This was a comment I left here, along with some others.
People make choices for reasons that they think are best or at least real, to them that is. It may not be optimum to us, for us or them, but they don’t see it that way. Thus there is a fundamental disagreement which can be solved by talking or it can be solved, in a more permanent and consistent fashion, by violence and the test of violence which on the macroscopic form is called warfare. On the microscopic, violence can be anywhere from society’s disapproval and fear of punishment from the whole of society, or a slice of society, to massive brute force approaches such as execution or what the Code Pink products produced from indoctrination and propaganda programs demonstrate. Either way, you can convince by gentle persuasion, hard core coercion and indoctrination, or simply a direct modification of behavior through efficient use of violence.
For most people, they live under the values and society they were born in. For some others, a minority at the most, they seek something new and different, propelled by the genetic need for diversity and newness, even if it is at the risk of self-destruction of that particular genotype. And for a few scattered remnants of some defunct ancient world mentality, like the Arab tribes, the only thing that exists to them is their people. You, are not their people, and thus they can do all kinds of illegal actions that would be forbidden against one of their own.
These themes can connect, as you can see with people born in an Islamic tribal culture that refuses to treat people outside the tribe as actual human beings deserving of equal respect or treatment. But there is a strict different to the dupes, to the people born in a society that they have no will nor particular interest in challenging, from the leaders and operators in terrorist organizations that know exactly what their society is, yet chooses to maintain and even expand the reach of that society’s control over humanity.
In order to zealously expand your sphere of influence and your society’s reach across the human world, you must believe or understand that your system is superior to all others. The multiculturalists and decadent suicide in-waiting useful tools we call the Left and their Democrat allies no longer believe, if they ever did, that any system could be superior to everyone or even most of everyone at the same time. This sets up the specific tier of feudalism which justifies rich and luxurious benefits to the upper class of Democrats, but denies it to the poor and the disenfranchised tools of the Democrats. But in the end, it is ultimately a different way of achieving the same results as what the Islamic war against humanity has done. Which is to separate human beings into separate camps called “us” and “the enemy”. All rewards go to us and everybody else is either an obstacle, a tool, or an enemy to be destroyed. Arabs and Persians and Bedouin tribes accomplish this by believing in the righteousness of their system, in the goodness and justice of their system over and above the decadent weaknesses of us, the West. The Democrats and the Left achieve their particular nihilism and love of death by believing in the inferiority of the system that gave them birth, instead prefering to render superior that which will ultimately destroy human progress towards any future of security, prosperity, and liberty on planet Earth.
Whether your belief is negative or positive does not really matter. All that matters is that you believe, that you believe in something strong enough that you will fight for it. Most people don’t, thus we see how bureaucracies and tyrannies self-perpetuate, like Cuba for example. If nothing happens and no new variable enters into the picture, the rule of dictators is for life. And even if you do get a person that wants to resist, there is no guarantee that person will then choose to further the cause of humanity rather than humanity’s enemies. Many Democrats and Arabs have broken through their societal conditioning. Al Qaeda would have to nullify inshallah, at least to some extent, for them to be able to organize and launch attacks instead of waiting for Allah to give victory to them just for existing. Take the examples of Zar man who got liquidated in a bombing strike on his safe house and Zawahiri. Zawahiri sees more clearly than the fanatic Zarq man what his actions were doing and producing, because Zawahiri has broken through his societal conditioning. Zawahiri chooses actions he deems best, not because Arab society says it is the will of Allah. Thus you have the difference between a strategist and a religious fanatic. But the only ones who totally break through their societal conditioning are the ones who choose to further the cause of human liberty and progression towards a better future.
Many folks come to America already formed in mind and body, yet they adopt a particular set of values we call American. They are an example of the correct decision a person can make from breaking free of the society they were born in.
<B>If, however, people are constantly choosing between their inner angels and inner demons, how does one rehabilitate someone if they have gone over to the dark side?</b>
Nothing will make a George Soros or Al Gore turn to the light. Perhaps, not even they themselves. The necessary ingredient to making choices for yourself is that you must have free will. What you do must be of your own free will, not the will of your parents, your society, or anything else. It is a choice you make, if only a choice to obey the laws of your society and to follow the moral code of those that you love.
What is important about this facet is that once you make a decision, free of societal restrictions or hereditary learning, to pursue the destruction of human liberty, you have already in effect destroyed much of your own free will. Because you are now consigned to repressing and distorting and killing the free will of others. Yet your own will is no longer free either, because you have chosen your purpose, and your purpose now dictates to you what shall be done. You have no choice, any longer, in the matter. You have chosen your duty and it will only end with success or your death. Very similar to the code of the samurai and the duty of military protectors. In fact, to any kind of duty you have chosen to devote your to life, it does not have to be the duty to destroy human liberty after all. It can be the duty to protect human liberty. The effects of duty on a person, if not the actual consequences, are very similar in nature. Next topic, rehabilitation.
In order to turn around your life, you must destroy your life. You must make the conscious choice to turn away from the life you have led, in effect destroying your own philosophy that lead you to this point and turning to another philosophy. This is just like suicide, in one fashion, as it is you killing yourself to remake yourself. Both the human mind and the human body have strict controls in place to prevent such things from occuring, since genetically nature does not particularly care if you, the individual, succedes or not. Both your success and failure will prove benefits to the species in the end. So nature acquires no benefit from you changing your mind or dying in order to go to heaven. Next topic, criminal psychology.
