/t/ - The Toilet

Low quality shitposting

All users of /b/: read >>>/meta/3253
[Make a Post]
[X]





Police Nanonymous No.2164 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>2165 >>2170 >>2895
File: 94f4f490b8800e1869f38121b8ec296b388dc11e5beb0b87ecb73cec6ce7f64b.jpg (dl) (199.73 KiB)

What are your thoughts on police? We all know that police is unconstitutional, we all know that we can live without police, we all know that it's just wasted money and that todays police is mere symptom of economic slavery..
Do you see police essential, should police exist, is there place for police in natsoc regime?

Nanonymous No.2165 [D]

>>2164
>is there place for police in natsoc regime?
Yes, you need police/army to force people to do what you want

Nanonymous No.2166 [D]

>2165
also, police is needed if you want the law to be resepected

Nanonymous No.2167 [D] >>2168

What kind of twisted anarchist interpretation of national socialism do you believe in? Of course police is needed in a natsoc state.

Nanonymous No.2168 [D] >>2497

>>2167
I pretty much believe that if only the chosen people occupy the country there's no need to enforce laws etc, voluntaryism I prefer; why would you make laws that oppose the will of people that much, that they would go riot in the streets? Instead of police I prefer vigilante pretty much, since all the citizens are natsoc.

Nanonymous No.2170 [D]

>>2164
Law enforcement, get it?

Nanonymous No.2171 [D][U][F] >>2180
File: eeee025ad1011f61dc67c4d310ff884846e605d66820a4422d40b623fff01041.jpg (dl) (454.72 KiB)

There is a threshold above which you are no longer managing "people" but mobs. "Voluntaryism" (and other euphemisms for anarchist philosophy) might work below this threshold but certainly not above it. If you are not committed to keeping a tidy state with only citizens who belong in it, then you will inevitably need abusive police to deal with abusive people. It's unfortunate, but until you deal with unchecked population growth (whether through birth or immigration), you'll inevitably find yourself with mobs that will submit only to force. If you are also afraid of purging your unwanted people or aborting garbage, you'll exacerbate the problem.

Nanonymous No.2174 [D] >>2175 >>2177 >>3259

A national-socialist state would be a police-surveillance state: gotta make sure the populace have no independent thought, kikes are being gassed, niggers are swaying from trees, the genepool isn't being polluted, you're not worshiping the wrong god, etc., you know. In any state, the police are a necessary evil.

Nanonymous No.2175 [D] >>2176

>>2174
>gotta make sure the populace have no independent thought
you've been watching too much talmudvision

Nanonymous No.2176 [D]

>>2175
I don't understand you. The control over the dissemination of propaganda should be paramount of all regimes' agendas. Thoughts, especially those expressed, are harmful to the regime.

Nanonymous No.2177 [D]

retarded thread

>>2174
what the fuck are you doing

Nanonymous No.2180 [D] >>2183 >>2194 >>2609 >>2879

>>2171
>If you are not committed to keeping a tidy state with only citizens who belong in it, then you will inevitably need abusive police to deal with abusive people.
That's why I brought it up. It may be useful in early stages, but once you get a generation or two properly educated, that means letting them study marxism, smithism, trockyism and whatnot while letting them know eg strasserism, you will practically eliminate most desires for another political regime as long as those other political regimes exist somewhere in the world.
How could mobs possibly get rooted in your country?
>purging your unwanted people or aborting garbage
That's revolutionary, it shouldn't take place after revolution if not absolutely necessary.

Even then I would prefer vigilante in the earlier stages for kind of things you said police would be doing. They all have weapons, they are all determined and they would feel like connecting directly with the state, their will.

Nanonymous No.2182 [D]

There will always be crime. As long as there are laws you will need law enforcement. The alternative is anarchy. Having a police force is not the same as having a police state. It is true that in a healthy society there will be no need for brutal or overbearing policing but it is naive to think there will be no need whatsoever of police in any capacity.

Nanonymous No.2183 [D]

>>2180
Indeed. A National Socialist government exists to enforce the will of the people. The people will come to desire the removal and purge of undesirables, so that is justified. However, if it comes to be that the majority of (white) people oppose the government, then the government must not oppose them.

Nanonymous No.2184 [D]

>is there place for police in natsoc regime?
Yes, it is called military

Nanonymous No.2193 [D] >>2608

Without enforcement it would inevitably lead to warlordism/organized crime until it ballooned to a point that the military would have to go in. Not the best recipe for a stable country.

The independence fantasy only works for homogenous rural communities.

