|Malaysia is now
arresting people who create "fake
In April 2018, the Malaysian government created
a law that prohibits people from creating or spreading "fake
news". (They supposedly picked up the phrase
"fake news" from Donald Trump.) The Malaysian government
defines "fake news" as "news,
information, data and reports which is or are wholly or partly false".
The government considers a person guilty of violating this law if he "knowingly
creates, offers, publishes, prints, distributes, circulates or
disseminates any fake news or publication containing fake news."
As of May 2018, Malaysia is applying the law selectively
Here are two important issues to consider:
The Malaysian government has already
arrested one man for spreading fake news, and they are investigating
the leader of the opposition to the government to determine whether he
could be arrested for creating fake news. There are 31 million people
in Malaysia, but the government has so far chosen to investigate only
two men. Why did they pick those two particular men?
It may be a
coincidence that both of those men were criticizing Malaysian
officials, but the Malaysian people ought to consider the possibility
that their government is going to use this law to silence
the Malaysian government starts arresting people who promote the lies
about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, the
creation of Israel, the world wars, the attack on the USS Liberty, and
numerous other events, then we can conclude that they created the law
against fake news for their own personal benefit.
The Malaysian government might
occasionally arrest a person for promoting Bigfoot
in order to create the impression that they are truly interested in
protecting the nation from false information, but if they continue
to allow their school books, newspapers, and Internet sites to promote
lies about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and other issues,
then we can conclude that the law is a farce.
Since 2009, there has been scientific
evidence that Paul
McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by an impersonator, so if the
Malaysian government is truly
interested in protecting the people from fake news, then if Paul
McCartney were to enter their nation, they should require that he
submit to a DNA test so that they can determine how closely related he
is to Paul McCartney's relatives.
Some Malaysian government
officials might respond that they are not going to arrest people who
lie about Paul
McCartney, the Holocaust, or the Apollo moon landing because those
do not concern them. That is not a valid excuse,
however. If the only
fake news that concerns them is criticism of the Malaysian
government, then they are selectively enforcing the laws against
their critics. They are
not protecting the Malaysian citizens from
information or deception.
2) Laws are useful only
if the people have the ability to create and use them properly
A "law" is an intangible concept
that specifies what a person can and cannot do. Another way to
phrase that is that a law restricts our freedom.
You can visualize a law as being analogous to a
fence, wall, cage, or some other type of barrier, such as a moat around
a castle. All of those barriers are intended to restrict our movements.
The process of creating and using
laws is similar to the process of creating and using a
fence, moat, wall, or other type of barrier. Specifically, it requires
a certain amount of intelligence, education, work, and experimentation
to create them, and to use them properly. Animals
cannot create or use laws because they don't have the necessary
intelligence, education, or self-control.
Even though most humans are capable of creating laws, that does not
guarantee that they can create useful laws, and it
does not guarantee that they can follow
their laws properly. To understand this concept, consider the process
of building a fence, moat, or other type of physical barrier.
If a person is extremely stupid, or if he is too arrogant to look
critically at his work, or if he is afraid to conduct experiments, he
likely to produce a useful barrier. For an extreme example, an
idiot might decide to save money by building a fence for his home out
of corrugated cardboard rather than wood or steel,
thereby creating a
fence that cannot survive a strong wind or rainstorm, and which is
quickly destroyed by insects and animals.
To continue that
extreme example, imagine that the idiot is such an extreme
"conservative" that he will not look critically at himself or
work, and he is afraid to experiment with a different type of fence, so
after a rainstorm destroys his fence, he builds another cardboard
Imagine this going on year after year. Now imagine that
the idiot has a son, and his son inherits the house, and his son is
also a conservative who wants to preserve traditions. In such a case,
every time the cardboard fence is destroyed by rain, the son builds
another cardboard fence, and he praises himself for following
traditions rather than experimenting with "radical, new concepts".
If you were to encounter a person who rebuilt a cardboard
fence every few weeks, and who praised himself for following
traditions, you would regard him as a moron.
However, this is how government officials are behaving in regards to laws.
the government officials in every nation have created laws to prohibit
the use of heroin, LSD, and other drugs, and to
restrict access to
alcohol, marijuana, insulin, painkillers, steroids, and certain other
However, those laws are as worthless as a cardboard fence. Those laws
are not protecting me from those drugs because I
don't want any of them, and they are not stopping the
people who do want those drugs from getting access
to them, or from abusing them.
laws that regulate drugs are not stopping drug use
or drug abuse. Rather, they are
instigating fights between the police and the drug
especially between the police and the drug dealers. They are also
allowing crime networks to thrive. Those laws are
as worthless as a cardboard fence.
I would say our drug laws are beyond worthless. I would say they are
destructive to society because they are causing a lot of resentment,
murders, and hatred, and they allow crime networks to become wealthy.
Do the benefits of our drug laws compensate for the problems they
cause? What are the benefits? I can't think of any; can you?
we discover that a law is not functioning as we expect, or when we
discover that a law has no benefit, we should look
critically at it and experiment with changes. Unfortunately, the world
is dominated by arrogant people who will not look critically at
themselves, their laws, or their society, and most of them are also
experimenting with "radical changes." The end result is that every
nation mindlessly enforces the same idiotic laws century after century.
A modern human society needs
laws, but only some of us are capable of creating laws that are
sensible and beneficial. The majority of people cannot create useful
laws. Some reasons are:
• People who are stupid,
mentally disturbed will not create useful laws.
