Skip to content

Faux Rey Refran: The Sinister Sockpuppet of a Pro-Parliamentary Dum-Dum?

September 1, 2011
Perhaps, they are pro-parliamentary dum-dum's sockpuppets, namely, Monica de Vila, Kim Villauz, Dr Jose Rizal II.

Perhaps, they are pro-parliamentary dum-dum's sockpuppets, namely, Monica de Vila, Kim Villauz, Dr Jose Rizal II.

The cover of the other “Rey Refran” has been blasted. Yes, for those who know a notorious communist named Rey Refran, the one claiming to be pro-capitalist, pro-free trade Rey Refran had been exposed, revealed, uncovered as nothing but a fraud, or a sockpuppet by an egotistic and narcissistic advocate of an absurd pro-parliamentary movement.

A few months ago, a friend called my attention to a dubious and questionable blog post purportedly owned by ‘Rey Refran’. However, after checking the blog post I was surprised to learn that the notorious communist who sent me a threatening private message via Facebook suddenly turned pro-capitalist. ‘Pro-capitalist’ Rey Refran’s blogsite contains a single blog article titled Ibagsak ang Mga Obobs, which shows his debate with a statist Ateneo De Manila instructor named Rene Raymond Reneses and his (probably) Ateneo students and friends.

I wasn’t entirely convinced that a highly notorious leftist who passionately defended his evil political ideology in many Facebook groups and Internet forums could easily turn pro-capitalist and abandon the ideological beliefs he absorbed in college at UP. In fact I had a few Facebook encounters with him following his Facebook ‘threat’.

In case you’re wondering, here’s the Facebook account of the real Rey Refran. Here’s pro-parliamentary dum-dum’s “Rey Reyfran” sockpuppet.

A few weeks ago I made a very interesting discovery. I was engaged in a heated debate with this highly confused pro-parliamentary statist. Our debate was focused on one issue, namely, parliamentary system versus presidential system. Here, I was able to learn his basic premises– his weak utilitarian defense of capitalism, his claim that capitalism is just an economic system and not a political and ideological system, his “parliamentary system is more superior to presidential system” drivel that reeks of Keynesian statistical claptrap, his hilarious claim that China’s Deng Xiaoping did more to promote free market system compared to Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, or other well-known advocates of capitalism, his argument that China promoted free market system in the past, his statist defense of Reproductive Health bill, among many others.

As to this dum-dum’s parliamentary drivel, he committed one big fallacy when he claimed that most rich and developed countries are parliamentary systems, therefore this form of government is more superior to presidential system. This logical fallacy is called “correlation does not imply causation” fallacy, which means “that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other.”

The pattern of this pro-parliamentary dum-dum’s illogic is as follows:

  1. Most rich and developed countries (A) adopt parliamentary system (B).
  2. Therefore parliamentary system (B) causes countries to be rich and developed (A).

In this particular type of logical fallacy, this pro-parliamentary dumdum certainly made a premature conclusion about causality after naively observing only a correlation between two factors. Naturally, since this pro-parliamentary dumdum merely observed one factor (A) to only be correlated with another factor (B), he then assumed with finality that A is causing B even when no solid real-world evidence supports this conclusion. Certainly this is a good example of logical fallacy because there are other possibilities.

  1. A may be the cause of B.
  2. B may be the cause of A.
  3. some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
  4. a combination of the three relationships is possible. For instance, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B).
  5. the “correlation” is merely a coincidence.

In other words, I was exposed to this pro-parliamentary dum-dum’s sophomoric pro-free market arguments, which are not really pro-free market at all. They’re purely statist drivel disguised as pro-capitalist.

The discovery came when I was having a conversation with someone at a secret Facebook group. I was told about the story of the blind men and the elephant, and then I suddenly thought of this pro-capitalist Rey Refran’s blog. “I encountered that story before”, I said. That conversation led me to this faux pro-capitalist Rey Refran’s blog and conducted an in-depth investigation.

By means of inferences and deduction, I was able to discover two things: first, the truth behind that mysterious blogsite, and second, the real identity of the person behind it. The idea simply hit my head like Newton’s Apple, which means that a particular event served merely as the last link integrating the conclusions I had already reached.

