Theories of Criminality

Why did he do it?

So many moves and thrillers ask, Who did it?, but I think the question, Why did he do it? to be far more interesting and useful. We often have the answer to the first question nowadays.

I’ve mentioned before My fascination with genius and talented men starting in My late teens/early 20’s and continuing with Me today. But did you also know that I have made informal studies of losers, rebels, psychopaths and sociopaths, racists, blacks (not Africans), Freemasons and White Supremacists?

These are the people you will find engaged with a criminal syndacate or involved with stealing or assaulting when angered, cheating at the WSOP or going extremely far to win a new mate as well as getting rid of her former love. Why? Because losers are far more conscientious of what they lack then you are. And natural winners don’t notice them, either. When a man is strong and confident a loser passing in the opposite direction doesn’t even register. But a man without talent always notices the natural winner walking towards him from the opposite direction. Same thing with the women.

Someone lacking in talent or opportunity is much more sensitive to their lack of money, height, sex appeal, social status, ability to speak fluently, interpersonal skills, business success, pedigree, car or small boobs. A spouse who finds other men attractive but doesn’t date them may drive her husband nuts if he doesn’t think that guy is as attractive as he is.

In My opinion, the number one way to determine if someone is criminogenic, is to determine that the person is in physical (necessity) or psychological (feels like necessity) imbalance as one is when their is a debt due him, a violation against him, or he is lacking in funds or means (means; like talent for dancing for that matter) so that the goal is acquirable. When there is the pressure of time, missing out, scarcity of opportunities or peer pressure–then you have a ticking bomb if he should find the latter compelling.

Researchers have their own explanations, so we’ll take a look at them. They appear to be a subset of My own in that they refine the rationale and narrow it down to a specific factor like societal norms or fierce competition. These are the nearly the same as My own defeinition but to get granular is also useful and you learn something about your subject’s specific situation or psychological make-up.

Theories of Crime

Psychological Theory

Thoughts and feelings lead to crime; you become what you think about.

Classical Theory:

Free will is exercised by individuals and so is deterrence to stop them from intruding.

Biological Theory:

There is a correlation among physiological traits, such as DNA, and crime or frustration.

Conflict of Marxist Theory:

Life is a constant state of perpetual conflict; people always want more power and so there is a constant struggle to get it. Hence, life is a series of stuggles to acquire more and more power for fear of the next guy.

Expressive Crimes:

Crimes are an expression of feelings or emotions at the time.

Instrumental Crimes:

Crime is instrumental to getting what one wants; a means to an end.

(Um, okay.)

NeoClassical Theory:

High Reward/Low Risk leads to crime; rational choice theory. The number one way you, “…the way to get yourself mugged is to look muggable to a mugger.” so say personal security consultants.

"You cannot be a good intelligence agent if you are not a good psychologist." -Sovrumano

Emerging Theory:

This is a constutive theory meaning that individuals look increasingly to their peers or society to tell them what is acceptable and what is not. Your society, not the laws, will teach you what or when to engage in crime. Therefore they will begin to engage in crime when they see enough of their peers engaging in it.

(As an aside, this “emerging theory” is “emerging” in peculiar sync with our “emerging” police-state whereby police want you to answer to them personally instead of the stattues or the courts. Respond to holograms or voices in your head or passing strangers on the street. As well, I’ve had illiterate blacks tell Me taht they they were “authorized” to kill Me [by police]. I said, there are not authorizations to murder (you nor Christ) that anyone can legally broker. Further anecdotal proof of this is My work on criminology proving that police in America actually cause crime to increase from years 1999-2019. I don’t believe that society as a whole has felt the spike; I suspect it’s a specific group of people–marked as suckers by masons–who have repeatedly been vicitimized by police and those who work for them on the premise that, It’s okay to steal/rob/murder/molest/stalk/copy/destroy property/incel these people because the police say so.)

Sov Theory:

A pressing need for comparability or superiority that is physical (necessity) or psychological (feels like necessity) along with a frustration to acquire it climaxes within the individual fostering the engagement with crime to correct the deficiency.

If you’ve watched the videocast, “De-Radicalize ME?!”, you may notice that My definition is eerily similar to a study sheet there–one of two–that defined why people become “radicalized”. And that is due to being frustrated. When people are frustrated of necessities or are not getting the political assistance that the situation warrants then you can expect them to become violent. It is also for this reason that police are suspect in My own personal situation for inspiring Me to turn violent–they give strangers anonymous and unrestricted access to My electronics and My nervous system via psychotronics, a tech that is illegal to possess or distribute, which also leads them to unwanted touching on My body and taunting Me about it. They can even force bowel movements or urinating and will do so if they don’t get their way. When you call to complain, they ask if you would consider an appointment with a psychologist for your mental health problems.

This is gaslighting and something that the victim knows, and something the victim knows that the perpetrator knows he knows as well yet he cannot prove it. Hence the smarm from the police recommending a psychologist to a sane person. This may lead to violence but it won’t be at one of these street thugs they employ if I can help it.

As you can see from all of these theories, they have people whom they apply to and those that they don’t. When looking for something universal, try Sov’s theory. It’s general enough and then you can look for clues as to what this person is engaged in crime to compensate for. It’s usually not difficult to find.

If you are wondering what the second of two in the “De-Radicalize ME?!” videocast was that implies that violence is a possibility within this individual, it was “criminogenic properties”. That means that the person has a pre-existing schema or psychology that can be triggered due to past trauma or mental instability as when one is with schizophrenia or sociopathies or chemical imbalances due to drugs or alcohol.

☿