societyoutcasts @societyoutcasts@librem.one

Alright one more shot!

https://youtu.be/hrTFgIdIRLs

Then we'll live in an age when crime doesn't pay anyone at all. Those are my thoughts on the Criminal Justice Industry.

Thank you and good night.

There is no rational reason to keep them alive at such a sacrifice, or any sacrifice, for that matter. Unfortunately, they will not be done away with by our present administration. The collapse will come and most of them will perish in the resulting chaos, along with most of those presently in power. But when the worst has passed and normal humans take over, such vermin will be destroyed as a matter of course. When ridding society of their kind becomes policy we'll need few police.

Fully 80% of all serious crime is caused by only 20% of the criminal element. These are repeat offenders, career and habitual criminals. All have established habit patterns of predation. They are degenerates by any rational standards. And many are our politicians. They are not only our greatest economic liability but a threat to our system, our civilization and to our species itself.

Part of the solution to the crime problem would be to simply rescind the rights of felons and kill all repeat offenders. Our species is the only one which deliberately nurtures its own parasites and predators. But thankfully, not all of our species do so willingly. Only those blinded by profits and power give reason for keeping alive those who would destroy us.

Biden is even now proposing adding more police nationwide. Why? To further institutionalize the whole of the populace? To suppress civil unrest as his faltering system creates more desperation? His reasons are meaningless since his overall incompetence insures the collapse of the world's system. But as in so many societies controlled by incompetents, for incompetents, those making money off the criminal justice system are increasingly willing to arm the system against their fellow citizens.

The rights given to the inferior and amended to the Constitution are most often referred to, to prevent the criminal from getting his just deserts. America's Founding Fathers never dreamed of giving rights to those rob, rape, maim, and kill. Those who finally accepted the original Constitution would have hanged over 90% of our repeat offenders. The term "Constitutional rights" has been so perverted that the entire Constitution is in danger of being overridden by their own government.

Of course, there are also conflicting rights. These are rights given to losers to compensate for and excuse inferiority. America's Founding Fathers gave them rights to enable the individual to exercise his abilities and keep what he earned through the use of those abilities. These rights are being eroded by conflicting rights given to those without ability and so unable to earn anything.

A right is a social privilege, usually recognized by the state. It can be violated or withheld at the whim if an individual, society or the state. Rights have to be stood up for, fought for and there must be a willingness to destroy anyone who consistently violates the rights of others, if rights are to have any meaning.

All nonsense! These terms sound nice but only serve to give a false sense of security to those who believe that rights are somehow guaranteed. Consider, if God gave you a right to life, could any punk take it away? Forget any punishment to the punk; your right from God would have been taken away by a lesser being. Impossible!
Inalienable right? If a right can be alienated, and all of them are, frequently, it isn't inalienable.
Natural right? What's that?

Of course, they all excuse their actions by saying they are compelled, even against their will, to observe the rights of criminals. Although, historically, one who violated the rights of another, forfeited his own, our system has a vested interest in granting rights to predators. But have you ever considered what a right is? The term "rights" has been sanctified both religiously and civically, "God given rights", "inalienable rights", "Natural rights".

But they all say their actions are for the good of the public at large. Many in the criminal justice system even put on a show of righteous indignation at the criminal element. Even jailers complain about crowding and beg forgiveness for releasing murderous felons in the public.

So the war on drugs has two purposes. The first and the most obvious is the employment of so many things about criminal justice system.nthe second is the strengthening of the criminal justice system to counteract growing unrest.

Even Nazi Germany had its criminals, who fared better in the concentration camps, and were usually released alive, unlike those opposed to the regime. So the very police who were supposed to protect and serve were actually used to keep law-abiding citizens in line.

Communist Russia, as oppressive as it was and efficient as it's police forces seemed, had a large class of professional criminals. The criminal, if so sloppy as to force his capture, was far better treated than was the political prisoner and was released sooner.

Throughout the ages, tyrannies have used any pretext to enlarge their police forces. The public reason is to fight crime but the private reason bus to insure their safety from a population awakened to their corruption, incompetence, etc.

More police are desired by all who wish for more power over their citizens and/or fear revolution.

So they left it alone and there was no base to build criminality on. Only on our time, with a government so weakened by corruption that such a base for criminality was welcome, could an alliance between drug traffickers and government take place. Prohibition taught rational and decent folk that the attempted cure was far worse than the disease. But the powers that be remembered that prohibition not only created a new criminal element, it also created a much stronger police presence.

Over a hundred years ago, anyone could go into a pharmacy and buy raw opium or any narcotic then known. Drugs weren't a social problem. Of course, the immediate family of the addict was blighted. But no more than the immediate family of the alcoholic then and now. Drugs were cheap and legal and there was no profit in causing anyone to take them. People felt that if a weak person chose to damage his already inferior brain, it was his choice and his death was no loss. They were right.