In most cases, criminals follow their own rules and laws, like that of the gang, because they believe it to be superior and more effective than the laws of greater society. This, in effect, is simply an extrapolation of warfare down to a smaller scale. The side that wins by demonstrating absolute power, skill, control, and victory will convince people that they had God and righteousness on their side all along. For many criminals, the only power structure they had ever seen or experienced that benefited them was the neighborhood gang and criminal enterprises. Their peers, also, whom were also gang members and career criminals.
Thus your problem is not that criminals reject society’s laws, it is that criminals do not accept the suzerainty of our society at all. They believe their society to be superior; they believe their system to be more right and just. Just like Democrats and the Islamic war against humanity. And when you cease to believe it, when people like Bookworm and Neo Neocon cease to believe that the Democrat party is the party of righteousness and justice for all, then there is a chance of changing a person’s basic philosophy. Never until then, however.
So one way you could get criminals to switch allegiances to demonstrate the power and ruthlessness of our society. If our rules are cumbersome and inefficient compared to the mob enforcer, then we need to compete against that enforcer and defeat that enforcer’s methods by increasing the efficiency of our own. It is the same principle in warfare. You cannot convince the other side that they must surrender to you and obey your commands until you demonstrate that you and you alone have mastery of violence and warfare.
Humans are a stubborn breed, in the end. With a DNA template that favors striving against the inevitable, against death itself, when all seems futile. When a human being has one hope of victory, he will take it and thus resist you.
I have said what most criminals in my view operate under. A small select few of the criminal population are what I call sociopathic. Meaning, they do not recognize any societal restrictions on themselves, neither ours or anyone else’s. They are true serial killers and murderers, out for themselves and nobody else. The mores of society, or even of the mob or the underground society, do not hold them. These are the people who can committ mass murder and enjoy it, because it justifies their existence since all societies have rejected them.
Those people, are of course, automatically enemies of humanity. If you find one of them, the best course of action is immediate extermination of them and their like. Because while these folks abide under no morality or ethics, they can at times work together for convenience and mutual interests’ sake. Which would be an apt description of piracy and explain why pirates were tried and executed as enemies of humanity. They abided by no national law, unless they were privateers.
Criminals respect each other and criminal organizations and syndicates more than they respect the police, because criminals know that police cannot and will not exterminate enemies of humanity. Why should criminals help the police gain status while putting criminals in jail, when the enemies of both police and thieves are running around free and treated as if they were also criminals? Enemies of humanity are not criminals. They no longer accept the validation of any society. They are not violators of civil law because they do not recognize your right to enforce any laws over them.
Criminals are often seen as disobeying and violating the law, but they are still members of society, or a society, in the end. They still have ethics and restrictions. If they totally rejected society, what we would have would be called a revolution. Look at Cuba, France, and Russia for examples, if you need them.
This kind of situation was often the justification for one nation declaring war on another. One nation is not looking out for the interests of the other nation, so the logical conclusion was that in oder to preserve the society of our nation, we must defeat and render invalid the society of another nation through war and conquest. The same dynamic functions between the police and the criminals.
The only way to bring the two together would be to find a mutual enemy that both have. As seen in the example of Soviet Russia and Winston Churchill, who knew Stalin for what he really was. And also as seen in the example of the Al Anbar Awakening.
In order to convince criminals that they have a vested interest in obeying our society and working with us, we must give them a reason to do so. We must give them a mutual enemy that we both have in common or convince them that we already have one we should work together against. And they know what our mutual enemy is, they just understand that we, operating under lawfare and police restrictions, won’t do anything permanent or effective about the megalomaniacs, rapists, killers, and serial child murderers in the end. Thus why should criminals, petty or just those that made lethal mistakes, reconcile with our society, that neither protects them nor looks out for their interests or eliminates their enemies?
Indoctrination is a very fast way to determine whether someone really wants to belong to a society or whether he thinks no society limits him. Then using that distinction, you eliminate the enemies of humanity and acquire a very good chance of rehabilitating individuals that have now seen and been convinced by the power and efficacy of America. Are our criminals here in America any less foolish and rebellious than the Sunnis of Al Anbar? No, they are not.
Such things can be accomplished through any number of actions: indoctrination is just one of them. Amnesty to soft core criminals and resistance fighters is another method. In the case of prisons, amnesty kind of defeats the entire purpose of prison though. Who wouldn’t agree to abide by society’s laws in order to be pardoned? And what will prevent them from killing again once free? Nothing.
In the case of insurgents, they are already free, to an extent. Amnesty simply gives them another option, so that they are not manipulated into attacking us solely because they believe they have no choice but victory or defeat.
Israel and Judea were also great examples of how punishment and execution, when considered unjust by the punished, has no positive effect on the behavior of Jews. The Roman Empire crucified thousands of Jewish leaders and hundreds of villages when Judea attempted to rebel against Roman might. The Jews were still at it decades later, though. Why? Because the Jews did not accept the justice of their punishment. They did not accept the right of Rome to dictate to Jerusalem where they should worship or what they should worship.
If your society and government and laws are just, then for the most part you won’t have to care what decisions they make. Who they vote into office or what god they worship. So long as they obey the just and equal treatment under law that all voluntary members of society are under, they can do as they please. The problem is convincing people outside our society that our society is best for them.