Conversation with a Nazi

I had an exchange on Twitter that was unique only in its completeness. A user “Old Army Guy Ken” claimed that he wanted the “community” to “band together” to remove the “trash” and that the police were the only thing stopping them, but he had no problem with police breaking the rules. He fantasizes about war and killing because, like any football fan, he overestimates his own team’s prospects for victory. Here are some small snippets.

Ken describes his longing for informal tribal rather than legal processes, and that he wants a process to remove undesirables regardless of guilt or innocence of a particular crime, rather than punish and deter crimes. Ken boasts being a communist and nazi with a disdain for constitutionally and legislatively designed processes.

Ken shows how he only thinks of criminal justice or collective security institutions in terms of genocide and eugenics. Being “trash” is not an actual crime, it is an opinion of a member of a different faction. The idea is not to punish someone to get justice for the victim, or to deter them committing the crime again. The idea is to cleanse the human race of members of different factions.

Ken reveals that he understands the concept of primitive tribal justice, and the historical nature of the primitive world. Ken repeatedly indulges in his impulse to fantasize about himself living in such a world.

Ken is the type to say that when police lie, it is a direct and inevitable consequence of other people’s poor life decisions. But Ken only applies this sort of personal responsibility to killing undesirables. If your taking fentanyl being someone’s else’s fault can justify killing that other person, then it it someone else’s fault when you die of fentanyl. Every problem in society is a consequence of the bad choices of undesirables, and justifies killing them to hold them accountable. It is reminiscent of an older brother hitting his little sister with her own arm and saying “Why are you punching yourself?” Or that scene in “Breakdown” when the kidnapper tells his victim “Next time you will learn not to leave your hood open at the gas station.”

Ken gleams with fantasies about police brutality.

Ken loves extrajudicial killing. It is a game of killing as many undesirable as possible while putting on a facade of due process.

Ken constantly fantasizes about shooting and killing his neighbors whom he finds distasteful. He does not realize this is indulgence and incontinence on his part, not puritanism. Like all violent criminals, he deludes himself that there is some abstract moral justification for his crimes. The idea is if someone else has sinned, then he has a divine right to indulge his own personal whims and pleasures, while imagining he is actually a puritan being moral.

Ken’s understands that the “communities” he imagines himself as a member of do not want individual rights, but rather anarchy as defined in Federalist 51. Like all supporters of fascist dictators and strong communist governments, Ken imagines his faction will be the most powerful, or his desires will be the ones realized, rather than Ken himself in the guillotine or dead in battle.

Ken understands the job of police is to protect individual rights from ordinary human nature.

Ken may claim to be a conservative, or for law and order, or for the Constitution. But he literally fantasizes all day about being Conan the Barbarian. He will of course support rather than prosecute cops when their actions match his fantasies rather than the law, and more closely resemble a regression to primitive tribal justice with a charade of law.

Ken admits he has no problem with police breaking the law, to subvert the designed process and achieve something closer to the tribal justice he fantasizes about.

Ken likes crime and wants more of it, with a primitive and childish disregard for the consequences of war, and while deluding himself he is moral rather than impulse-driven.

Ken came back another day, to defend a very blurry definition of criminal justice, a sort of general process which can in practice be directed to specific populations.

Someone who prefers only a loose statistical association between crime and punishment, is someone who wants to create flexibility to misuse the system to lock up people whom he picks outside the designed and legislated process. You could say something like “Elk hunting is not a problem, don’t wear the same color as an elk, and you won’t get shot near the woods.” This is a just a trick to shoot dark people under the guise of elk hunting. How about stop lying and just shoot elk?

Ken is actually against people “policing themselves” using security collectives called police. He wants to control police for his own purposes, to torture random people outside his faction, behind a facade of honest criminal justice. If random undesirables lose their lives without a day in court, that is a feature not a bug. But it is not random, it is the poor and unconnected and unpopular, used in a fake tough-on-crime theater with a net result of misery like every endeavor of government.

Punishing police who lie is incompatible with Ken’s goals. Punishing police who commit perjury would blow up Ken’s system of misuse and abuse. Ken is holding us hostage. Either cops get to lie and make sport of poor people for fake glory, or all cops will quit.

You know what would be nice? If police policed themselves, or if someone policed their perjury so that socialists would stop winning elections.