HAVE you wondered why major retailers have taken a hands-off approach to shoplifting in recent years and why some municipalities have done the same? This is strange and it doesn’t seem to make sense. California even has a proposed bill to prohibit store employees from confronting shoplifters.

And,

In the past 10 years, nearly half of all states have boosted their thresholds for retail felony theft. Thirty-eight states now don’t consider shoplifting a felony unless $1,000 or more of merchandise gets stolen. A 2020 National Retail Federation report on organized retail crime found that two-thirds of retailers in states that had raised their felony shoplifting minimums reported growing retail theft. (Source/2019)

Here’s a plausible theory from Chris Evans as to why organized theft has been encouraged:

A reason why jurisdictions and newly enacted legal code is restricting the ability of store workers to confront shoplifters, while police turn a blind eye, is that this problem is meant to get so out of control that stores and retail establishments will find a solution; that will be a swiping of something that will verify your identity so that you can enter. Cell phones with QR codes is the first step.

Understand why States like California and Oregon are making it a crime to confront shoplifters. The ultimate objective is for the crisis to get so far out of control that the solution will be presented to us. We will have to eventually verify ourselves wherever we shop. Crisis, reaction, solution.

Be good little multicultural boys and girls. Don’t talk back to your slave masters.

Time will tell if he is right.

— Comments —

Tony S. writes:

I have a more immediate reason for the tolerance shown to shoplifting from the government and corporations. In many ways it is similar to the reasons for certain hiring practices in all industries and institutions.

Shoplifting acts as a “release valve”.  By letting the underclass swipe up to $1000 worth of store merchandise without risk, the powers-that-be are hoping these criminals will avoid more aggressive crimes such as home invasions. I have come to the conclusion that our local, state, and federal governments do not believe they can control crime or ever will be able to control it. So, the strategy is to direct it in ways that will be hopefully less violent; home invasions lead to potential shootings (especially potential shootings of the groups committing the crimes).

The United States is essentially vanquished. The victor is not a foreign power or overseas terrorists. No, the victors are certain privileged groups within the country itself. These privileged groups happen to include many criminals. And these groups have defeated the United States. Instead of paying the danegeld (tribute) to an overseas nation, we pay the danegeld to the enemies within our borders.

Kathy writes:

It appears to me that the encouraging of shoplifting is an incrementalist destruction of private property rights. Right now it is “rich” chain stores. Then it will be landlords, property owners as the influx of illegals who own nothing and are on the dole become restive because they aren’t sharing the “American Dream”. We are seeing this behavior in Europe where illegals “protest” because they object to the free housing offered, free meals provided. I have read an account of a muslim migrant in Germany who laughed about working, saying that was for Germans, he did not work, and had many children, and was having more, and Germans were not. His point of view was that infidels were supposed to support muslims. This is all engineered.

Elizabeth writes:

I was wondering if I am missing something here or what.  Wouldn’t we have to make a distinction between “ordinary” shoplifters (committed by all “cultural” groups in a sneaky way, usually by an individual) and the all-out looting committed by blacks in large groups where they bust up the store and then run  out with armloads or cartloads of merchandise?  Because I do not see that as the same thing at all.  What’s your take on this?

I think Chris Evans’ opinions might be correct but he doesn’t go far enough. “They” don’t want people interacting with each other in person at all, as you might do at a brick & mortar store;  they want us to get used to staying at home, mistrustful of everyone, sending out for groceries and general merchandise and everything else that we (think we) need, which will be contained in huge warehouses not unlike Amazon and which will not be physically accessible to the public. The big supermarkets already offer such service.  Further, lots of people are lazy and useless, refusing to prepare their own meals, so there are all these third-party restaurant meal delivery services now available (Doordash, Uber Eats, etc.)  People who normally love eating out want to huddle in their home to eat restaurant food; what is wrong with this picture?

Further, there of course will be no cash involved; everyone will need the digital money card put in place by a no-cash system.  It’s all of a piece.  The work-at-home during the fake pandemic was just the beginning of our enemies’ projecting their own paranoia onto us and  then comes total control.  C’est ca.

Laura writes:

Good comments all.

Where I live, there is organized shoplifting, typically by blacks. It is not the looting you are thinking of. They come into a store near a highway, either alone or with others, grab handfuls of stuff and leave. In a supermarket, they roll a cart around the store, fill it up and then brazenly roll it right out of the store.

In San Francisco, drug addicts, white and black, make their livings by shoplifting and they do it pretty openly.

Pan Dora writes:

As long as a crime isn’t prosecuted there will always be those who will feel free to do it. As an aside both myself and 2 of my children have worked jobs in convenience stores. None of us were willing to confront a shoplifter … we don’t know if they are armed and none of us are going to get ourselves hurt or killed over a sweet roll or a couple of candy bars.

Please follow and like us: