Why Expose the RH Bill’s ‘Trojan Horse Socialism’
They know that one of the most effective ways to surreptitiously turn this country into a socialist/collectivist slave pen is by employing the deceptive “art of legislation.” That is, by introducing socialist legislative measures bit by bit in the name of the poor or some social good or an unknowable virtue, so that on some gray, middle-aged morning we would realize how the evil forces of statism or socialism betrayed our trust and gullibility by robbing us all the values we had loved in our distant spring.
First off, let me tell my readers why I kept on posting my online, public conversations/dialogues with some Reproductive Health bill supporters. One of the reasons why most anti-RH bill advocates can’t properly debate or argue with the modern-day Filipino statists is because of the latters’ attempt to obfuscate and to confuse this ongoing controversial public debate. It’s not the passion of the RH bill statists but the confusion of most of the measure’s avowed enemies that is bringing this country to a ‘legislated’ disaster. We have to confront the enemies of freedom, and by confronting them we have to identify that which motivates them- why do they believe in weird, anti-reality things and what fires them up.
What is this confusion I’m talking about? We are all aware that the bill’s proponents and misguided supporters, who are ignorant of the proper concept of rights, secularism and the principle of separation of church and state, raised a number of justifications for the passage of the bill. There are those who believe in the myth of overpopulation, while some group of social reproductivists simply care for the welfare of women and the poor. There are those who are skeptical of the accuracy of the Edcel Lagman’s overpopulation-poverty rhetoric yet still support the measure, as they believed it’s the absolute solution to some of our social ills. That is why their magniloquent rhetoric and sophistic arguments can effectively confuse the gullible and the non-critical thinker.
In fairness to the RH bill fanatics, I don’t think most of them know the nature of the bill which they fervently support. I don’t know if they have the intellectual capacity to understand the many evils of the bill. Only a few- those most guilty of evil intent- grasp the nature of their battle, and this few anti-reason men are statists of the first order. These few people are motivated by a collectivist ideology and they understand that their fight is political and ideological in nature. They know that one of the most effective ways to surreptitiously turn this country into a socialist/collectivist slave pen is by employing the deceptive “art of legislation.” That is, by introducing socialist legislative measures bit by bit in the name of the poor or some social good or an unknowable virtue, so that on some gray, middle-aged morning we would realize how the evil forces of statism or socialism betrayed our trust and gullibility by robbing us all the values we had loved in our distant spring. I call this system Trojan horse socialism.
The rise of statism or socialism is only possible by means of bloody revolution or by a long, slow process of indoctrination, ideological subversion and infiltration of our political systems. If the act of defending freedom and exposing the dishonesty, utter idiocy and epistemological evasion of the statists and enemies of freedom and rights is now called “intellectual masturbation”, then I say, may God bless this country.
Now the following is my online discussion or debate with a misguided Pro-RH bill fanatic named Chino Fernandez.
Here’s how he understands the measure:
Critics believe the RH Bill was just to provide free condoms and contraceptives to just anyone. Or as a tool to further other causes, such as abortion. However, I feel these to be untrue.
Based on what Beth Angsioco, the original author of the RH Bill, said to my colleague Orion Dumdum, one of the problems of society is women getting pregnant when they are in poor health and are economically poor. They develop birth complications, get rushed to the hospitals, often government hospitals, and die. It’s reported that there’s so much of this; I’ll get figures later. State funding is used to to try and save these would-be mother’s lives. But it would have been cheaper and with a greater chance of survival if they instead used contraceptives and never got pregnant.
Now some say, why can’t these women just refuse sex with their husbands? Be frigid, in order to avoid complications?
Because if they do, their husbands will beat them up. Even if they run away, it’s likely that the husband will find them, or someone may turn her over to her abusive husband. Philippine society is friendlier to the abusive men than to the abused women. A sad fact, so it’s hard for women to avoid sex. Even possible is that they are being raped by their husbands (or other men in the village), being forced to have sex. And not every woman can be a Lorena Bobbitt or husband killer (perhaps none at all?).
So the alternative is that the poor, sickly wife goes to the health center and takes a contraceptive, so that when she is forced to have sex, she has less chance of getting pregnant and developing complications that could be fatal. She does this of course without her husband knowing it, provided that the husband is the abusive type.
Now I know what the RH Bill is for.
The following is my discussion with Mr. Chino Fernandez.
Commenting on my anti-RH bill blog titled RH Bill’s Fallacy of Overpopulation-Poverty Connection, Chino Fernandez made this statement: “the RH Bill was never actually meant to be an overpopulation solution. It’s a misconception that the critics and sometimes overzealous supporters would have. My view of the RH Bill is this: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235863645130 (basically a solution for specific situations in women’s rights).”
The Vincenton Post: You said in your post: “Critics believe the RH Bill was just to provide free condoms and contraceptives to just anyone. Or as a tool to further other causes, such as abortion. However, I feel these to be untrue.” Well, those are misguided RH bill critics. I am not. I have long understood that the RH bill has many aspects and ramifications. I said in this post before: “The RH bill is an intellectual issue, not a religious issue, and this is what its proponents and blind supporters do not understand. If it were a religious issue, then we should be sending Catholic priests, protestant pastors and Imams to Congress. But it is not. It is an intellectual issue as it covers numerous disciplines and fields, such as philosophy, economics, politics, the law, science, medicine, and religion. Yes, religion is just one of the many ramifications of this issue.” Thus, overpopulation is just one of the issues in this RH bill debate. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/im-an-atheist-and-i-oppose-the-fascist-rh-bill/ . However, I found the supporters of the bill VERY CONFUSING, or rather VERY DECEPTIVE (perhaps in a natural way), as there are groups who want the bill passed because of “overpopulation,” while there are groups that support it because it seeks to help women, the poor and the marginalized. So, yeah! Those are misguided RH bill critics who don’t know what they’re talking about. I say, we have to attack all the aspects of the bill, from overpopulation claims to its economic fallacies to religion arguments to philosophy to logic and so on.
As to the claim the bill is “to give women a fighting chance against the abuses of men”, well that’s a very charitable, emotional statement. However, we cannot be charitable with other people’s money. Anyone who read and UNDERSTOOD the bill knows that the government won’t solely rely on taxes in order to “to give women a fighting chance against the abuses of men.” The government will have to force employers and doctors to comply with the bill’s provisions under the pain of fine or imprisonment or both. Why force employers to go against their will? Well, for the common good, others argue. So since Lagman and his ilk argued that “RH is a right”, then anyone who deprives others of his RH right is to be considered criminal and must be penalized, and this is what the RH bill is all about. Is RH a right? RH as a right presupposes that it is mandatory for the government to provide it to the people. This is a distorted concept of rights.
A right means freedom of action in a social context. It simply means you are free to act provided that you refrain from violating the rights of others. Under the Constitution, it is stated there the fundamental categories of rights- the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and pursuit of happiness. The right to life doesn’t mean the government or your employer must provide the FOOD or shelter you need. It simply means you own your life and you are free to do everything you want in order to sustain it. You can go to school and take the course that you want so that in the end, you’d be employable. The right to property doesn’t mean the government or your landlord must provide a house or a piece of land to you. It means you have a right to the fruits of your labor or work, or to the fruits of your property. You have the right to keep them.
However, some people here have a so DISTORTED a concept of rights. They claim that RH is a right so they argue that the government must provide it to them by forcing employers to comply with the provisions of a legislation. Their failure to obey the law would perhaps send them to JAIL. So in other words, the RH bill regards employers or doctors as potential CRIMINALS. Why use force and coercion on them? You, as an employee, have the right to keep your salary and invest anywhere and in any way you can, so that when time comes that you contract a disease or when you get old you’d have something to use or to spend. And since RH is a right, Filipino doctors are legally obliged to obey it.
So what if a Catholic doctor (like a friend of mine) who believes that some provisions of the bill are against her conscience and religion? So by not obeying the provisions of the RH bill the government can penalize him simply because he refuses to breach his conscience and his freedom of religion?
First, you have to understand the proper concept of rights. Does a right impose any form of obligation on others? Does it mean some entity (e.g., government or a company) or someone has to provide the things you need? You have all the freedom to help the poor and women. As to your statement, the bill is “to give women a fighting chance against the abuses of men”, the only way to help women is to impose the rule of law. We have several laws against domestic abuse, maltreatment, etc. IMPOSE THEM! That is what the bill is NOT!
Chino Fernandez: That’s a lot you read into the “fighting chance” idea I have. For me, the right that the RH Bill helps protect is the right to not get pregnant just because a man forced her to have sex with him. And this is a woman who is of the poorest of… the poor, the real target of the bill. Any woman with enough money to buy her contraceptives and secretly use them against the forceful man or husband does not need the RH Bill. Sadly, not all women are like that. Well, you’re entitled to your own reading of other’s ideas even if it is way off.
The Vincenton Post: “That’s a lot you read into the “fighting chance” idea I have.” – Because I have to make you understand basic concepts (e.g., rights, employer’s responsibility, law, etc.).
You said: “For me, the right that the RH Bill helps protect is the…… right to not get pregnant just because a man forced her to have sex with him.” Well, that’s for you, but the provisions of the bill are very clear, unless you have the power and authority to ask for its revision while the deliberation is taking place. But bill states that since RH is a right, anyone who deprives or disobeys the its provisions, may be punished by law, and the measure clearly enumerates the penalties that anyone might incur in case of breach or violation. Thus, an employer who refuses or fails to provide the MANDATORY RH services of his workers because he can’t afford it, or a doctor who disobeys the bill because it runs counter to his conscience and religion, may be penalized by FINE or IMPRISONMENT or both!
You said: “And this is a woman who is of the poorest of the poor, the real target of the bill.” Well, we can help that woman without sacrificing others. Without jailing people! If that’s the case (according to your premise), since half of our population suffer from hunger and famine, why not introduce a NEW BILL designed to FEED the poor. Let’s call this new bill “Anti-Hunger Act”. Does that sound good? According to your premise, any or all social problems can be solved by simply passing a law or by the government.
Well, reality has it that the government has been so INEFFICIENT in performing its duties. The more you ask for government powers and roles and dole-outs the more you give our politicians the opportunity to steal and to be corrupt, because the more official roles and duties they possess by virtue of their office the higher the opportunity they get to commit graft and corruption. If you give too much money to politicians to address poverty and all, do you think half of that would be spent accordingly?
Chino Fernandez: So you want to force others to withdraw their support for the RH Bill? Follow you because you’re the only one who’s right? Good luck in that new religion you’ve just founded, my friend. 😉
The Vincenton Post: You said: “So you want to force others to withdraw their support for the RH Bill?” Force? Did I use any threat or force so that others withdraw their support to the bill? Why use force? It’s you people who seek to use government force! We can only win by persuasion! I cannot force you because you have your own mediocre understanding of reality. Again, you said the bill “is to give women a fighting chance against the abuses of men.” Like I said that is what the bill is NOT! Don’t you know that we have laws against domestic violence, maltreatment and abuse of women? Nobody can force a person who’s NOT willing to think. I amused that you used the word “FORCE” as an answer to my posts…
Here’s an excerpt of a previous post titled Why are the Communists Advancing to Take Away Our Freedom:
The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the socialists in Congress, on the other hand, offer a social system that would guarantee alleged economic equality, prosperity and unity. In reality, the only way for the socialists to achieve social or economic equality is through redistribution of wealth, force, progressive taxation and slavery. The unity which they offer can only be achieved with the use of brute force, repression, censorship, and state surveillance, while prosperity consists in enslaving those who are able to work and produce for the benefit of those who aren’t. The National Democratic Front of the Philippines through Sison enumerated the evils of the current system: “Social discontent is widespread and intense among the toiling masses of workers and peasants and the middle social stratra due to the rising mass unemployment, the sinking real incomes, the soaring prices of basic commodities and services, the growing tax burden, the lack or inadequacy of social services and other socio-economic problems.” There is no need to decipher the meaning of this statement since it is clear that they seek to establish a Maoist/Leninist regime in this country. Their only strategy is to fool the people that it is their system that can only solve “social discontent,” “mass unemployment,” among other economic social and economic problems that we face today. Their goal is to abolish private property, man’s rights and turn men into slaves. And now, they are using our remaining freedoms and objective laws against us.
Despite clear evidence and proof that socialism or communism failed in almost all slave pens on earth, the Leftists claim that the system is perfect but not the murderous dictators. They try to evade the fact that it is the system, which demands everybody’s enslavement and the use of brute force, that corrupts men. A system that abolishes individual rights and makes men the means to the ends of others and the state would logically lead to the rise of any potential dictator. The Leftists were also heavily hypnotized by Karl Marx’s evil lie that communism is different from socialism. The only difference between these two great lies is the number of deaths and the degree of man’s enslavement.
We are now in an age of mediocrity ruled by the country’s intellectual mystics and collectivists. Unless the collectivist trend is reversed, the coming of a dictatorship of the left (communists) or the so-called right (fascism) is just a matter of time. The socialist members in Congress, who found a way to pursue their collectivist goal under the party-list system, are now advancing, as they take advantage of our mediocre Constitution that compromised our liberty and freedom to temporary unity and security. This creepy collectivist trend also takes a fillip from schools, religious institutions and the intellectuals that are preaching the value of altruism, self-sacrifice and the evil of self-interest. Unknown to them, the common denominator between communism, religion and our dominant mediocre culture is altruism. Every dictator, according to Ayn Rand, is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. “A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. He wants them to surrender their consciousness to his assertions, his edicts, his wishes, his whims—as his consciousness is surrendered to theirs. He wants to deal with men by means of faith and force—he finds no satisfaction in their consent if he must earn it by means of facts and reason. Reason is the enemy he dreads and, simultaneously, considers precarious; reason, to him, is a means of deception; he feels that men possess some power more potent than reason—and only their causeless belief or their forced obedience can give him a sense of security, a proof that he has gained control of the mystic endowment he lacked.”
The philosophy of Karl Marx is founded on the morality of altruism and is immortalized by that altruistic axiom: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Socialism/communism demands that man must serve others and that he must offer his life to the state or to the dictator. Religionists echo the same ideal—that man must serve the good and interests of others and pursue the will of God. Both the academics and the intellectuals, on the other hand, demand for more government control. They demand that all people be chained to that collectivist principle that man, being a social being, is a means to the ends of others.
In this age of mediocrity and great compromise, it is not surprising that no one in this country ever attempts to offer a moral defense of capitalism and expose the evil of altruism and collectivism. The philosophy of both the mystics of muscle (communists/fascists) and the mystics of spirit (theocrats/religionists) is based on the morality of altruism, and the only corollary of the socio-political struggle of either group is collectivism. For many decades, capitalism has been vilified, distorted, ignored and obliterated. Today, the persistent enemies of capitalism are using the global economic crunch to destroy capitalism. Ayn Rand was right in saying the following: “One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.”
Ergo, the only choice to protect and defend our freedom is capitalism, and the only way to advance the cause of freedom and man’s rights is to have a rational intellectual leadership based on the philosophy for living on earth. The world you desire exists— but it can only be achieved by embracing the right choice.