To further explain:

  • First, I found out that the ‘Ibagsak ang Mga Obobs’ blog post isn’t really owned by hardcore communist Rey Refran. In fact, I had this suspicion before that if it were really owned by the real Rey Refran, there was a possibility that he read and simply copied some of my published pro-capitalist blogs and that he had some agenda or some other plan in mind. I was wrong.
  • Second, I discovered that the culprit behind that faux blog is a pro-parliamentary dum-dum who’s been in the business of sockpuppetry.

Little did I know that some people who personally know this pro-parliamentary dum-dum were already aware of his disgusting sockpuppetry and that he was maintaining an army of Facebook dummies or sockpuppets designed to attack some people in Facebook groups and other blogsites. In short, this pro-parliamentary dum-dum had elevated sockpuppetry to a work of art.

A Facebook friend told me that apart from the faux pro-capitalist “Rey Refran”, this pro-parliamentary dum-dum maintained the following dummy accounts: Monica de Vila, Kim Villauz, and  Dr Jose Rizal II. According to a reliable source, he even used his sockpuppet “Rey Refran” to threaten someone.

This reliable source also said:

“he used the sock puppet Carlito’s way to rat out on Lila Shahani – to the extent that Lila Shahani thought it was me – heck she had her mother Amb Leticia Shahani call up my mom – even threatening me physically because of that fucking Carlito’s Way sock puppet of **** – fucking cowardly retard”

“ayan kasi always using sockpuppets – akala lahat ng nag disagree sa kanya e sock puppet – that guy needs a shrink really bad”

You be the judge.

I found out this morning that this pro-parliamentary dum-dum blocked me on Facebook. Interestingly, I was also blocked by his faux “Rey Refran” sockpuppet. Now that really means something. Just connect the dots.

It seems that this dum-dum effectively, cleverly trolled an entire Facebook community. I’d like to explain the purpose behind my expose. This is not a “defamatory cyber-bullying” post. This is simply an expose; the purpose of which is to expose the sinister agenda and the real person behind this faux “Rey Refran” who is, in fact, the number 1 victim in this hilarious online drama.

It appears that this is actually the second time that this pro-parliamentary dum-dum deleted his sockpuppet’s blog post. First, he deleted the blogsite the very day I posted his sockpuppet’s blog at a secret Facebook group (in which both of us are members), insinuating that I had an idea who’s behind it. A few days ago a Facebook friend informed me that this pro-parliamentary dum-dum created another blogsite wherein he posted the same blog article. However, right after I published this blog expose, the same blogsite was deleted. Fortunately you may still see the page’s snapshot by simply clicking this link.

Now, the following is faux Rey Refran’s or pro-parliamentary dum-dum’s pro-capitalist argument:

Capitalism is like Gravity. It is a phenomenon that just exists.

Capitalism is a phenomenon that occurs because organisms need to survive. When plants make use of the soil’s nutrients in conjunction with the sun (photosynthesis), that’s Capitalism as plants Capitalize on what they can do. When a lioness makes use of its hunting prowess to target a gazelle so that it can feed itself and its family, that’s Capitalism.

When a primitive human used to either hunt or gather his own food, that was Capitalism. And later, when humans decided that not everyone should hunt and gather, and thus agriculture and animal raising were developed, freeing other people to do other non-food related activities such as specialize in making tools, pottery, and other activities, in exchange for food, while food was exchanged for other services, that too is Capitalism.

Today’s currency-based Capitalism is but a further development from a barter-based Capitalism, and barter-based Capitalism is but a further development from the old “do-it-yourself” hunting and gathering Capitalism where you go get your own food.

Capitalism is simply all about survival. We Capitalize on our strengths in order to obtain sustenance, in order to get ahead and in order to be as far away from the threat of non-survival as possible.

I strongly disagree.

I don’t even know how to refute that very absurd, yet very ambitious presumption that “capitalism is a naturally occurring set of social arrangements and human proclivities”. If that’s the case, then all of the essential elements of capitalism- those elements and features that make it a pro-reality and moral social and political concept (e.g., individual rights, limited government, economic freedom, etc.)- would naturally occur to man. I couldn’t even liken it to Newton’s Apple, because Newton actually did a lot of musings, studies, and investigations that the apple that hit his head simply served as the link to his discovery of the Universal Law of Gravitation.

According to ****’s view of capitalism, this man-made system, which he claimed as ‘as natural as the law of gravitation’, exists apart from and independent of human nature. Like gravity, capitalism is out there- to be discovered, to be harnessed, or to be ignored. But capitalism, like any man-made abstraction, must be and ought to be a social, political and economic system that obeys human nature. And to claim that “what contaminates capitalism is the human tendency towards greed” is to disregard the essential ethics or morality of this system. Capitalism takes self-interest as its code of ethics. It simply means that if one wants to live in any society, his rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness must be respected, recognized, and never violated. But what is self-interest? Does it refer to any short-term human desires, whims, or caprices? Or: does it pertain to man’s long-term understanding and keeping of his values? For instance, if a businessman seeks long-term, stable business success and higher profits, is it moral and practical for him to take advantage of his clients/consumers? Can anyone succeed in a free society by violating the rights of others or by resorting to force and fraud?

Is man an altruistic being who must sacrifice his life to society or to any entity that claims social or supernatural power over him? If one is to defend and support capitalism, one is to understand its relation to human nature. Man is a rational animal capable of thought and cognition. Animals’ means of survival is given by nature. A lion survives by using its extraordinary strength. But man doesn’t have claws, wings, powerful jaws, etc. that would enable him to secure his survival. The only survival weapon given by nature to man is his mind. Reason, therefore, is his means of survival. Thus, in order to survive he must grow his food. He must use tools for hunting. He must cook his food. He needs to think of ways in order to secure his safety in times of natural calamities.

But man is not an island. Man needs a social system that will protect his life, property, and liberty. He needs an entity to protect him against criminals and invaders. He needs a system that will protect his goods and discoveries. This led to the discovery of the concept of Intellectual Property rights. Since man has the capability or potential to discover things that would improve his life and the lives of his fellowmen, he needs an institution that will protect the products of his mind against intellectual looters and/or parasites. The purpose then of an IP law is to protect man’ self-interest. To protect his discoveries and property.

However, faux Rey Refran or pro-parliamentary dum-dum’s opponent, Rene Raymond Reneses, is equally stupid with his anti-capitalist arguments.

Reneses said: ‎”The question is: what historical social arrangements can mitigate man’s natural propensity for evil, which Mr. Refran correctly pointed out as greediness? This is the basis of my statement that nothing good can come out of capitalism (understood as a historical condition).”

What historical social arrangements can mitigate man’s natural propensity for evil? I say, Free Market Capitalism. In a capitalist society, the proper role of government is to protect man’s rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness). But greed, in fact, is a mental state. It doesn’t have any moral evaluation. Is it good or evil?

If greed means you want more profits for yourself and you achieve it through hard work or by introducing new business systems, then you’re not supposed to be hated or penalized. Is greed evil? Well, it depends upon how man acts on greed. If you take advantage of your neighbors in order to further your own life, then it’s the function/role of your government to give you justice and to penalize the guilty or wrong-doer. But if you’re being accused of being greedy for beating all your business competitors through pure and sheer ability and competence, then you should not be punished (e.g. through taxation, anti-trust law, or any form of non-objective economic policies). In business terms, greed is what moves the world. Greed is good, in business!

  • NOTE: The faux Rey Refran blog was finally shut down. If you’re looking for the blog’s contents, please click HERE.
6 Comments leave one →
  1. September 3, 2011 3:38

    Hello Froilan,

    My name is Carlos C Tapang, and I have just been reading some of your blogs. I must say you are a very strong writer, and I agree with 99% of what you say. Philosophically, my worldview is Libertarian also, but my vote has always belonged to the Republicans here in the U.S. (I am a dual citizen, so I can vote in Pinas and the U.S.) I also blog, and in fact I can see that our styles originate from the same genius, Ayn Rand (

    Like you, I also desire the application of Libertarian principles in Philippine politics and economics. You and I are committed to freeing our motherland from the clutches of socialists and statists. Both of us can clearly see how a system that is based on the principles of individual freedom and limited government can benefit every Filipino, rich and poor alike.

    That was the introduction, now for the main reason why I am writing this reply to this blog. I have to tell you that I have problems with this blog at several levels. With regards to style, I think this blog is inconsistent with the style you’ve shown, at least with respect to the other blogs I’ve read so far. It is a very bad style that is exhibited here because the blog engages in name-calling. “Sock Puppet” and “dum-dum” are examples of name-calling that leave a bad taste. These two terms do not represent your normal style, and the latter seems to pertain to a person I also admire, Mr. Orion Perez Dumdum.

    On another level, this blog does not have a single important theme, and does not appear to come from your deepest intellect. From the viewpoint of the reader, why would he/she care about who is Rey Refran? There seems to be no connection between the supposed impersonation of this individual and the topic of Parliamentary versus Republican form of government.

    On still another level, I don’t know why we have to oppose those whose objectives are only 5% different from our own. I am very glad to have found Orion’s constitutional reform movement because, independent of him, I have also concluded that changing our constitution is required (but not sufficient) to even start reforming our motherland. At first, I could not see that a Parliamentary form of government can have advantages with regards to limited government, but later I began to see that the Parliamentary form can in fact be better at policing itself. You see, in a Republic like the U.S., the minority party is practically powerless. (Witness the powerlessness of the Republicans in blocking Obamacare, which was enacted when both houses were under Democrat control.) In the Parliamentary form, the minority party becomes the “shadow government”. The shadow government can potentially block the party in power. I realize this is not enough to convince you of the superiority of the Parliamentary form, but I leave it to you to honestly ponder and think on this issue.

    Even if you can’t agree on the form of government, you must agree that we desperately need a constitution that ENUMERATES what the national government can do. Enumeration of powers is a fundamental principle of a limited government. Whatever power is not granted to the national government is RESERVED to local government (provincial and city). However, the constitution must also limit the powers of the local government, reserving the rest to the individual. There are several things wrong with the 1987 Constitution, and we are witnessing its effects. One glaring example is that we the people are constrained from suing the government, and to mitigate the disastrous effects of this limitation on the rights of the people, the constitution has created the office of the ombudsman, which, as we can see now, provides a giant opportunity for corruption.

    Orion is committed to the principle of enumeration, and the Bill of Rights. We should also have no quarrel on the other two objectives of Orion’s movement: opening our doors fully to foreign investment, and decentralization. I do not think you can deny that these two objectives are conducive to individual freedom.

    Nonoy Oplas is one of the most dedicated freedom fighters I have met, and he tells me you are also a good friend. I urge you to join Orion’s movement. I am sure you will be critical to its success. If you can’t bring it to yourself to join, please do not oppose us at least. I urge you to think clearly about this.

  2. Xoce Rixjal permalink
    September 5, 2011 3:38

    I do believe ctapang has a point: why is it that you are pinning this on Orion Dumdum? Is it because of that fight you had on a facebook group? If this were true, then name him outright, why hide behind the rather stupid, but obvious “dum-dum” reference? Otherwise, your “expose” holds no water, after all, for all we know, you’re just inventing the whole thing to generate attention to your blog.

    For the other readers out there: don’t you agree?

    • September 5, 2011 3:38

      Jose Rizal II, aka Mr. Orion Perez Dumdum, ikaw ba yan? Hihihihihihihi!

      For the other readers out there: don’t you agree?

      • Xoce Rixjal permalink
        September 6, 2011 3:38

        Ay oo. Ako nga yan. Ako rin si Rey Refran, at si Kim Villaluz at kung sino man yung Monica na yan. Ako rin si Spartacus. He he he he he.

  3. Shinshi permalink
    February 6, 2012 3:38

    Parang Ivana d’Oltremont, Anatalia Larranaga, Marguirete Lhuiller and many more all in one person. hahaha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: