Recently while reading the BNP web site I read an article about the party's compassionate policy towards the disabled (http://bnp.org.uk/2009/11/why-the-rise-of-the-bnp-is-excellent-news-for-disabled-people/), which I fully I agree with. The article was released in response to a bitter blog entry by the editor of Disability Now.

In a similar vein, the editor of Disability Now has blogged about the notoriously slanted recent edition of BBC “Question Time” featuring Nick Griffin. Referring to the disgusting actions of the evil German Nazi regime towards disabled people, the editor of Disability Now bizarrely claimed that “Clearly there will be members of Griffin’s party who would laud such action against our community. Fear the day when a BNP government might take the chance to institute a similar programme.”

As many readers know, the BNP has taken an increasingly anti-Nazi and philosemitic stance, even though in the same article it mentions how the Jewish Chronicle lashed out towards the party "week after week". Besides this, the question here is did the Nazi's really murder innocent disabled Germans? Is there any objective evidence to support this claim? Assuming there is then it is undoubtedly something for pro-German nationalists to be ashamed of, and it also reinforces the image in the publics mind that the Nazis were monsters who viewed the weak and misfortunate as a hinderance.

Recently while reading the BNP web site I read an article about the party's compassionate policy towards the disabled (http://bnp.org.uk/2009/11/why-the-rise-of-the-bnp-is-excellent-news-for-disabled-people/), which I fully I agree with. The article was released in response to a bitter blog entry by the editor of Disability Now.



As many readers know, the BNP has taken an increasingly anti-Nazi and philosemitic stance, even though in the same article it mentions how the Jewish Chronicle lashed out towards the party "week after week". Besides this, the question here is did the Nazi's really murder innocent disabled Germans? Is there any objective evidence to support this claim? Assuming there is then it is undoubtedly something for pro-German nationalists to be ashamed of, and it also reinforces the image in the publics mind that the Nazis were monsters who viewed the weak and misfortunate as a hinderance.

From every thing I have seen, I would say No in regards to the manner you ask the question "innocent disabled Germans", but yes they did euthanize mental defects, rightfully so in my humble opinion, but the methods of proper Eugenics is a touchy issue, esp. in the non-logical, me-me-me, feminized society the Jews have brought us.

The Nazis were merely attempting to ease the burden on the German people by euthanizing the mentally weak, infirm, and the disabled, by injecting them with phenol (carbolic acid)

Besides this, the question here is did the Nazi's really murder innocent disabled Germans?

'Murder' is not what one calls negative eugenics (much as it is not 'murder' to execute criminals, but rather is what Carl Schmitt aptly termed: 'Administrative Justice'), but yes the Reich gassed a relatively large number of mental defects (after all what purpose did they serve other than to be useless eaters as they are termed in National Socialism). As for the eugenics court system for a bit of useful witness testimony I'd suggest Lothrop Stoddard's 'Into the Darkness', which has a chapter recording the (careful) activity of a eugenics court, but that dealt with forcible sterilization and requests to be sterilized.

Is there any objective evidence to support this claim?

Yes: functioning carbon monoxide gas chambers, which were actually gas chambers in the basement of several mental institutions.

It is actually a very strong argument against the 'caust as the Germans supposedly suddenly decided that highly efficient CO (which was produced as an industrial byproduct by I.G. Farben if memory serves) gas chambers were not good enough and went back to being utterly primitive and hacking holes in the roof of a concrete bunker to dump the highly inefficient, and expensive in terms of use of rare materials in extremely high demand, Zyklon B pellets through to kill Yahweh's little darlings.

Assuming there is then it is undoubtedly something for pro-German nationalists to be ashamed of,

Why should anyone be ashamed of it?

Stop applying your morality as if it was an objective standard: if you disagree with negative eugenical policy then I suggest coming up with a bit more than 'it was bad because I say so m'kay'.

If you are against eugenics (negative or positive) then you can hardly be a racialist for much of racialistic logic is dependent on a eugenics-based outlook (after all there is a good reason that eugenics was called 'racial hygiene' in Germany at this time). You'd also have to not eat most types of food or have a dog or horse for example (i.e. anything subject to husbandry, which is non-human eugenics in effect).

and it also reinforces the image in the publics mind that the Nazis were monsters who viewed the weak and misfortunate as a hinderance.

