The Politics Box


“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

Malaysia as a nation is relatively peaceful given the general scenario of the world at large. She has her share of woes, but to groan and complain would suggest selfishness when she has much to be grateful for.

This small nation went through an epiphany at the recent 14th general election (GE14), when she for the first time in 61 years since her independence from the grasps of colonialism sees new hope for great change.

It took her six decades to realise the ‘soft fascism’  (no such thing really, there’s only fascism) she was in while under the reign of a band of arrogant home grown politicians who rallied together calling themselves Barisan Nasional (National Front) lead by UMNO. The straw that broke the camel’s back is the infamous 1MDB affair which literally bankrupted Malaysia and turned her into a pauper nation.

Thinking for the better, the people collectively removed the corrupt regime and handed her to a new alliance labelled as Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope) on the night May 9 2018, the night the earth moved.

The Phoenix returns

IT was a night when the earth moved as one Barisan parliamentary seat after another tumbled and shortly after 11pm last night, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared that Putrajaya had fallen to the Pakatan Harapan coalition.

The 93-year-old leader has stepped into a special place in Malaysian history, making a comeback to the job he left 15 years ago. – The Star

Nine months down the road, disillusionment hovers over the people when the change expected of the new government doesn’t show, or rather trekking at snail’s pace, which to the human eyes is seen as a standstill.

Without going into the boring details, I’ll get straight to the point of this essay.

Its the system and stupid politicians STUPID!

The current government is made up of 90% politicians who were in the opposition all their political lives. Life and perception on this side of the political divide was different being in a different box looking at another box (The government). They saw the garbage and filth in the other box. They were clear of what’s to be done and change, and had the tenacity to do it given the chance.

Well, they have now entered the ‘other’ (filthy) box, which they are now supposed to clean, but…they left the brooms in the box they were in.

Blimey!

Not only that, their eyes developed cataracts and couldn’t find or see any dirt in there. With blurred visions and minds, they simply carried on with their new roles using whatever is in the dirty box.

And…the ousted old politicians are now in the ‘clean’ opposition box. They seem to have new visions without the cataracts, and are set to sanitize the dirty box which they were in.

Get the picture?

Politicians are akin to hamsters in a spinning wheel – the political wheel absence of any wills.

So what’s next for Malaysia and Malaysians?

Tbh, nothing much really. Not until GE15, or better still get rid of the politics box, or any kind of box and try out something new like a open bathtub which everyone will be naked


“Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair.”
― George Burns





Ciggie – Ziggy Stardust


Governments are perplexed on the tobacco issue. To tax (more) or not to.

A catch 22 situation.

Health minister says govt can’t afford to raise ciggie prices

File photo of cigarettes seen during the manufacturing process in the British American Tobacco Cigarette Factory (BAT) in Bayreuth, southern Germany

Cigarettes are seen during the manufacturing process in the British American Tobacco Cigarette Factory (BAT) in Bayreuth, southern Germany, in this April 30, 2014 file photograph. REUTERS/Michaela Rehle /Files

“If we raise the cigarette prices until it is not affordable to the B40 group, then they will turn to the cheaper illicit cigarettes that will expose them to a series of non-communicable diseases (NDC): chronic pulmonary disease, chronic cardiovascular disease, lung cancer. – Malay Mail 

Reading the above report will transform you into a mental inmate. The bozos in the corridors of power are actually the inmates running the institution.

The dough-nuts are primarily cracking their heads on the dough like a mad-dog chasing its tail.

Dzulkefly said that currently the cost to treat the three top NDC related to smoking is RM2.29 billion, adding that the government subsidises 67.5 per cent of the treatment cost with 32.5 per cent paid by the patient.

The treatment cost is 0.7 per cent of the nation’s GDP, he said.

Its got nothing to do with the well-being of the people. Its about the dough they have to cough up on so called health-care, if the figures are at all correct let alone true.

More importantly how much money goes into their pockets.

By being greedy they have a problem – they’re playing into the highly competitive black-markets’ hands.

So?

So where were the spiders
While the fly tried to break our balls?
With just the beer light to guide us
So we bitched about his fans
And should we crush his sweet hands?
Oh

Mm-hmm

Ziggy played for time
Jiving us that we were voodoo
The kids were just crass
He was the nazz
With God-given ass
He took it all too far
But, boy, could he play guitar

..

Related read:

…of smoking, haze, emissions and Health.

The Malaysian Prime Minister speaking the truth.


“You cannot teach someone anything who is incapable of actually listening objectively to anything no less understand the actual political system in which we live.” ~ Martin Armstrong

His Honorable Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad – Prime Minister of Malaysia.

The speech was a serious one and it was as serious as it could be.The PM wasn’t joking and it wasn’t funny.

The audience laughed and clapped their hands.

WHY?

People have been dumbed-down by lies all their lives that they don’t know the truth when they hear it.

Now…that’s funny!

..

IMF Teaches Governments How to Wage War on Cash


Creepy IMF Paper Teaches Governments How to Wage War on Cash

by Peter Schiff

There’s been another shot fired in the “war on cash.” Recently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a working paper offering governments suggestions on how to move toward a cashless society even in the face of strong public opposition.

Over the last several years, we’ve seen a steady push to eliminate, or at least limit, the use of cash around the world. In May of 2016, the European Central bank announced it will stop producing and issuing 500-euro notes by the end of 2018. Not long before the EU announcement, a former Obama economic adviser/ex-Treasury secretary floated the idea of eliminating the $100 bill in the US.

Banks have also gotten in on the act. Last year, Chase capped ATM withdrawals for non-Chase customers at $1,000 per day. Recently, ATMs in Mexico stopped issuing 500-peso notes, leaving the 200-peso note as the highest denomination available. CitiBank Australia stopped handling cash transactions altogether late last year.

Indians also felt the squeeze last fall. On Nov. 8, the Indian government declared that 1,000 and 500 rupee notes would no longer be valid. They gave the public just four hours notice. Why? To force so-called “black money” into the light.

About 90% of all transactions in India are in cash. It is an overwhelmingly cash economy and virtually every Indian has currency stashed away in their home. The government can’t tax transactions using black money. By making the 1,000 and 500 rupee notes valueless, government officials hope to force the black money into the economy so they can get their cut.

Officials always justify their war on cash with talk about “customer preference,” and fighting terrorism and drugs, but the drive toward a cashless society is really about control.

By controlling access to your own money, banks and governments increase their control over you. They can collect maximum taxes and fees, they can track purchases, and they can even manipulate your spending habits by imposing negative interest rates that effectively charge you for saving.

Needless to say, many everyday people like cash and the relative freedom it provides. In a worst-case scenario, they can at least shield their wealth by shoving cash under their mattresses. You can’t do that if there isn’t any cash.

Well, the IMF wants to help governments crack down on cash in a kinder and gentler way. In “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing,” IMF analyst Alexei Kireyev explains how governments can overcome the objections of their citizens as they wage their war on cash.

“Although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps. The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as the phasing out of large denomination bills, the placement of ceilings on cash transactions, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions, simplifying the opening and use of transferrable deposits, and further computerizing the financial system.”

Kireyev suggests governments will encounter less resistance if private institutions lead de-cashing efforts. After all, governments don’t want to give the impression they are trying to control their populace.

“In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash. A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks. The de-cashing process would acquire more traction if it were based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.”

Note: the paper does include a disclaimer. “The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF.”

Nevertheless, the suggestions in the working paper are creepy, to say the least. They certainly confirm the powers-that-be are very interested in limiting your access to cash and exercising maximum control over you.

One way to protect yourself from becoming a victim in the war on cash is to just buy gold and silver. The intrinsic value of precious metals can never truly be condemned by any government.

___
https://tabublog.com/2017/04/14/imf-plans-for-cashless-society-disclosed/

..

How the Government Conditions Citizens to Obey


The Daily Bell

Can you count how many ways the government manipulates people to be the type of citizen they can easily control?

I think that would be impossible to come up with an actual number when every facet of government is dedicated to shaping the citizen in ways contrary to his or her nature.

It ranges from tax credits for having kids to increased welfare for being a single mom; from subsidies for growing corn to mandates to eradicate invasive species. The government is changing citizens’ behavior with incentives and disincentives, which destroys the natural spontaneous order society would otherwise fall into.

The government has basically turned society into a pinball machine which bounces citizens from here to there, taking away control of their destiny. And then, they use their own coercion as an example of why we need more coercion: because people cannot control their own outcomes in life!

Governments and corporations alike know that the best way to mold a person is to start in childhood.

That is why children younger than 6 are being prescribed anti-depressants by the government health care system in Great Britain. Almost 200,000 prescriptions for antidepressants are handed out to children under 18 in Great Britain, almost 13,000 of which go to kids from 7-12 and over 600 go to children under 6 years old!

Yet as disconcerting as these figures are, the UK isn’t the first country to have them. In 2009, five deaths have already been linked to antidepressants in Australian children aged 10 to 19; moreover, 89 recorded adverse reactions in children under nine were associated with antidepressants. Dr. Joe Tucci, Chief Executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation, said: “I cannot think of a good reason why any six-year-old, or younger, should be treated with antidepressants. I think it’s gone up because medication is being used to treat the symptoms and not the cause.”

The actual cause is where the story starts. Why are children so young depressed?

Coercion is arguably the leading cause of all mental health issues. In modern society, children start to feel this coercion as soon as they are born into a society shaped like a cattle pen.

Increasing suicide attempts by children are concentrated around the times when school is in session. The unnatural environment in which they are placed causes extreme stress for many children. The “well-adjusted” ones take to the authority like good sheep, and everyone else gets loaded up with drugs to make them a better citizen.

Later in life, a good citizen will take this lesson to heart. Don’t feel like you fit in? Not happy with your job, spouse, environment? Anxiety, depression, helplessness, anger over things that you cannot control because you feel forced into a life you don’t want?

Drugs. Do illegal drugs and enrich the CIA (and give the government an option to lock you up if they want), or do legal drugs and enrich the government connected pharmaceutical corporations.

It is, however, encouraging to see an increase in home-schooling in the USA, (which could actually be inadvertently fueled by forced vaccination for any children attending public school). About 40 years ago, 40 million children attended public school and under 100,000 were homeschooled. By 2005 48 million children attended public school, and a whopping 2 million were being homeschooled.

Parents who raise their kids to not blindly follow authority are doing a great service. It is tempting for parents to snap, “Because I said so!” to children, but it is better to explain why the rules are what they are whenever possible.

The kids rewarded in school are the ones best at following directions, and the teacher always hates the kid that asks why they have to do what they are told when it doesn’t make any sense. I once had to write a letter home because I didn’t wear my coat at recess. My parents responded by letting the teacher know that at the age of 12, my nerve endings had developed enough so that I could choose if a coat was necessary while running around in 50-degree temperatures for 15 minutes.

But police do the same thing to adults conditioned by the public school system.

If you get pulled over or are otherwise unfortunate enough to come into contact with the police, your life is literally in serious danger if you do not immediately and obediently follow all their orders, even when they have no legal standing to make those demands. Moving your hands out of site, asking why you are being arrested, or simply not hearing or understanding an officer are all offenses worthy of execution in the United States.

The teachers and police who expect blind obedience simply because they are an authority figure are programming the same thing into citizens: that the state must be obeyed, or there will be consequences.

And this same philosophy of shaping the citizen is seen everywhere to varying degrees and molded for different types of people. The newest trend is to police thought crimes by claiming that hate speech is not protected free speech. If you offend anyone, you have committed a crime, if you have a contrary opinion, it is fake news, if you desire any internet privacy, you are probably a terrorist.

Great Britain is especially intense on their push to socialize the citizens to behave exactly as the government wishes. The National Health Institute has been key to drugging up kids and programming the citizens to let the government choose when citizens live or die.Individuals must purchase licenses to watch television, and the government is super serious about ferreting out anyone without a license.

But without the little things, people would never have slipped to the point of letting the government decide who will get lifesaving medical procedures and who will be waitlisted to death.

One of these little things is that individuals must purchase licenses to watch television, and the British government is super serious about ferreting out anyone without a license.

 

Why do they make such a big deal about something so small? Because it trains the citizens to do exactly as they are told, and not bother with any pushback. It ingrains the idea that the state can and should regulate every facet of human behavior.

It is like the old marketing trick, where if you get someone used to saying yes, they will keep saying yes when you ask if they want to buy.

And of course, China has already gone full blown 1984 with their social credit system to regulate the behavior of citizens by taking away rights and extending privileges based on a citizenship score which takes into account what your neighbors think of you, what you say about the government online, and how involved in social life you are.

But the most extreme examples are only possible because for so long people have accepted the government’s authority to regulate the little things. Seatbelt laws, required permits, and even complying with the TSA for illegal searches are all ways that are more about control than keeping you safe.

That is why it is important to push back at every little rule and regulation, and question every authority. People may think you are making a big deal about nothing, but unless you push back on the little things, you will be unable to resist when it comes to the important issues.

..

Governments create ‘laws’ to make you a criminal.


minivanjack

How Much Criminalization Will You Tolerate From Your Government?

It doesn’t matter how hard you try to not be a criminal. Your government has turned you into you one anyway. They want it that way, and you have no choice.

..

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.

 

..