Nanonymous No.2194 [D]

>>2180
>That's revolutionary, it shouldn't take place after revolution if not absolutely necessary.
Basic upkeep of any state includes spring cleaning, just like any house. To do otherwise is to allow rot to set in.

Nanonymous No.2210 [D] >>2211 >>2213

There is nothing wrong with police. I'm not sure why so many people hate them so much. Maybe they are niggers who constantly break the law and have to deal with them or something.

Nanonymous No.2211 [D] >>2212

>>2210
Police are the enforcers of jewish laws in all western countries. Getting rid of or killing all police is necessary for revolution.

Nanonymous No.2212 [D] >>2213

>>2211
Ahem, ahem, if you got law you need to enforce it, hence law enforcement. This thread is about law enforcement not the law.

Nanonymous No.2213 [D]

>>2210
Police is the very reactionary force of "democratic" governments. They serve the people in power, not people, not the state, not the nation. It will happen every time you have any police other than civil one, vigilante. Being for monopolization of physical power in civil sphere is just retarded. The army protects and protects you rightly against outsiders, and even then there should be militias rather than useless huge regular armies. not speaking about specialized forces at all
>>2212
Police is not robotic, they are still[should be] humans. If you think you have to enforce laws via riot police and swat, then there's something wrong with you.

Nanonymous No.2497 [D] >>2609

>>2168
>I pretty much believe that if only the chosen people occupy the country there's no need to enforce laws etc, voluntaryism
You can not imagine, that there maybe different opinion exist how certain problems have to be solved?

>I prefer; why would you make laws that oppose the will of people that much,
OK, one of the biggest lies of democracy is that the majority of people is interested in politics.
They aren’t and gladly follow any policy of the current strong man, party, system, as long as they have something to eat and fuck.
Politics is always made by fringe people. Fringe people that have wild different motivation psychological structures.
A good politic is if the sane, good intended people of the fringe are able to form a government that profits and advance the interest of the people as a whole.

>Instead of police I prefer vigilante pretty much, since all the citizens are natsoc.
Most people are really not interested in ideology and unwilling, incapable to understand it, they just follow the current order, so they are neither NatSoc, communist or democrats. So this passive follower are hardly suitable to keep the order.
Neither do most people live in small, rural communities they have oversight over. Can you imagine vigilantism in Chicago or Paris?
Even in NatSoc most people just want to go after their work and live their private live, not to be bothered with the low lives in Quartier X. NatSoc is not going to change the nature of man, but to proper recognize it. Of course there will be low lives, low IQ, badly adapted people in NatSoc too. Any measures of the state, education, welfare etc. can only reach so far, at the end there will be always people that need to be dealed with, maybe significant less then today, but still.


Nanonymous No.2608 [D]

>>2193
> The independence fantasy only works for homogenous rural communities.
Even then, all it needs is one psychopath and the right incentives to generate corruption. A strong police force can prevent this, but then you need to make sure that they don't get corrupted with increased democratization.

Nanonymous No.2609 [D] >>2879

>>2497
read >>2180
One of the purposes of natsoc is to elevate the smaller, therefore your second paragraph I already btfo'd.
>Can you imagine vigilantism in Chicago or Paris?
Imagine? Yes. I doubt it would work well. But giving people trust does miracles.
Also it's already kinda lawless now.

Nanonymous No.2879 [D] >>2934

>>2609
read >>2180
>One of the purposes of natsoc is to elevate the smaller, therefore your second paragraph I already btfo'd.
Some things are cast into the human condition, that can not educated away. If you would kill the largest number of people, that are not political aware you will end over time were you started, only in the mean time you had significant higher percentage of psycho- sociopaths in society or that what would have been left over from society.

Your ideals are that of enlightenment liberals, that then were already sweet sounding propaganda, “everybody is equal” as an argument against elitist feudalism, monarchy. Propaganda the enlightenment shill probably never believed themselves. How many of them, all of them upper class nobility, rich bourgeois, mingled with the unwashed common people then?

Really I don’t care if my baker has the right ideological sound conviction or instead is just interested to further his comfort fuck and feed and drink and sportsball as long as he wash himself after and does a good job.


Nanonymous No.2891 [D]

Police are a diverse group. Some are great people who just hate immoral criminals and want to help society. Others are power tripping abusive sociopaths who want an easy path to authority.
The shit ones ruin it for every one. If a police officer goes out of their way to book you for victimless offences like safe jaywalking, they are the people who should be removed from society.

Nanonymous No.2895 [D] >>2896

>>2164
If there were no police, somebody would kill you and your dad and your son and rape your mom and your sis and your daughter!

Nanonymous No.2896 [D] >>2901

>>2895
That Time The Police Went On Strike And a City Descended Into Chaos

https://urbansurvivalsite.com/time-police-went-strike-city-descended-chaos/

Nanonymous No.2900 [D][U][F]
File: 380498939db4fe5b67d64f17d55ed1637da21aab24177a106140fd0c97f89f12.png (dl) (245.61 KiB)

The purpose of a police force is an attempt to promote social order and prevent large-scale chaos.
This is why we should not have police.

Nanonymous No.2901 [D] >>2904

>>2896 that's what happens when you rely on an external force outside of your control for protection
the doctor knew how to handle himself ¿were they prosecuted?

Nanonymous No.2904 [D]

>>2901
You cannot win against a gang that has several dozen gangsters with guns since you're only one but they are many people.

Nanonymous No.2934 [D]

>>2879
On the other hand, the demands of the people of Florence being insolent and unjust, the nobility, became desperate, prepared for their defense with their utmost energy, and thus bloodshed and the exile of citizens followed. The laws which were afterward made, did not provide for the common good, but were framed wholly in favor of the conquerors. This too, must be observed, that from the acquisition of power, made by the people of Rome, their minds were very much improved; for all the offices of state being attainable as well by the people as the nobility, the peculiar excellencies of the latter exercised a most beneficial influence upon the former; and as the city increased in virtue she attained a more exalted greatness.
>mingled with the unwashed common people then
I do not.

Nanonymous No.3259 [D] >>3260 >>3261 >>3262

>>2174
Bullshit. Look at the Scandinavian lands of a few decades ago. Prosperous communities of like minded, homogenous people with little to no crime. The police force were reduced and mostly hasn't got shit to do.
The more homogenous a society is, the less you'll need to enforce anything because everyone can agree with oneanother's views. Especially when you strive to prevent the existence of lunatics and sex offenders through strict eugenics.

Nanonymous No.3260 [D]

>>3259
You're supposed to substantiate such bold claims, otherwise you just look like another delusional nazi fool.

Nanonymous No.3261 [D] >>3262

>>3259
How can you be sure little crime is due to a homogeneous society, and not due to Scandinavia's great socialist welfare system? And homogeneous people all agree with one another? Have you never had a falling-out with your family?
You're assuming lunacy and sex-offensing are heritable conditions. And how do you implement eugenics without controlling the population? Eugenics is simply a bad idea. Ever heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression ?

Nanonymous No.3262 [D] >>3263

>>3259
This has much more to do with economic prosperity and welfare system. Germanic mentality and religion is only partly culprit I think.
Also note that sweden few decades ago wasn't exactly homogenous either. Finns are not scandinavians per se. Then they had wave of lebanese immigrants because jews, catholics and imperialists and took number of czechs and hungarians. There's actually a lot less of the latter two in the cities and more in the wild on the north. I don't know about yugos tho, I don't know what relations did tito and sweden had. Maybe they emigrated when 90s cleansing began.
Prosperous communities have diversity in counsel but unity in command.
>>3261
>/pol/yps said inbreeding=eugenics
I, with my own hands, would hang every single /pol/yp who ever said that.

Nanonymous No.3263 [D] >>3264

>>3262
> >inbreeding=eugenics
No, eugenics inevitably leads to inbreeding. Eugenics -> reduced, less diverse gene pool -> mating between individuals with similar genetic makeup (inbreeding). You haven't ever thought very hard, have you?

Nanonymous No.3264 [D]

>>3263
Eugenics doesn't necessarily imply inbreeding. First of all you don't need all people to be autists. Second of all you want people in general to be corely hegelian, good at everything, bad at nothing; universal. You want to combine people with different interests, body characteristics, talented at different things with the single shared point being of similar intelligence, say, 10 when below 130 and 30 when above 130 iq points starting at 100, beauty, say, ~2 on scale to 10 starting at 4, and race(white/black/yellow/red), say, russian with croatian and german with anglo. Now that I have exluded about 40% of population, I'm left with 60%. There's 360 million slavs. That means there's still 220 million slavs. How is this inbreeding? You may run into inbreeding when you are trying to create caste or something, but that's it.

Nanonymous No.3265 [D] >>3267

The existence of the police itself is bad and a threat to liberty

Nanonymous No.3267 [D]

>>3265
National socialism isn't about liberty.