Our laws that restrict drugs are failures because the people who
created the laws are ignorant
about laws; refuse to believe that humans are a species of monkey and
that our behavior is due to our genetic characteristics; are too
arrogant to accept the evidence that their laws are failures and insist
that their laws are having a beneficial effect; and
frightened of the unknown that they will not experiment
with changes to their laws.
• Religious fanatics
and other people who
refuse to acknowledge that humans are monkeys
will not create useful laws because they will create laws that
apply to a
nonexistent, fantasy creature.
who cannot look critically
at their laws, or are too lazy or apathetic to review their laws, might
be able to create a useful law, but they will not be able to
improve upon it.
• The people who are so terrified of
the unknown that they are afraid to experiment with changes in their
laws will be failures at creating laws, and unable to
improve their laws.
people cannot create useful laws because they have the wrong attitude
towards human behavior, life, and laws. The primary problem with most
people is that they believe that human behavior is determined
the environment, and that we can control the human population
with environmental influences, such as laws, punishments,
In reality, a law is analogous to a fence around a
cattle ranch. A fence cannot control a group of animals. A fence is
simply a suggestion to the animals that they should
stay inside the
fenced area. Each individual animal decides for itself whether it will
do what the fence is suggesting. If an animal does not want to do what
the fence suggests, then it will look for a way to get through the
Likewise, laws are just suggestions to humans on what we
should and should not do. Each individual human decides for himself
whether he will do what the law suggests,
Furthermore, each person will interpret the law in
the manner that he wants to interpret it. This is
especially obvious with the Second Amendment, as I described
in detail in this
document. People interpret that amendment in whatever manner they
Laws cannot control us. A
person who does not want to follow a law will find a way to get around
it. (I have more details on this issue in other documents,
such as this.)
will do whatever I want!”
make the situation with laws even more complex and difficult for us to
deal with, animals, especially male
animals, have powerful cravings to
be the dominant member of society. When somebody tells us what we can
or cannot do, our emotional craving for dominance is triggered, and we
become angry at the person, and we want to show him that we
above him in the social hierarchy.We want to give
orders; not receive orders.
The people who do not have good control over
may deliberately do something they know they should not do simply
because they were told not to do it.
They behave in this irrational manner simply to satisfy their emotional
craving to be the dominant monkey in the hierarchy. They will
boast that nobody tells them what to do, but they are hurting
themselves in an attempt to titillate their emotions.
are some videos on the Internet in which obese people have been
interviewed, and a few of them have made a remark that one of the
reasons they have trouble losing weight is that when somebody tells
them to eat less food, they become angry and deliberately
eat more food
just to show them that nobody tells them what to do. Those particular
people are aware that they react to criticism with defiance, but they
don't have the self-control necessary to prevent themselves from such
I would not be surprised if some of
the people who are using illegal drugs are doing so simply because we
have laws that prohibit those drugs. Those people might enjoy using the
drug simply so that they can titillate their craving to be the dominant
monkey, not because they enjoy the effect of the drug.
We have a tendency to feel sorry for people who behave in
rebellious ways, and
we want to help them calm down and behave in a sensible manner, but we
should face the fact that they are genetically inferior to
rest of us. They have trouble listening to advice, following laws,
and forming stable relationships. They have so little self-control, or
such extreme cravings
to be the dominant monkey, that they cannot properly fit into a modern
It is important to note that during prehistoric times, both
men and women with that rebellious attitude
were well adapted to
life because their attitude would cause
them to frequently challenge the man or woman at the top of the
hierarchy. Today, however, we don't want people fighting for
leadership. Today that rebellious attitude causes people to be
self-destructive jerks. This is another of the emotional cravings that
was useful to our ancestors, but which we need to breed out of us.
Malaysians have the ability to properly
use a law against
Every organization should define and prohibit
deception, lies, and
slander, but whether an organization is capable of
creating effective laws and using them
properly depends upon
the genetic qualities and education of the officials who
the laws, and the people who have to follow it.
For an extreme
example, an organization will not benefit from laws if its members are
such arrogant, rebellious jerks that they deliberately violate laws so
that they can boast that nobody tells them what to do.
are not inherently good or bad. A law is like a fence, or you could
think of a law as being a type of tool, like
a knife. A knife can be a beneficial tool, or it can be used to murder
a kidnapped child.
The Malaysian government officials might use their law that prohibits
"fake news" to protect the citizens from
deception, but they might also use that law to suppress their critics.
A law against fake
news is not inherently good or bad. Whether that law is used
to protect society from deception, or whether the government
it to eliminate their critics, depends upon the government
officials and the citizens. If the citizens are stupid,
apathetic, or neurotic, they will allow themselves to be abused,
thereby encouraging the government to use laws in selfish ways.
If, at the other extreme, a nation is dominated by truly
responsible, considerate, honest people who watch over their government
officials and replace those who are incompetent and dishonest, then
they will create a government that uses laws to protect the people from
lies, slander, manipulation, deception, and abuse.
What type of
nation is Malaysia? Have the voters of Malaysia created a truly
respectable government that will use the law against fake news to
protect the citizens? Or is their government just as dishonest
and incompetent as the US government? Are any Malaysian
government officials being accused of participating in
networks, or of torturing kidnapped children to death and drinking
blood, as some of the American government officials are accused of? Are
the citizens of Malaysia as apathetic to corruption
crime as the Americans and Europeans?