That's why you don't emphasize that bit of history rather focusing on other areas much the same way as American history of the Second World War doesn't even want to talk about the mass expulsions/deportations of Germans (i.e. Volkdeutsche) in Central and Eastern Europe or the activities of American GIs in Europe (a lot of rape, mass shootings of German PoWs and lord knows what else in France as well as Germany). That is what one calls selective interpretation, but despite it being a logical fallacy it is almost universal in its use (sometimes justifiable intellectually other times not).

It is a question of presentation rather than a question of lying, which you seem to make it out as being (i.e. the 'awful Nazis' did something bad so lets pretend it didn't happen and deny all knowledge).

--------------------------------------------

Incidentally Eric what the hell is 'proper eugenics': there are two kinds positive and negative both have extreme varients. I presume from the context that you consider 'proper' eugenics to be extreme negative eugenics rather than a whole package of measures many of them quite mild in themselves, but closely linked to other eugenical policies. I'd suggest either reading Richard Lynn's two excellent books on Eugenics/Dysgenics (both published by Praeger if memory serves) or taking a peak at the Galton Society's publications, which are devoted to the promotion of eugenics under a different name (e.g. 'social biology').

Oh and it is fairly normal in any society for the folk to oppose eugenics, because eugenics is by its very nature an elite philosophy and is governed by the set of principles of that elite. It also can be said to be de-humanising in that in sets humans in the context of the animal kingdom and takes away their self-assigned status of being 'above' or 'apart from' other animals. One can hardly see this as the product of the jew, but rather the product of a healthy mentality as much as we even see this kind of resistance in Plutarch's description of the Spartans where there was resistance to the laws of Lycurgus (causing them to have be reinstituted a few times).

It is also rather jewish to blame the folk for not accepting your policies as being right (as that is a form of egoism and what Waite termed 'the psychopathic god') when it is your responsibility to explain to the rest of the folk why they are right and to persuade them of that fact (presumably using a theory of propaganda: I'd recommend Ellul's personally).

There are two "dirty secrets" in relation to the euthenasia policy in nazi Germany.Which surprisingly enough have been conceded in mainstream documentaries broadcast on the enemy media.
1.People offered their own relations up for euthenasia.
2.The Churches who had previously recieved massive government grants to run homes for the feeble minded and chronic disablement only voiced their opposition when this funding ceased.Which is a completely different thing to opposition on purely moral grounds.
The bottom line was if you and your family were prepared to care for disabled relatives at your own expense and not be a burden on the state,then carry on.The idea that brown shirts were loosed onto the streets to round up and gas anyone not the full shilling is a straight lie.
As to the BNP no comment is not an option for a serious political party.No political party including the NSDAP ever campaigned on a programme advocating the steralisation and extermination of voters relations.

Does anybody know to what degree these individuals had to be handicapped for them to be euthanized? There are many cases where people are so badly handicapped that letting them live is actually cruel, for instance there are many cases where something goes wrong during birth or a child´s genetics went severely wrong, in many such cases not putting the child to sleep would condemn them to a life of absolute misery, and all this because Christianity has a sick fetish against suicide and euthanization, i.e. mercy killing.

Notice that it is supposedly OK fine and dandy for some selfish women to murder a potentially healthy, productive human life through abortion, yet at the same time it is a criminal offense for some kind, merciful person to euthanize a severely brain damage person who cannot walk, talk or think. Just another example of good being turned into evil and evil being turned into good.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=80316


I have said on many occasions and I'll say this again, the whole realm of disabled rights and opposition to euthanasia is a destructive social ill that is right on par with race mixing, open border immigration, feminism, abortion on demand and gay rights. Opposition to euthanasia and or disabled rights is just one more method used by the enemies of mankind to weaken, demoralize and destroy the White race and society as a whole.

For irrefutable proof of this claim, look how the Canadian government has persecuted Robert Latimer, while at the same time been so lenient on real criminals.

http://www.robertlatimer.net/professors_and_professionals/daniel_n_paul/its_time.htm

Does anybody know to what degree these individuals had to be handicapped for them to be euthanized?

I'd have to look up the precise details (it has been a while since I checked my research notes on this). For all existing mental patients three doctors would receive copies of the same patients details etc and on the basis of their case notes would decide whether they were to put down. The criteria used were subjective (of course, but there was obviously a well-intended attempt to make it both practical and objective: hence the detachment of the process, why the doctors never met the patient personally or each other), but as far as I remember it was basically if they would just be a drain (i.e. were judged incapable of earning their keep if you like or to be simply too far gone to help).

If you weren't an existing mental patient, or were mildly mentally ill, then it would be up to the eugenics court, which usually involved sterilization and tended to err on the side of caution (caution here meaning refusing sterilization) in the application of the Law for the Protection of Hereditary Health. They also dealt with things like whether a man could marry a mentally ill woman and whether, if he was allowed to do so, he should be sterilized too etc.

The text of the law might help your question though:


Article I. (1.) Anyone who suffers from an inheritable
disease may be surgically sterilized if, in
the judgement of medical science, it could be
expected that his decendants will suffer from
serious inherited mental or physical defects.
(2.) Anyone who suffers from one of the following
is to be regarded as inheritably diseased
within the meaning of this law:
1. congenital feeble-mindedness
2. schizophrenia
3. manic-depression
4. congenital epilepsy
5. inheritable St. Vitus dance
(Huntington's Chorea)
6. hereditary blindness
7. hereditary deafness
8. serious inheritable malformations
(3.) In addition, anyone suffering from chronic
alcoholism may also be sterilized.

Article II. (1.) Anyone who requests sterilization is entitled
to it. If he be incapacitated or under a
guardian because of low state of mental
health or not yet 18 years of age, his legal
guardian is empowered to make the request.
In other cases of limited capacity the
request must receive the approval of the legal
representative. If a person be of age and
has a nurse, the latter's consent is
required.
(2.) The request must be accompanied by a
certificate from a citizen who is accredited
by the German Reich stating that the person
to be sterilized has been informed about the
nature and consequence of sterilization.
(3.) The request for sterilization can be
recalled.

Article III. Sterilization may also be recommended by:
(1.) the official physician
(2.) the official in charge of a hospital,
sanitarium, or prison.

Article IV. The request for sterilization must be presented in
writing to, or placed in writing by the office of
the Health Inheritance Court. The statement
concerning the request must be certified by a
medical document or authenticated in some other
way. The business office of the court must notify
the official physician.

Article VII. The proceedings of the Health Inheritance Court
are secret.

Article X. The Supreme Health Insurance Court retains final
jurisdiction.

There are many cases where people are so badly handicapped that letting them live is actually cruel, for instance there are many cases where something goes wrong during birth or a child´s genetics went severely wrong, in many such cases not putting the child to sleep would condemn them to a life of absolute misery,

Personally I'd agree, but then it is a question of the value put on the individual right and whether a mentally ill person would agree or not. It is one of those thorny ethical topics that turn up every now and again although there is a work in German (based on Utilitarianism) circa 1900 that was quite influential (and was widely attacked) in eugenic thought that I can recommend if you'd like (i.e. it advocated the removing the unfit as 'life unworthy of life' and 'useless eaters').

and all this because Christianity has a sick fetish against suicide and euthanization, i.e. mercy killing.

Not really: it is actually a debate about what constitutes murder and what does not (i.e. is murdering yourself still murder or is murdering somebody who is judged to be a defect on subjective criteria [which may be drawn up in an objective manner, but are still at their root subjective] still murder). Bringing Christianity into it is somewhat silly beyond the debate over how suicide was viewed in pre-Christian Europe (beyond the overly romantic picture of everybody being honourable and falling on their swords etc) and significance of the role of Christianity in changing that perception.

Killing mentally disabled people is not really a eugenic policy since they are unlikely to have children (their genes would not have gone on anyway). It is more a policy of discarding the chaff from the wheat in order to save precious resources for productive people.

A more humane policy would be to kill babies with severe physical/mental problems either before they are born or soon after. This would be up to the parents, not the state, but any disabled children they have would not be eligible for state welfare.

I love that term "dehumanizing". Its most frequent users often fail to fit the category.

That the Nazis had no strong beliefs about executing 'defectives' was shown in how easily they backed off after relatives and churches raised a stink. The idea that these people were a huge burden on the state is ridiculous.

The text of the law might help your question though:


Quote:
Article I. (1.) Anyone who suffers from an inheritable
disease may be surgically sterilized if, in
the judgement of medical science, it could be
expected that his decendants will suffer from
serious inherited mental or physical defects.
(2.) Anyone who suffers from one of the following
is to be regarded as inheritably diseased
within the meaning of this law:
1. congenital feeble-mindedness
2. schizophrenia
3. manic-depression
4. congenital epilepsy
5. inheritable St. Vitus dance
(Huntington's Chorea)
6. hereditary blindness
7. hereditary deafness
8. serious inheritable malformations
(3.) In addition, anyone suffering from chronic
alcoholism may also be sterilized.

Article II. (1.) Anyone who requests sterilization is entitled
to it. If he be incapacitated or under a
guardian because of low state of mental
health or not yet 18 years of age, his legal
guardian is empowered to make the request.
In other cases of limited capacity the
request must receive the approval of the legal
representative. If a person be of age and
has a nurse, the latter's consent is
required.
(2.) The request must be accompanied by a
certificate from a citizen who is accredited
by the German Reich stating that the person
to be sterilized has been informed about the
nature and consequence of sterilization.
(3.) The request for sterilization can be
recalled.

Article III. Sterilization may also be recommended by:
(1.) the official physician
(2.) the official in charge of a hospital,
sanitarium, or prison.

Article IV. The request for sterilization must be presented in
writing to, or placed in writing by the office of
the Health Inheritance Court. The statement
concerning the request must be certified by a
medical document or authenticated in some other
way. The business office of the court must notify
the official physician.

Article VII. The proceedings of the Health Inheritance Court
are secret.

Article X. The Supreme Health Insurance Court retains final
jurisdiction.
Isn't it true that they used the statutes then in effect in the State of Wisconsin as the model?

Isn't it true that they used the statutes then in effect in the State of Wisconsin as the model?

They used eugenics legislation in the US as both the model and part of the justification for implementing it: yes. This is especially true since Charles Davenport (founder of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbour) was a close friend of Germany's leading eugenicist and anthropologist Eugen Fischer (Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute covering eugenics, anthropology and genetics in Berlin from 1927 to 1942 when he retired). Fischer being, according to some accounts, an early member of the NSDAP (I haven't verified whether he was since some accounts state he joined in the early twenties and others state he joined in the first great wave of official joiners in early 1933), and responsible along with Baur and Lenz for its racial doctrine (as Hitler used their standard textbook on Human Heredity as the basis for his comments about it in 'Mein Kampf'). There is a 1934 English translation of that name around, but it has become quite hard to find even using Abebooks (I've got a German copy from the Reich era).

There's a new 'Discovery Channel' documentary about this at the moment called 'Nazi Doctors' (first episode is the one you want), which is actually quite interesting and had some bits that I wasn't aware of (such as the work of one of the experts on negroes). You might like to look out for it: although a lot of 'body parts' photographs are simply lied about (i.e. being from Professor August Hirt's work when in fact they are from a Soviet propaganda film about the 'death camps in the East' in 1945/1946).

They used eugenics legislation in the US as both the model and part of the justification for implementing it: yes. I seem to remember a case in the Supreme Court where the State of Wisconsin was named as the defendant and the plaintiff was suing to prevent the state from sterilizing the retarded.
I forget the outcome but I do remember one justice's quote from his decision as, "Four generations of idiots is enough."

'Murder' is not what one calls negative eugenics (much as it is not 'murder' to execute criminals, but rather is what Carl Schmitt aptly termed: 'Administrative Justice'), but yes the Reich gassed a relatively large number of mental defects (after all what purpose did they serve other than to be useless eaters as they are termed in National Socialism). As for the eugenics court system for a bit of useful witness testimony I'd suggest Lothrop Stoddard's 'Into the Darkness', which has a chapter recording the (careful) activity of a eugenics court, but that dealt with forcible sterilization and requests to be sterilized.



Yes: functioning carbon monoxide gas chambers, which were actually gas chambers in the basement of several mental institutions.

It is actually a very strong argument against the 'caust as the Germans supposedly suddenly decided that highly efficient CO (which was produced as an industrial byproduct by I.G. Farben if memory serves) gas chambers were not good enough and went back to being utterly primitive and hacking holes in the roof of a concrete bunker to dump the highly inefficient, and expensive in terms of use of rare materials in extremely high demand, Zyklon B pellets through to kill Yahweh's little darlings.



Why should anyone be ashamed of it?

Stop applying your morality as if it was an objective standard: if you disagree with negative eugenical policy then I suggest coming up with a bit more than 'it was bad because I say so m'kay'.

If you are against eugenics (negative or positive) then you can hardly be a racialist for much of racialistic logic is dependent on a eugenics-based outlook (after all there is a good reason that eugenics was called 'racial hygiene' in Germany at this time). You'd also have to not eat most types of food or have a dog or horse for example (i.e. anything subject to husbandry, which is non-human eugenics in effect).



That's why you don't emphasize that bit of history rather focusing on other areas much the same way as American history of the Second World War doesn't even want to talk about the mass expulsions/deportations of Germans (i.e. Volkdeutsche) in Central and Eastern Europe or the activities of American GIs in Europe (a lot of rape, mass shootings of German PoWs and lord knows what else in France as well as Germany). That is what one calls selective interpretation, but despite it being a logical fallacy it is almost universal in its use (sometimes justifiable intellectually other times not).

It is a question of presentation rather than a question of lying, which you seem to make it out as being (i.e. the 'awful Nazis' did something bad so lets pretend it didn't happen and deny all knowledge).

--------------------------------------------

Incidentally Eric what the hell is 'proper eugenics': there are two kinds positive and negative both have extreme varients. I presume from the context that you consider 'proper' eugenics to be extreme negative eugenics rather than a whole package of measures many of them quite mild in themselves, but closely linked to other eugenical policies. I'd suggest either reading Richard Lynn's two excellent books on Eugenics/Dysgenics (both published by Praeger if memory serves) or taking a peak at the Galton Society's publications, which are devoted to the promotion of eugenics under a different name (e.g. 'social biology').

Oh and it is fairly normal in any society for the folk to oppose eugenics, because eugenics is by its very nature an elite philosophy and is governed by the set of principles of that elite. It also can be said to be de-humanising in that in sets humans in the context of the animal kingdom and takes away their self-assigned status of being 'above' or 'apart from' other animals. One can hardly see this as the product of the jew, but rather the product of a healthy mentality as much as we even see this kind of resistance in Plutarch's description of the Spartans where there was resistance to the laws of Lycurgus (causing them to have be reinstituted a few times).

It is also rather jewish to blame the folk for not accepting your policies as being right (as that is a form of egoism and what Waite termed 'the psychopathic god') when it is your responsibility to explain to the rest of the folk why they are right and to persuade them of that fact (presumably using a theory of propaganda: I'd recommend Ellul's personally).

When I think of the disabled, that also includes the wheelchair bound, either from birth or accident but are normal in other respsects. After all most of us immediately think of the disabled as having a physical impendiment than a mental one. If there was no specific policy towards them by the National Socialists then how were they treated during the war?

I'm all for straightforward positive eugenics whereby the most healthiest and attractive elements of society are encouraged and rewarded to propagate. But I still think that a compassionate attitude can be held to disabled who are not mentally impaired and desire to live. Congential disabilities incidentally are not always due to bad genetics. Nature can sometimes go awry even in families with no history of defects.

As Alex remarks, the government of wartime Germany had no strong beliefs about executing defectives and they were unlikely a major burden on the country. The point I was raising, was that when people think of the disabled, it is normally a physical disability that comes to mind, and so when they read statements about the Nazi's executing the disabled, they may believe it included mentally sound ones who wanted to live.

At any rate this is only a minor peripheral issue in the problems of society, but it is a touchy issue that liberals might use to argue about the evils of national socialism, even though they distort the subject.

I'm all for straightforward positive eugenics whereby the most healthiest and attractive elements of society are encouraged and rewarded to propagate. But I still think that a compassionate attitude can be held to disabled who are not mentally impaired and desire to live.

At any rate this is only a minor peripheral issue in the problems of society, but it is a touchy issue that liberals might use to argue about the evils of national socialism, even though they distort the subject.

The abortion of fetuses who are found to have severe mental/physical defects/diseases such as Down Syndrome, spina bifida, Mulatto disease, is agreed upon by most reasonable folks (or should be, for the latter). I've read something like 80 or 90% of Down Syndrome fetuses are aborted. Those who have severe physical deformities but are mentally capable (such as highly intelligent Stephen Hawking, who became disabled only in his 20s) should certainly be treated with respect and the help that one would give an aged relative. If their defect is genetic, it's obviously important not to pass that unfortunately acquired trait to future generations, so they'd be encouraged to not reproduce.

It's all about having a worldview focused on the future, rather than a sentimentalist view of the past and present. However, in a small-government scenario, things would work themselves out naturally. The smartest/healthiest would have the most children stemming from their easier ability to acquire resources. Those who have to divert precious resources and time tending disabled children could not have as many. Consequence breeds perfection.