The Myth of the Rule of Law


MisesInstitute

by

Any state, no matter how powerful, cannot not rule solely through the use of brute force. There are too few rulers and too many of us for coercion alone to be an effective means of control. The political class must rely on ideology to achieve popular compliance, masking the iron fist in a velvet glove. Violence is always behind every state action, but the most efficient form of expropriation occurs when the public believes it is in their interest to be extorted.

Mythology is necessary to blunt the violent nature of state power in order to maximize the plunder of property — and, most importantly, provide an aura of legitimacy. The perception of legitimacy “is the only thing distinguishing a tax collector from an extortionist, a police officer from a vigilante, and a soldier from a mercenary. Legitimacy is an illusion in the mind without which the government does not even exist.”1

State authority, and public obedience to it, is manufactured through smokescreens of ideology and deception. These myths sustain the state and offer an illusion of legitimacy, where orders, no matter how immoral or horrific, are followed because they are seen as emanating from a just authority. The state cannot implement violence against everyone everywhere and overwhelm the host, so the battle is waged against the hearts and minds of the public. Fear is exploited, language is distorted, and propaganda is spread, while narratives and history are tightly controlled. The gulag of state power, first and foremost, always exists in the mind.

If the mythology of state power is smashed, then the state is exposed for what it is: institutionalized violence, expropriator of the peaceful and productive, and entirely illegitimate.

The Myth of the Rule of Law

In order for a society to have peace and order, there needs to be a set of largely uniform and neutral laws in which the vast majority of the public agree are fair and just. Throughout the history of Western law, a decentralized process of trial-and-error, competing courts, and private arbitration achieved these rules. A monopoly power was not necessary, nor desirable. Before the rise of the modern bureaucratic, democratic nation-state, the monarch was the symbol of monopolistic order, and his power consisted mostly in enforcing the private common-law tradition that had already developed over centuries.2

Eventually, the nation-state model we see today grew and absorbed this decentralized tradition into a monolithic, top-down coercive regime imposed by legislatures, state police, and bureaucracies. The “rule of law” became the propaganda term used to justify this radical departure from the Western tradition of common-law and private arbitration. The law was now political in nature, subject to the usual array of corruption and disincentives inherent in any political order. With the monopoly state now in charge of law, the idea that a coercively imposed system of justice — in which everyone is governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges — became a powerful myth for states to exert control over society.

As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. Its power derives from its great emotive appeal. The rule of law suggests an absence of arbitrariness, an absence of the worst abuses of tyranny. The image presented by the slogan “America is a government of laws and not people” is one of fair and impartial rule rather than subjugation to human whim. This is an image that can command both the allegiance and affection of the citizenry. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of the rule of law if the only alternative were arbitrary rule? But this image is also the source of the myth’s danger. For if citizens really believe that they are being governed by fair and impartial rules and that the only alternative is subjection to personal rule, they will be much more likely to support the state as it progressively curtails their freedom.

The rule of law, imposed by the state, is simply a myth. There is no such thing as “a government of laws and not people.” Legislative edicts are always subject to the biases and agendas of those who interpret them, and will be imposed in this manner by whoever currently wields the power of the monopoly state over society.

For example, despite the US Constitution’s very clear language in most of its passages (there are some dangerously vague sections, of course), the most trained and brilliant legal minds can come to completely opposite conclusions over the exact same clause. Whether it is a particular amendment in the Bill of Rights or the particular language of executive or legislative power, a liberal and conservative judge could use sound reasoning and cite historical precedent to make their case — and they would both be right. “[B]ecause the law consists of contradictory rules and principles,” argues John Hasnas, “sound legal arguments will be available for all legal conclusions, and hence, the normative predispositions of the decision makers, rather than the law itself, determine the outcome of cases.”

The law, then, is not a neutral body of rules to help keep order and govern society; it is merely an opinion with a gun. Whenever the state is in charge of anything, the outcomes, process, and administration are always political in nature. There can never be a system of definite, consistent rules that produce determinate results because these laws, no matter how they are written, will always be subjected to the biases, prejudices, and discrimination of those who interpret and enforce them.

The idea that the law is not neutral or determinant is not a revolutionary doctrine and should not be entirely shocking. Over a century ago, former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that certainty in law is an illusion; judicial decisions rely more on the language of logic than they do on objective enforcement. Since at least the 1970s, the Critical Legal Studies movement has recognized this, and even they are just reviving the legal realists who made these same insights decades before them. The idea of determinate law is actually an undesirable feature — even if we were to overcome the impossibility of making it so — as the strength of an effective legal system lies in its ability to have certain amounts of flexibility. This is why the decentralized, private law tradition was able to produce several codes of uniform laws — do not murder, steal, assault, or initiate aggression in general — while providing the room to adapt to social change and distinct cultures.

When the law is under the dominion of a top-down, coercive state it is transformed from a system of governance to a body of expropriation. Whether through the use of logic or emotional appeals, whoever wields the state apparatus says what the law is and they will dispense their armed enforcers to make sure their law is fulfilled.

If an objective rule of law is impossible, then why does this myth persist? To ask the question is to answer it. “Like all myths,” notes Hasnas,

it is designed to serve an emotive, rather than cognitive, function. The purpose of a myth is not to persuade one’s reason, but to enlist one’s emotions in support of an idea. And this is precisely the case for the myth of the rule of law; its purpose is to enlist the emotions of the public in support of society’s political power structure.

If the public views the law as a neutral and objective arbiter, then they are more willing to support state power and its violent expropriation and parasitism. We are more willing to accept the comfortable delusion of objectivity and the need for predictable laws than deal with the frightening alternatives of supposedly unpredictable anarchy. “Once they believe that they are being commanded by an impersonal law rather than other human beings,” people “view their obedience to political authority as a public-spirited acceptance of the requirements of social life rather than mere acquiescence to superior power,” notes Hasnas. Tyrants of the past used to claim that their rule was inspired by Divine Right to mask the fact that their rule was an exercise of naked aggression over their subjects. When this doctrine became discredited, a new myth was needed, and the rule of law was born.

No matter how impossible the rule of law may be, the state has a heavy interest in promoting this myth.

Before the rise of legislative law, the private, decentralized, and polycentric common-law system was effective at promoting peace and public order because it lacked the monopoly power of a centralized state. Under both models, laws are never determinate or universally objective. But under a private law system, bad decisions that were not accepted by the public or viewed as overreaches could not be coercively imposed on society. This system of checks and balances allowed laws beneficial to the protection of private property to flourish while weeding out the bad laws.

Under a state system, however, it is much harder, if not impossible, to fix bad laws as there now exists a political incentive to keep the law on the books, while most judges serve lengthy or even life terms. If the judge, legislature, and police are all part of the state apparatus, they will tend to find expansive definitions for state power with limited definitions of individual freedoms.

“The myth of the rule of law does more than render the people submissive to state authority; it also turns them into the state’s accomplices in the exercise of its power,” concludes Hasnas. “For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law.” While the state does indeed provide some law and order under its jurisdiction, the “rule of law” has been used as a propaganda tool in order to help cement and legitimize state power.

 

..

Thousands Of German Troops Prepare To Enter France As EU Civil War Looms


WhatDoesItMean

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

An alarming Ministry of Defense (MoD) report circulating in the Kremlin today detailing the extended session of the Defence Ministry Board states that German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has arrived in France just days prior to the 7 May presidential election in order to prepare up to 10,000 German Army (HEER) troops entering into this European Union (EU) nation in order to help  “reestablish normal public order” as fears rise that a continent-wide civil war against ruling elites may be looming.  [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

 

The Same As It Ever Was

According to this report, in 2010, for the first time since the ending of World War II in 1945, German military troops became officially stationed in France—and where Defense Minster von der Leven has been rushed to in order to quell a right-wing uprising among her German Army’s officer corps battling against the Islamification of Europe, thus causing her to put on alert for “immediate combat deployment” her nations Division Schnelle Kräfte (Rapid Forces Division).

With up to 10,000 of these Division Schnelle Kräfte troops now being prepared to enter into France, this report continues, the greatest fears among the ruling EU elites is that no matter how this Sunday’s vote turns out, massive riots will erupt all across this embattled nation—with no one knowing which side the French Foreign Legion will take sides with as this military organization does not swear allegiance to France.

 

 

Pitted against each other in this Sunday’s election, this report details, is the elite leftist globalist banker Emmanuel Macron (whom it was just discovered has been involved in a massive tax avoidance scheme), and the populist-nationalist leader Marine Le Pen—who were both the top leaders in the first round of presidential voting, on 23 April, when Macron garnered 24.01% of the vote while Le Pen came in second place after receiving 21.30%.

With riots erupting all across France after Le Pen’s 23 April win, this report says, her winning the French presidency could very well engulf this entire nation in flames should she prevail on Sunday—but should Macron win, the entire European Union may be plunged into outright civil war as a shocking new poll has revealed that over half of the continents youth are now prepared to revolt against their elite globalist leaders.

 

Results from over 580,000 respondents in 35 countries to the European Union-sponsored survey titled “Generation What?

 

The ruling EU elites, this report explains, detest Le Pen because she has called to restore border controls immediately and to expel or detain all those suspected of being Islamic radicals from France—which is a position opposed by Germany’s communist leader Chancellor Angela Merkel who just today got Sweden to drop all of its border controls leading to fears of a new Muslim migrant rush towards that Nordic nation.

With Macron stating during yesterday’s fiery presidential debate that he would not close France’s borders against Islamic terrorist migrants, this report continues, Le Pen then warned the French people that her opponent was preparing to sell their nation off “piece by piece and grimly stated: “France will be led by a woman, me or Mrs. Merkel”.

 

 

Though the latest polls are showing that Macron will win the French election for his elite globalist EU backers, this report notes, the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom and President Donald Trump’s victory in America clearly prove that Western polling is more propaganda than prediction as neither of them were said have any change of winning by their elites—with the Russian people, who overwhelmingly supported both Brexit and Trump, being more accurate, and whom two-thirds of support Le Pen.

The populist-nationalist peoples in France, the UK and US who support Le Pen, Brexit and President Trump, this report concludes, are now, also, being labeled by their leftist-communist enemies as fascists deserving of death—and where in America today they are arming themselves for violence—and as evidenced by one such leftist group in the US called the Phoenix John Brown Gun Club who claim that they are “working to stem the tide of reactionary recruitment within white working class communities”, but in reality are training to unleash total civil war.


May 4, 2017 © EU and US all rights reserved.  Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

..

“Human” – The Human Documentary


“To succeed in your professional life isn’t that hard, but to succeed in your personal life is a lot harder. To really be a human is a lot harder. We forget about that.” – Yann Arthus-Bertrand, director of the film Human


What is it that makes us human? Is it that we love, that we fight ? That we laugh ? Cry ? Our curiosity ? The quest for discovery ?

Driven by these questions, filmmaker and artist Yann Arthus-Bertrand spent three years collecting real-life stories from 2,000 women and men in 60 countries.

Working with a dedicated team of translators, journalists and cameramen, Yann captures deeply personal and emotional accounts of topics that unite us all; struggles with poverty, war, homophobia, and the future of our planet mixed with moments of love and happiness.

Sainath-Human_web

Vol.2  | Vol.3

..

How Government Literally Makes People Go Insane


TheDailyBell

By Joe Jarvis – May 07, 2017

The most effective way to change the world if you have kids is to treat them right. Everything could change in one generation if there were a radical shift in parenting.

Unfortunately, some indicators suggest things are getting worse. For instance, there has been an increase in kids hospitalized for attempted suicide or suicidal indicators.

Now we can just hope that parents are becoming more alert to the warning signs and are therefore properly identifying them early in order to prevent suicide.

But the most concerning thing is that these incidents tend to be concentrated at certain times of the year. One of the most likely times for a kid to need a hospital visit because of suicidal tendencies or attempts is in the fall when school starts back up.

There are two probable reasons for this. One, being ridiculed and bullied by their peers makes kids feel like social outcasts, and transitioning to a new school year could increase that. Evolution has programmed the human mind to want acceptance of the group for survival reasons, so being ostracized can make you literally feel like you are going to die because if this was 10,000 years ago, you probably would.

And then there are the drugs. You know, the legalized forms of cocaine and heroine that we give to kids to make them alert, focused, or calm, and manageable. There are all sorts of side effects to the drugs, and based on the spiking and dropping levels of dopamine and other chemicals in the brain, this can cause erratic behavior.

But either way, the school system seems to be the root of the problem, whether it is exposing kids to negative people they don’t need in their lives, drugs to help them function “normally” in an abnormal school environment, or just the unnatural environment itself where one is trapped, caged, and coerced in order to prepare them for an equally coercive society afterwards.

Coercion is Ruining Society

It turns out coercion is a serious problem that can lead to mental health issues. Coercion might even cause most of the ills we see in society today. The same thing that makes a teenager lash out and act erratically in opposition to strict rules is what makes people do crazy things in a society dominated by arbitrary and oppressive government edicts.

According to Bruce Levin, PhD, in his article, Societies With Little Coercion Have Little Mental Illness:

Coercion—the use of physical, legal, chemical, psychological, financial, and other forces to gain compliance—is intrinsic to our society’s employment, schooling, and parenting. However, coercion results in fear and resentment, which are fuels for miserable marriages, unhappy families, and what we today call mental illness.

It Starts With Your Kids

Most parents have their kids’ best interests at heart when parenting, yes some still treat their child like a wild animal that must be broken. So many people in our society would have no idea what to do with freedom because all they have ever known is oppression. It starts in childhood, and evidence suggests that a more free child leads to a happier adult.

Levin points out that some cultures see very little mental illness, and he suggests it is because of the way the children are reared.

For many indigenous peoples, even the majority rule that most Americans call democracy is problematically coercive, as it results in the minority feeling resentful. Roland Chrisjohn, member of the Oneida Nation of the Confederacy of the Haudenausaunee (Iroquois) and author of The Circle Game, points out that for his people, it is deemed valuable to spend whatever time necessary to achieve consensus so as to prevent such resentment. By the standards of Western civilization, this is highly inefficient. “Achieving consensus could take forever!” exclaimed an attendee of a talk that I heard given by Chrisjohn, who responded, “What else is there more important to do?”

Among indigenous societies, there are many accounts of a lack of mental illness, a minimum of coercion, and wisdom that coercion creates resentment which fractures relationships.

How could we expect coercion to yield results as positive as agreement? All interaction should be voluntary; you cannot have positive ends if you do not use positive means to achieve those ends. I am not a parent, and I don’t expect perfection from anyone, but parents should at least try to solve issues with their kids without being so forceful and coercive.

Let kids be who they want to be, with the steady hand of your guidance, not an iron fist. Clearly, a child cannot always get what they want, and I am not advocating giving in to any random whim. Just realize how important freedom is for children in order to grow and learn.

This is why the public school system is horribly damaging to a large percentage of children. That is not the only nor best way to learn, and in fact really just teaches obedience to authority. Public schooling sets children up to be mindless drones in the work world, where they will be used to the coercion, but not happy about it.

[Jared] Diamond, in The World Until Yesterday (2012), reports how laissez-faire parenting is “not unusual by the standards of the world’s hunter-gatherer societies, many of which consider young children to be autonomous individuals whose desires should not be thwarted.” Diamond concludes that by our society’s attempt to control children for what we believe is their own good, we discourage those traits we admire:

“Other Westerners and I are struck by the emotional security, self-­confidence, curiosity, and autonomy of members of small-scale societies, not only as adults but already as children. We see that people in small-scale societies spend far more time talking to each other than we do, and they spend no time at all on passive entertainment supplied by outsiders, such as television, videogames, and books. We are struck by the precocious development of social skills in their children. These are qualities that most of us admire, and would like to see in our own children, but we discourage development of those qualities by ranking and grading our children and constantly ­telling them what to do.”

Bravo to home-schoolers and free range parenting. They are ahead of the curve by going back to the basics.

Then It’s Your Job…

I don’t believe the reason so many hate going to work is not the work itself, but the fact that we cannot act like ourselves when at work. We feel coerced in one way or another into not being who we want to be. This is a mild form of coercion, one that often doesn’t go beyond venting over a beer after work, or every once in a while both middle fingers and: “I quit!” screamed at the boss.

But is the quiet desperation of a 9-5 you hate–saving for retirement, but probably drinking yourself to death before you get to enjoy it–really the way to live? What if we couldn’t afford cable, couldn’t afford a new car, or a perfect house–but were happy?

Critics of schooling—from Henry David Thoreau, to Paul Goodman, to John Holt, to John Taylor Gatto—have understood that coercive and unengaging schooling is necessary to ensure that young people more readily accept coercive and unengaging employment. And as I also reported in that same article, a June 2013 Gallup poll revealed that 70% of Americans hate their jobs or have checked out of them.

Unengaging employment and schooling require all kinds of coercions for participation, and human beings pay a psychological price for this. In nearly three decades of clinical practice, I have found that coercion is often the source of suffering…

In all societies, there are coercions to behave in culturally agreed-upon ways. For example, in many indigenous cultures, there is peer pressure to be courageous and honest. However, in modernity, we have institutional coercions that compel us to behave in ways that we do not respect or value. Parents, afraid their children will lack credentials necessary for employment, routinely coerce their children to comply with coercive schooling that was unpleasant for these parents as children. And though 70% of us hate or are disengaged from our jobs, we are coerced by the fear of poverty and homelessness to seek and maintain employment.

In our society, we are taught that accepting institutional coercion is required for survival. We discover a variety of ways—including drugs and alcohol—to deny resentment.

And the government is perfectly happy with the arrangement because it is easier to control–and tax–“normal” people who just go to work every day.

Government Enforces and Exacerbates the Problem

We cannot even live on a piece of land without being coerced by government to earn some money in order to pay the property taxes. But we have to earn more than the amount owed in property taxes because we are taxed on our earnings as well. We are taxed on the vehicle and gas that gets us to work, which require more work to pay off–earnings, again, that must go above and beyond what we need because it will be taxed.

Could this be the overlooked factor that makes America more violent than some other developed nations? Has the American government piled so many laws, regulations, and statutes on top of each other that American citizens can’t just go through life without being told perfectly normal, non-violent behavior is wrong?

I think this highlights the problem with mass shootings that many have been pointing out. Whoever the shooters feel they are being oppressed by, they are correctly identifying that they are being coerced. Of course, their response is insane, and probably related to the drugs they take (some of which we also give kids), but there would never be a need for drugs if a coercive society had not reared them.

The hopelessness felt when being forced to spend money, behave a certain way, or notdo something you want to do, is one of those gut wrenching deep feelings of despair that grow inside some people until they burst.

But now imagine that the government has taken everything from you. Imagine if they took your car as a civil asset forfeiture? What if your tax burden is 50%? What if you give up on that business you want to start because of the pile of paperwork and extra costs required by the government?

What if they take your kids because they are home schooled, or shoot your dog for no reason whatsoever? All these things happen, unfortunately relatively regularly, in America.

Many of us are baffled by why someone would become a terrorist, especially a suicide bomber. Again, this is the coercion the Middle East is smothered in by the USA. Imagine losing your childhood because you could not go outside because of the American drones. Imagine family members having been murdered by laughing soldiers. Imagine all your hopes and dreams bombed away in the blink of an eye. Again, this is the unfortunate reality for many people today.

In the 1970s, prior to the domination of the biopsychiatry-Big Pharma partnership, many mental health professionals took seriously the impact of coercion and resentful relationships on mental health. And in a cultural climate more favorable than our current one for critical reflection of society, authors such as Erich Fromm, who addressed the relationship between society and mental health, were taken seriously even within popular culture. But then psychiatry went to bed with Big Pharma and its Big Money, and their partnership has helped bury the commonsense reality that an extremely coercive society creates enormous fear and resentment, which results in miserable marriages, unhappy families, and severe emotional and behavioral problems.

..

The Hunt for Taxes is Global


ArmstrongEconomics

Taxes are the root of all evil for this is the confrontation against the people that historically leads to civil unrest and then revolution. The American and French Revolutions were over taxes. Historically, even the Roman Empire was forced from time to time to grant tax amnesty as was the case in 119AD. You even have Roman Emperors such as Trajan (98-117AD) engaging in social legislation known as the Alimenta, which was a welfare program that helped orphans and poor children throughout Italy. The Alimenta provided general funds, food and subsidized education for children. The funding came from the Dacian War booty initially. When that ran out, it was funded by a combination of estate taxes and philanthropy.The state provided loans like Fannie Mae providing mortgages on Italian farms (fundi). The registered landowners in Italy received a lump sum from the imperial treasury. In return, the borrower was expected to pay yearly a given proportion of the loan to the maintenance of an Alimentary Fund – a kickback so to speak. Taxes and social programs have been around a very long time.

Today, debts are never reduced. Consequently, governments only raise taxes continually. We see this in some of the richest countries in the world. Now Singapore is passing three amendments expanding the power of the Ministry of Finance (MOF) under the Property Tax Act. This new legislation is one that will hand the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) more enforcement and investigative powers. Singapore government is using the law to force people to pay more in taxes. There will be no privacy. Under this legislation, the tax authorities will be able to summon people to appear personally before them and to provide all information. They will be interrogated orally for investigation be it their own taxes, or another person’s property/properties.

Governments are moving ever more closer to totalitarian states eliminating privacy and human rights. This is a global trend that will come to a head because governments will never reduce their costs and will always demand more and more taxes from the people until the bubble bursts.

..

Malaysia – Controlling the majority via the minority


It is an open book that Malaysia is in essence ruled by the Malay elites. The ruling coalition Barisan National (formerly The Alliance Party) is led by UMNO.

If the Malays (Muslims) are the majority, why the need for a coalition with the non-Malays?

Back to the pre-independence days, the Colonial masters insisted that for Malaya to be self-governed under their proposed ‘democratic’ two-third majority system, the population of the Malays then were insufficient to obtain such majority. The Malays constituted only about fifty-one percent of the population and therefore could not form a ruling government.

Under the circumstances, the Malays led by Tunku Abdul Rahman had no choice, but to work around cooperating with the Chinese and Indians to achieve independence. The details of a political coalition were soon worked out and somehow an agreement was reached between them that Malays will have the upper hand in most if not all matters in the ruling of the country. The rest, as they say, is history.

malaydilemmaSix decades down the road, the Malays are still on top of things politically, but not quite economically. This’ a perennial scenario and somehow the Malays are never good enough at anything commerce. The failure of UMNO to address and solve this has become a Malay conundrum and Mahathir, the 4th Prime Minister of Malaysia in his The Malay Dilemma, expounded the predicament of the Malays in their own country.

Matters got worse for the Malays now and have disunited through the years when the greedy Malay elites in UMNO selfishly only work on their own well-being and accumulated riches for themselves. Under the current scenario, the 1MDB scandals have exposed the culprits in UMNO for what and who they really are and thus have weakened the UMNO hegemony. UMNO is collapsing under the ill-gotten wealth of the corrupt elites and this realization has turned these unscrupulous and corrupt beings desperate to hang on to their power and to keep their loot as well.

Now it is ‘desperate measures for desperate times’.

Holding the trump card of religion, the elites are deploying Islam as the modus operandi in their battle for retaining the status quo. Religion is and has always played an effective device in a multi-racial multi-religious population and has proven to garner support for the employer when the political failed. A Muslim will side a Muslim regardless of his politics. The latest ploy of the falling elites is lending their support to the opposition Islamic party PAS in the tabling in Parliament of the RUU355 Bill.

Religious issues are steadily and daily reported in the elites’ controlled local “Fake News” media and most if not all are about the upholding and defending of Islam against ‘attacks‘ by non-Muslim Malaysians, and especially the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP).

The unsuspecting Malaysians both Malays and the non-Malays see the ongoing as purely a religious issue and a serious one at that. Some watchful citizens see it for what it really is, but most do not. This is a clever ploy by the elites to garner support from the fragmented Malays who are Muslims by birth.

The non-Malays non-Muslims were, are and never will be a threat to the Malays. The 13 May 69 racial riots were a false-flag event staged by the Malay elites in cohort with the international elites in the likes of the Rothschilds.

Malaysians are fully aware and always reminded of this incident and are conscious enough to not let its repeat.

The international world community is even fazed by this tactic and see it as a discrimination on the minority:

Muslim NGO: It is Malays who are discriminated against

In refuting the findings of a report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), Centhra chief executive officer Azril Mohd Amin said minorities in Malaysia do not suffer any religious discrimination. – FMT

In truth, it is the majority Malays who are discriminated upon in many and every way for the sole purpose to control them. The Malays being Muslims are restricted in every aspect of their daily lives. Unconsciously the religious mind control has affected them to be unsuccessful commercially and economically,  being unable to compete with their non-Muslim compatriots who are not bogged down with religious dogmas.

Fear is deployed on the Malays and in tandem with religion forms a very effective method of control:

Malay leaders instill fear and a siege mentallity in Malays

Former Deputy Prime Minister declares he’s a “liberal” and 
very proud of it in supporting the Group of 25.

“They are also instilling a very serious inferiority complex among the Malays. This is misplaced,” added Musa. “So many Malays are capable, yet every day these groups are saying ‘You are inferior, you need protection’ and ‘Those superior people are attacking or threatening us’.”PTM

The old worn out method of ‘Divide and Control‘ is still effective to some degree. The elites are not creative and that’s all they have up their sleeves. The winds of change is ongoing and people are waking up. The elites are desperate to the growing ‘populism’ movement all over the world.

Malaysians must rise quickly and unite. The old ‘majority versus minority‘, or ‘we v. them‘ way of thinking must be thrown out the window as it is only a polariztion method for control.

Malays must wake up that UMNO has done nothing for them for the past six decades. The threats are from within them. Malays are their own worst enemy.

That’s the real Malay dilemma.

Controlling the majority via the minority is dangerous to the Malays and to the very survival of the non-Malays. It is highly detrimental to the nation.

..

Spatial Effects Generator (SEG)


What is the Spatial Effect Generator (SEG)?

The SEG, originally known as the Searl Effect Generator, is a small portable device, approx 1 meter in diameter, which generates 15 kWh you can use to power any device which runs on AC or DC voltage.

seg-01

It requires no other source of fuel other than free-floating electrons, which exist everywhere in nature, it is modular in designed allowing you to stack units together and contains magnetically suspended bearings which produce no friction allowing it to essentially last forever. It can power anything from vehicles, homes, businesses, urban or remote. Connect enough together and you could even power an entire city! – SEGMagnetics.com

VANCOUVER, BC – In this interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre, Patty Greer and Fernando Morris, founder and CEO of SEG Magnetics Inc., explore the potential of the SEG Spatial Effect Generator, developed from concepts of British New Energy inventor John Searl.

theeventchronicle.com

..