/revising it very well. (Because honestly, Objectivism is a very broad topic, and it’s a very tedious one; and I feel it is not worth my time to put much effort into it). But now I realized it was a big mistake on my part, because it is remarkably obvious now that FF is very influential and there are people who are intensely affected by it. My sincere apologies for being too careless.

    I intended the blog post to be very casual (c’mon peeps, it’s just a blog post), and I never aspired it to be an authoritative material by anyone. The post did not morally condemn or insult anyone personally, but a lot of the feedback were hateful.

    But since there is now a craze for this blog post, and just to satisfy (well, some or most of) you, I’ll revise the post properly this time over the weekend. For the meantime, enjoy your life, meet real people, and have a blast while I find time to properly revise that (unimportant) blog post. I’ll update this thread once I’m done. Seriously, anyone needs a lot of time (which I don’t have) to write something thoughtful about a very very broad topic.

    Be cool people, it’s just a friggin’ blog post. There’s more to life, it’s too damn short already to deal with unimportant things. And seriously, c’mon, it is not comparable to a graduation speech that people should be inspired or follow.

    ETO NAMAN REPLY KO:
    “I honestly wrote the essay hurriedly and published it without rewriting/revising it very well.”
    Wow! ang galing mo naman pala, kuya! You honestly wrote the essay hurriedly and published it na hindi mo namalayang nakopya mo ang mga works ng ibang tao? My pagiging psychic ka pala lol!
    It’s not about the popularity of your blog. It’s about reason and honesty. Nagsulat ka nga pero puro naman nakopya sa ibang tao. Anong klaseng tao ka ngayon?
    And don’t ever try to dismiss it my simply saying “it’s just a friggin’ blog post.” Una, maliwanag na pinangalandakan mo sa mga kasama mo na sinulat mo at nagbasa ka ng libro ni Ms Rand.
    Hindi ka lang pala sinungaling, tuso ka pa! Yan ba ang natutunan mo sa school. Kahit sinong bogger mas OK pa rin if you honestly and really wrote your blogs. Nasaan ang self-respect mo niyan, kuya?
    At saka, it’s a sign of disrespect sa organization na sinalihan mo. All they know is that you wrote your blog, eh hindi pala. Sinong niloko mo? Eh di sarili mo at ang mga kasamahan mo!

    ————-

    Astig! Ganun lang pala yun? May matino po bang bloggers na nangongopya sa work ng iba na walang citation, attribuition o kung ano mang palatandaan na hiniram ang kanyang gawa? Kalokohan naman yan! Baliw lang ang magsasabi nun!

  12. Alejandro C. Patagnan permalink
    April 13, 2010 3:38

    Vincent, I just want to say to you: You did a great job refuting the enemy. It’s excellent expose.

  13. John permalink
    April 13, 2010 3:38

    I gotta hand it to you Froi, well done!

  14. jeff permalink
    April 14, 2010 3:38

    just a minor correction on your article,,,

    “A two-hour online investigation revealed that the main author of the most commented and most celebrated blog article of the Free-farters is nothing but a piece of plagiarized crap!”

    — a look at the FF website shows that Mr. Espiritu’s article was still in fifth place, it still needs 77 new comments to be considered as the most commented blog article…

  15. Anon permalink
    April 25, 2010 3:38

    I’ve checked out the freethinkers “meetings”. They are just a group emo kids pretending to be intellectuals. but seeing past the pretense of intellect, it’s just a sausage-fest get together trying to score some ass from the few girls who attend.

    Giving them any attention is a waste of time. It just gives their website unneeded traffic and attention.

Trackbacks

  1. About Filipino | Worldwide News
  2. A BIG INSULT To Bloggers! « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Freethinking, Plagiarism, and Reason « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. The Art of Lying « THE VINCENTON POST

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: