Meme or Propaganda? Are People Who Use AI Hypocrites for Opposing Pax Silica?

Filipinos have been conditioned to accept intellectual bullying as moral guidance. Many of us were taught that questioning authority is arrogance, doubt is a character flaw and disagreement signals moral corruption. An argument doesn’t need facts when it can be presented as righteous, and anyone who challenges it is easily dismissed as selfish, ignorant, or immoral.

Social media has inherited the same method of control, replacing religious guilt with political guilt, and turning complex policy questions into tests of personal virtue. Support the approved position, and you are reasonable; question it and you are immediately branded a hypocrite.

This post examines how memes and seemingly witty one-line “gotchas” use false equivalences to shame Pax Silica critics instead of encouraging fact-based national discourse, and asks whether it is just a meme or propaganda.

I will be covering the following in this post:

Are AI-using Pax Silica Opposers Hypocrites?

A social media trend has emerged in which pages, influencers, and individual users accuse people who oppose Pax Silica of being performative or hypocritical for also using AI. Several posts specifically target Filipinos who joined the AI-generated ’80s photo trend while sharing content against Pax Silica and its proposed data centers.

The argument is that anyone concerned about the environmental impact of AI infrastructure, particularly its water and energy consumption, should reduce their own AI dependence by avoiding recreational uses of the technology. Other posts take the accusation further, treating any use of ChatGPT or other AI tools as inherently inconsistent with opposition to Pax Silica.

Through memes, sarcastic captions, and moralizing statements like hypocritical and performative, these posts reduce a complex policy debate to a test of individual behavior: if you use AI for work, entertainment, or social media, you supposedly lose the right to question an international policy framework involving Philippine land, natural resources, infrastructure, labor, environmental responsibility, and foreign influence.

The false equivalence between using an existing technology and supporting a specific policy governing how that technology’s infrastructure and supply chains will be developed is absurd. Instead of addressing the substance of the opposition to Pax Silica, the trend redirects the conversation toward the personal habits and supposed moral failings of its critics.

Before anyone comes at me with, “It’s obviously satire. It’s just jokes and memes, so why are you taking it seriously?” let’s not insult each other’s intelligence. We know how readily Filipinos weaponize the word hypocrite to shame people into silence. Calling it satire does not change the emotional manipulation disguised as humor.

Dismissing either as hypocrisy or performative activism is simply a way to avoid confronting the actual issues surrounding Pax Silica because it is a policy issue, not a moral one.

The relevant questions concern Philippine sovereignty, land, natural resources, infrastructure, labor, environmental responsibility, and foreign control, not whether individual Filipinos are morally pure enough to criticize it.

Using AI neither answers those questions nor disqualifies anyone from asking them.

Black and White Analogies and Why They Enable Propaganda

As much as I agree that people should avoid generative AI trends like the “’80s yearbook” filters (that’s why I don’t participate in them), because uploading clear photos of your face to an unknown platform creates legitimate privacy and biometric-data risks, two things can be true at once:

You can use AI and still oppose Pax Silica.

Calling engaging in both hypocrisy or performativeness is simply a way to avoid the real issue.

AI is practically everywhere now. Search engines, smartphones, cameras, banking systems, social-media algorithms, navigation apps, fraud detection, and accessibility tools all use AI to some extent. Unless you plan to withdraw from modern digital life entirely or stop using your devices forever, “You use AI too” is not the clever gotcha people think it is.

Frankly, it is absurd how quickly we conflate separate concepts just because they seem related. AI is a tool; Pax Silica is a policy framework with far-reaching economic and geopolitical consequences.

We Filipinos love reducing complex issues to black-and-white or yes-or-no choices because that saves us from critically examining everything in between. Unfortunately, Pax Silica cannot be reduced to whether someone uses or supports AI. Framing it that way feels less like an honest argument and more like propaganda designed to discourage Filipinos from questioning it.

The end goal sounds like:

“I use AI, and I don’t want to be called a hypocrite. Therefore, I cannot oppose Pax Silica.”

Are you hearing yourself? Would you rather avoid learning more about a policy affecting your own country than risk being told you no longer have the right to use AI tools?

This is essentially the policy equivalent of saying, “You have made mistakes too, so you have no right to criticize politicians or hold them accountable for theirs. Besides, Jesus Christ teaches forgiveness, so if you are a Christian, you’re a hypocrite for refusing to forgive bribery and corruption. Forget about the flood control scandal.”

The same tactic is often used to protect powerful institutions: redirect scrutiny from those exercising power to the supposed moral failures of their critics.

Why am I Calling a Silly Social Media Trend a Propaganda?

Who benefits when influencers shame people into silence through moralistic, emotional blackmail? Certainly not ordinary Filipinos. The beneficiaries are governments, corporations, and other interested parties that gain when the public fails to examine policy decisions critically.

I call these memes propaganda not simply because they support Pax Silica or oppose its critics. People are free to support the initiative if they believe its benefits outweigh its risks.

My point of contention is how the memes frame the discussion. They do not encourage Filipinos to examine the agreement, compare evidence or determine whether its terms genuinely serve the country. Instead, they ridicule critics as hypocrites and imply that anyone who uses AI has forfeited the right to question the policies and infrastructure supporting it.

Instead of a nationalistic, and people-first discourse grounded in facts, the memes serve as social pressure designed, or at least functioning, to silence criticism by falsely equating it with hypocrisy or performative advocacy. It shifts attention away from Philippine sovereignty, ownership, environmental safeguards, energy and water use, labor protections and public accountability. Critics are forced to defend their personal use of AI while governments and corporations avoid answering questions about the actual agreement.

True nationalism means examining whether that progress benefits Filipinos, protecting Philippine resources and preserving the country’s ability to make decisions in its own interests. If supporters want a serious national conversation about Pax Silica, they should answer the questions being raised instead of using memes to shame people for asking them.

If Filipinos can be convinced that questioning Pax Silica makes them hypocrites, or that using AI forfeits their right to oppose it, then nobody has to answer the questions that actually matter.

Instead of asking the following questions:

• Who controls the land and infrastructure?
• Who profits from our natural resources?
• What protections exist for workers, farmers, Indigenous communities, and the environment?
• Who assumes liability when something goes wrong?
• What enforceable benefits will Filipinos receive?
• Who will make sure the US keeps its promises? Given the number of promises that they haven’t kept before, what makes this proposal any different?
• When are we holding the US accountable for all the other projects they evaded responsibility from?

We turn these policy questions into judgments about an individual’s morality, redirecting public attention away from power and accountability. It pressures people to defend their personal behavior while the parties shaping and benefiting from the policy escape scrutiny.

Whether coordinated or not, the effect resembles propaganda discouraging scrutiny by making dissent socially embarrassing or morally suspect.

Pax Silica Terms

Pax Silica seeks to reduce dependence on concentrated or supposedly untrusted suppliers. Although its declaration does not name China specifically, American officials and reporting have consistently placed the initiative within Washington’s effort to reduce strategic dependence on China.

The marketing version presents it as an international partnership that will bring innovation, investment, jobs, and secure technology supply chains to the Philippines. We’ve had those before, haven’t we? The promise of foreign investment and employment has been used before to defend industries with poorly examined long-term costs. For example, Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs).

The real issue is who will own and control the infrastructure, whose strategic interests it will serve, who will receive the greatest economic value, and who will absorb the costs.

In other words, this is as much about American industrial and geopolitical power as it is about Philippine development.

The proposed centerpiece in the Philippines is a 4,000-acre Economic Security Zone in New Clark City. That is not an app on your phone, so you can’t reduce it to mere AI use. It is a massive industrial project involving Philippine land, electricity, water, labor, and public infrastructure, while the broader Pax Silica framework also covers the country’s critical minerals.

And despite the confident publicity, many of the most important terms remain unsettled.

As of August 2026, approximately 4,000 acres had been designated, but officials were still examining the precise land requirements, affected communities, infrastructure needs, and industries that would operate inside the zone. The United States reportedly sought diplomatic immunity for the zone, but the Philippines had not agreed.

We need to ask the following questions:

• Will Filipinos own any meaningful part of the industries being built, or will we primarily provide the land, energy, water, minerals and workers?
• How much will be paid for such provisions?
• Will critical minerals be processed into higher-value products here, with technology and expertise transferred to Filipinos, or will the country remain an extraction site feeding foreign-controlled supply chains?
• Will the promised jobs be stable, well-paid, and protected, or limited by the very automation the project promotes?
• Who will be liable for environmental damage?
• Will the zone pay appropriate taxes?
• Which country’s laws will apply inside it?
• Who will control the data and infrastructure?

Until those questions are answered through publicly available, enforceable agreements, investment is not enough of an explanation. There needs to be provisions on what the consequences will be for not keeping their word.

The Philippines has repeatedly been praised as a strategic partner while supplying other countries with natural resources, cheap labor and geopolitical access. We should not accept another arrangement simply because it now arrives wrapped in the language of AI, innovation, and economic security.

Frankly, most of the complaint stems from our lack of trust in our own government to serve our interests over politicians’ own, and from the fact that the United States of America has not kept its promises in the past.

Track Record of The United States as “Partners” to Filipinos

The United States has a documented history of using propaganda and psychological warfare to shape Filipino public opinion and advance its own interests, even to the point of taking advantage of our own culture and folklore to accomplish whatever they wanted. Let us not pretend they have never misled Filipinos, manipulated public sentiment, or presented strategically beneficial arrangements as though they were designed primarily for our benefit.

The United States offers protection, development, recognition, or privileged access to its markets while Filipinos provide military support, land, labor, resources, or strategic access. When American priorities change, the benefits promised to Filipinos are narrowed, delayed, made conditional, or reinterpreted as never having been guaranteed.

Independence after helping defeat Spain, 1898

Emilio Aguinaldo said US consul E. Spencer Pratt encouraged him to resume the revolution and led him to believe the United States would support Philippine freedom. Filipino forces helped defeat Spain, but the United States then acquired the Philippines through the Treaty of Paris, refused to recognize the Philippine Republic and fought the Philippine–American War.

The important caveat is that Pratt’s authority and exact promises were disputed by US officials. Even Admiral George Dewey’s later testimony acknowledges Aguinaldo’s claim but denies that an authorized promise of independence was made.

Filipino cooperation was secured partly through an impression that American officials later disowned. During testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Philippines, Admiral George Dewey acknowledged Aguinaldo’s account but denied making an authorized promise of independence.

The Bates Treaty and respect for Moro autonomy, 1899–1904

The United States agreed to respect the Sultanate of Sulu’s authority, religion, and customs; to investigate disputes before using harsh measures; to provide protection; and to make regular payments to the Sultan and other leaders.

The agreement helped prevent the Sultanate from joining the Philippine–American War while US forces concentrated on defeating resistance elsewhere. Once that objective had largely been achieved, President Theodore Roosevelt unilaterally abrogated the agreement in 1904. The United States then imposed direct colonial rule over Moro territories.

Equal recognition and benefits for Filipino World War II veterans

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt placed Philippine Commonwealth forces under U.S. Armed Forces command. More than 200,000 Filipinos fought under American command, with many operating on the understanding that their service would receive the same recognition and benefits granted to other members of the US military.

In 1946, however, the US Congress passed the Rescission Acts, declaring that most service by Philippine forces would not count as active US military service for many veterans’ benefits. Later laws restored limited benefits or provided one-time compensation, but many veterans died before receiving equal recognition.

This is probably the strongest modern example of a concrete American commitment being withdrawn after Filipinos had already fulfilled their part.

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

The Marcos government contracted the American company Westinghouse to build the plant, while the US Export-Import Bank became its largest creditor, reportedly advancing approximately $550 million. Completed in 1984, the plant never generated commercial electricity as initially intended. The Aquino administration declined to operate it for stated reasons of safety and economy, amid longstanding allegations of corruption surrounding its construction.

Filipinos nevertheless spent decades repaying the debt. The plant’s intended benefit, commercial electricity generation, never materialized, but the financial obligations remained.

American contractors and creditors had already received payments, while Filipinos remained responsible for the plant’s debt and maintenance costs.

The Philippine government sued Westinghouse for fraud, bribery and other alleged wrongdoing. After a partial settlement of $10 million in cash and $90 million in credits and discounts, the Philippines continued pursuing bribery-related claims against Westinghouse and Burns & Roe, but an international arbitration tribunal rejected its claims and a U.S. jury subsequently cleared the companies.

None of this recovered the plant’s full cost. The government continued servicing the debt until 2007, ultimately paying approximately ₱64.7 billion in principal and interest for a facility that never produced commercial electricity. The plant was preserved rather than demolished, and successive administrations have considered converting or reviving it.

Instead of recovering the plant’s full cost from the companies involved, the Philippine government assumed the debt, leaving Filipino taxpayers and electricity consumers to bear much of the financial burden.

Clark and Subic military bases

Clark and Subic were long-running strategic arrangements that worked extremely well for the United States but left the Philippines with unresolved costs.

After the US military withdrew, investigations documented toxic contamination involving fuel, chemicals, sewage, and heavy metals. The United States received decades of strategic access. When the bases closed, contaminated land and affected communities remained a Philippine responsibility. The Philippines had to clean up after them.

The bases also sustained extensive sex industries surrounding Olongapo and Angeles, left thousands of Filipino Amerasian children without adequate recognition or support and created repeated disputes over Philippine jurisdiction concerning American service members. Women, children and marginalized communities bore many of the consequences.

Filipinos ultimately inherited many of the environmental, social and legal consequences after the United States had already received decades of strategic benefit.

The Philippine government created task forces, commissioned environmental assessments and worked with local authorities, civil-society organizations and international groups on limited remediation projects. Clark and Subic were also converted into commercial zones in an attempt to recover their economic value.

However, there was no comprehensive cleanup completed. Washington maintained that the bases agreement did not legally require the United States to remediate the sites. Although some contaminated areas were assessed and treated, organizations continued documenting unresolved pollution and health concerns years later.

The United States did not accept comprehensive legal and financial responsibility for remediating the contamination left at the former bases or the crimes that had happened during their stay.

Abruptly terminated USAID programs

In 2025, the US government suddenly dismantled much of USAID and terminated thousands of foreign-assistance awards worldwide. A subsequent US government audit identified 30 terminated awards managed by USAID Philippines. Implementers were instructed to dispose of the assets acquired for those programs. According to the USAID Office of Inspector General, some equipment was donated or transferred for local use but did not replace the canceled funding, personnel, or services.

The United States later announced new health assistance for tuberculosis, maternal health, and emerging diseases. However, this was new assistance under a different set of American priorities, not compensation for every program that had been discontinued.

History is Enough REason to Oppose Pax Silica

The Philippine government pursued lawsuits, environmental assessments, redevelopment initiatives, and program transitions, but these measures rarely repaired the full damage or compensated the Filipinos who bore it.

In previous US-linked projects, resolution often meant transferring the consequences to the Philippines. Filipino taxpayers repaid debts for benefits we never received. Philippine agencies inherited contaminated land. Local organizations lost essential funding, while affected communities waited for remedies that were partial, delayed, or never delivered. Meanwhile, accountability from the foreign companies and institutions involved remained limited or absent.

That is why responsibility and liability must be established before Pax Silica proceeds, instead of after Philippine land has been committed, natural resources depleted, and communities harmed. Otherwise, the costs and burdens could once again be passed on to Filipinos.

We already know that seeking damages through foreign courts or international arbitration does not guarantee that we Filipinos will recover what we have lost. The Philippines pursued fraud and bribery claims against Westinghouse over the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Still, an international arbitration tribunal rejected its claims, and a US jury cleared the companies involved. Filipinos were still left to repay approximately ₱64.7 billion for a plant that never produced commercial electricity, which is highly relevant with all the rotational brownouts happening in the country.

At Clark and Subic, the United States denied legal responsibility for a comprehensive cleanup, leaving Philippine agencies and communities to inherit much of the environmental damage.

Those who refuse to learn from history are bound to repeat its mistakes, and Filipinos cannot afford to keep paying for the same lessons.

If the United States wants Filipinos to trust another major partnership, it should provide meaningful restitution for the BNPP costs borne by Filipinos and contribute to comprehensive remediation at Clark and Subic.

TL;DR: Filipinos Should Do Their Due Diligence Rather than Shame Those Questioning Pax Silica as Performative

I guess I have to establish my stance. History gives Filipinos little reason to accept American-initiated promises without scrutiny or criticism.

Foreign powers and corporations have repeatedly benefited from our weak institutions, widespread corruption, limited public access to reliable information, and difficulty holding decision-makers accountable. Agreements are often presented as development opportunities, while details on ownership, liability, environmental damage, resource extraction, and long-term public costs receive far less attention.

Our attempts to recover damages through foreign courts or international arbitration have repeatedly failed to compensate us. That is why preventing a harmful agreement from taking effect may be the most important action available to us.

When ordinary Filipinos lack the information or political power to defend their land, labor, and natural resources, partnership can quickly become exploitation. That is why I refuse to confuse skepticism with opposition to progress.

Questioning Pax Silica is precisely what responsible citizens should do before committing the country’s resources and future to another foreign-backed arrangement.

If you’re a Filipino and you’ve read this to the end, be a “hypocrite” and ask AI how many times shiny development projects and promises of progress over the decades have screwed over the Philippines without demanding accountability from the supposed partners that didn’t keep their end of the deal.

Then you will understand why this line of argument focuses on critics’ personal AI use instead of addressing the terms of Pax Silica.

Good luck!