Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

The Solution to Crime

In a day and age, when every penny-ante politician is running on a "Law and Order", "Get tough on crime" campaign, a title such as this must sound pretentious. It isn't. It's the politicians who are either pretentious, or idiots. The same approach gets used over and over, but crime continues to climb. The logical choice is clearly not the one that consistently fails. What gives?

There are three groups that benefit from crime: The lawyers, because it generates business for them; the bankers, because people, in fear of burglars and muggers, take their money out of hiding and put it in the bank; and the political subversives, because it undermines people's trust in their governments. All of these have a stake in promoting crime. None of them need to understand their part, if the parties behind the plan do.

There are solutions to crime that work, and have worked, time and time again. 2,500 years ago, a Chinese philosopher named Confucious had a theory. The theory said:

"Government is an example to the people."

To clean up crime, then, we must first clean up government.

Confucious discussed this theory with the prince of Lu. The prince decided it was worth a try, and granted Confucious his authority. Confucious did two things: First, he cleaned up the government of corruption. Second, he offered skills training, to anyone, on demand.

Crime disappeared!

Confucious succeeded in eliminating it from Lu.

This should be neither obscure, nor unusual. History offers examples which support this study:

Before his presidency, Teddy Rooselvelt served a time as police commissioner in New York City. He found the department seriously corrupt and cleaned it up. Street crime dropped!
The amount of crime in an industrial country can be correlated with the number of lawyers in that society. The U.S. has the largest per capita lawyer population of any country in the world, and also has the largest prison population of any country in the world, most of whom are in for petty or "manufactured" crimes (victimless crimes, status offenses, administrative code violations, etc.). This relationship can also be seen by the increase in crime which occurs in small communities after the first lawyer establishes his business in town.
The amount of crime in an industrial country can also be directly correlated with the quality of the education provided. In most of Europe, children have a trade by the time they are 14, 15 or 16. They can then choose to go into the work force, or go on with their educations. In the US, children finish school at 18, and are lucky if they can read, write and do their arithmetic. The incidence of violent crime in New York City is about 100 times the incidence in London.
Hitler's youth camps did more than propagandize; they also taught marketable trades. Juvenile delinquency was eliminated. Unfortunately, the biggest criminal, of course, turned out to be Hitler's government.
Pope Pius IX commanded Catholics not to vote in any elections, bringing about massive political corruption in Italy, and a serious jump in street crime.

Clearly, Confucious was right. Moreover, the above examples should make it evident to historians what the solution to crime is, even without Confucious. It is evident that there is more to the situation than what we are given. The story of Confucious holds a further clue. Neighboring princes were disturbed over the success of Lu. They did not want their subjects to ask for a similar program, because they had a share in the corruption of their own providences. Neither could they appreciate seeing Lu prosper more than their own. (Face it, a low crime rate is good for business.) They conspired to sabotage Confucious' program. They sent their criminals to Lu. They subverted the anti-crime program with moles and graft. They sent the prince of Lu wonderous presents to keep him distracted: concubines, race horses and silk sheets. When Confucious sought audience with the prince, he was always busy. In time, the government of Lu reverted to the same corruption, and crime was restored.
Is it inconceivable that the same motivations could exist today? Graft is profitable for those who commit graft. They, of course, have a stake in protecting it. Is every single upstart politician in the US on mafia payroll? Not likely. It is more likely that the US has its share of jealous princes, some with huge bankrolls for hiring politicians and other agents to do their bidding.

There is more to this. Crime terrifies people, and it drives them to put their money in safe-keeping, with the banks. Every deposit is resource to be loaned out, over and over again. Surely, people do not get bank accounts for the convenience, because there is none. The slowest line at the grocer, is the one with people writing checks and waiting to get them okayed. Banks are for safe-keeping, in a crime-ridden country. They have to be safer than the mattress or cookie-jar at home. Banks won't be safer in a crime-free environment.
Danger from bank-robbers is always minimal. Most of a bank's resources are in outstanding loans. Its assets are mostly accounts receivables. They also have the money to make a major difference in a political campaign. Do you think your local banker will back you if you have a real plan for eliminating crime? Do you think your congressman will, if the banker is a major campaign contributor?

I don't think so!

Back to Ministry of "Justice"
Back to organizational chart of the Rothschild Occupational Government