NatSoc Euthanasia

What do you think about Aktion T4, Holla Forums? Was it the right thing to do?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterseals_(U.S.))
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes. In the past nature would deal with defective elements, in an age where natural death for the weak has been all but eradicated the onus lies with us to remove our defectives. The only people who see this as wrong are Christians and people with defective relatives who let their emotions rule them.

Sterilization is also a valid option though, they should only be killed if they choose death.

The only time a fascist state needs healthy babies is when it's going to war. Is it right in times of war? Maybe. It could mean the difference between millions dying or just one.

Absolutely.

No different from Ancient Greeks and Romans culling weak babies. Or the age old practice of sending boys into the forest on their own, to hunt and animal as a rite of passage to manhood; a practice seen in countless cultures throughout history.

These practices replace Mother Nature's filters, when civilization reaches a point where She cannot reach us anymore. While you do it, the nation stays strong. When you stop doing it, the nation deteriorates and ultimately dies. Seen time and again throughout history.

Sadly, it would never fly in today's climate. No way, short of massive global conflict completely uprooting all modern "values".

The best we could hope for otherwise is mandatory sterilization for chronic benefit seekers. Even that will take some doing, but it would at least start us in the right direction.

Autistic hapa here, clarifying that yes, this is justifiable.

they should be killed if they cant provide for themselves. this would mean that 90% of Holla Forums gets put down seeing as most are neets getting outworked by cripples.

No, they should be left to their own devices if that is the case. Nature is still capable of taking care of the chronically lazy (when welfare doesn't exist).

Death is for those who choose it, there are some defective people who are intelligent and can still contribute to society. However sterilization should be mandatory for all defectives.

Try harder, intl. Reported.

t. Cripple and/or retard

inb4 open Christfag vs. Pagan derail

I don't know about Aktion T4, but I think you are a faggot

my human empathy prevents me from justifying it, but i see the reasoning behind it.

Sage

How is this any worse than the get threads that are up right now? At least this thread encourages actual discussion about real world issues.

The link is broken. If it's that big of a deal for you then archive it yourself.

OP may be a faggot but at least he's not a retard.

I spent a few years volunteering with Easterseals (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterseals_(U.S.)) I worked with hundreds of disabled children and their families. I also fully support euthanizing disabled children.

I saw how these children, who will NEVER get better, destroyed families. How they destroyed the lives of young healthy children by placing such extreme burdens on their families. It's not right.

Sterilization is pointless since most of these genetic defects are sterile already, or will never reproduce regardless. Sterilization does nothing to alleviate the strain heavily disabled children place on families and communities.

It's the only way to combat dysgenic breeding in the modern age, it may not seem very "noble" but the end results of a few generations of forced sterilization for defectives would be worth it. That's what really matters.

Sterilization should be saved for folks who carry the defects in them but are still capable of functioning in society. That was my mistake, I should have been clearer.

I don't have a problem with eugenics but how do you define who would be targeted? Where do you draw the line? If they can provide for themselves?

Also, regarding IQ…If someone has a low IQ of say 80, but can provide for himself by working a shitty low level job, is it desirable that he procreates? Should he be sterilized instead?

Fuck off back to cuckchan newfag

read the thread

t.Retard

t. cuckchan
Put on your MAGA cap and get out faggot

I did. Doesn't answer my question though.

Absolutely. Every functional society requires a strong backbone formed by plebs. The point of sterilization would be to remove genuinely defective elements from the genepool, if you started culling people with a low IQ there wouldn't be many people left at the end of the culling.

are intangibles a real thing? how come we ended up as national socialists and others with the same IQ ended up transexual communists? can we find the cuck gene and kill it? id rather have a man with a bow leg beside me in battle than a cuckold in good physical condition.

That perception should be challenged.

I assert that there is more honor and dignity in euthanizing a disabled child than keeping it alive as a de facto pet.

Just to be clear, he should procreate. Not he absolutely should be sterilized.

At the beginning yes, but over time you could replenish this loss and with automation the need for plebs all but vanishes.


Thanks, I was just going to ask.

I agree. Most people don't though.

Good evening mr Vikernes

That's hardly an unusual position…

I wouldn't feel comfortable about stopping an otherwise healthy white man or woman from breeding just because of a below average IQ, there is always the (slim) chance that a pair of morons will give birth to a genius. It's the messages that the plebs are indoctrinated with that really matter.

Not sure about Romans but Ancient Greeks didn't cull weak babies, that's a myth as proven by Greek anthropologist Pitsios (forgot his first name). Google him.


No such person, his name is Louis Cachet.


That depends how view a below average IQ. You could view it as a disability or disorder.

Not saying I necessarily agree or disagree, just thinking out loud.

*you

I know, it hasn't been for ages and ages and I in fact agree on what you said

I don't have enough information to make a solid judgement on that. Only those with genetic defects that can be passed onto the next generation should be sterilized, there's no guarantee that a low IQ would be passed on so it is not right to sterilize them imo.

Plutarch is a more credible and authoritative source on the Spartans than any man alive today. Plutarch asserts that the Spartans culled inferior babies.

>Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he thought fit; he was obliged to carry it before certain triers at a place called Lesche; these were some of the elders of the tribe to which the child belonged; their business it was carefully to view the infant, and, if they found it stout and well made, they gave order for its rearing, and allotted to it one of the nine thousand shares of land above mentioned for its maintenance, but, if they found it puny and ill-shaped, ordered it to be taken to what was called the Apothetae, a sort of chasm under Taygetus; as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself, nor for the public interest, that it should be brought up, if it did not, from the very outset, appear made to be healthy and vigorous. Upon the same account, the women did not bathe the new-born children with water, as is the custom in all other countries, but with wine, to prove the temper and complexion of their bodies; from a notion they had that epileptic and weakly children faint and waste away upon their being thus bathed while, on the contrary, those of a strong and vigorous habit acquire firmness and get a temper by it, like steel. There was much care and art, too, used by the nurses; they had no swaddling bands; the children grew up free and unconstrained in limb and form, and not dainty and fanciful about their food; not afraid in the dark, or of being left alone; and without peevishness, or ill-humour, or crying.

This. Hypocrites like libshits love to have disabled/inferior people around to support and venerate them as gods. Just look at how they treat humans of other races who don't play uncle Tom or the clown asians.

Not Vikernes. Haven't even seen many of his videos. Maybe one or two. I'll take it as a compliment, based on what I've seen of him.


Ah, yes, the eternal normalfag's mantra to hide from the logic of eugenicsevolution when all else fails. An excuse to pretend there's no pattern to be seen, no conclusions to be drawn:

"But there's a (((chance))) you might get a race horse by breeding two lame horses with cerebral palsy"

Sure. How likely is that? How likely the other option? How many lame horses must you breed to produce one race horse? How many lame horses will the process produce, as you chase that (((chance)))? What will you do with all the lame horses that you've produced, that cannot even feed themselves, let alone do anything of value?

Imagine a bell curve that represents some trait in your population. Imagine your population breeds exactly to replacement, completely evenly across the curve. What change would you expect, for the bell curve of the next generation? Of course, with a large enough population, it should look pretty much the same. A little flatter in the middle and a little wider around the edges, to be precise, but that's irrelevant here.

Now imagine the following two alternative scenarios; the population still breeds exactly to replacement, but no longer evenly. You've drawn a line exactly down the middle of the bell and observe that:
Scenario 1.: Those to the left of the line bred twice as much as those to the right.
Scenario 2.: Those to the right of the line bred twice as much as those to the left.

What do you expect the second generation's bell curve to look like now? Still the same? No movement one way or the other? No discernible pattern to be seen? Nothing to learn or conclude?

You know the answer, you're just afraid to face it.

Yes. It was a shame they didn't euthanise all the jews, though

I've already said that I am in favour of sterilization for defectives, my issue is that somebody with a slightly below average IQ isn't really genetically defective and they also make up the majority of our society. There is a slim chance that two low IQ people can produce a genius, it's very unlikely but it is possible.

I understand what you are saying but I think in a meritocratic society without any welfare a kind of natural eugenics would take place where the people themself would choose the most suitable mate, couple that with sterilization for people with actual defects that can be inherited and the genepool would undoubtedly improve in a few generations. Do you seriously think that low IQ folks who aren't retarded and don't carry any legit defects should be sterilized? They are necessary to maintain a stable society, they serve the unpleasant manual roles that keep a nation alive. Any nation that wants to be prosperous needs a mass of dedicated, loyal and patriotic plebs who are willing to sacrifice their own well being for the good of the society as a whole.

That doesn't exist. There are literally no jobs for people with an IQ of 80. You only see those people working "jobs" that they are given out of pity/charity. They are not actually capable of being productive and are a drain on the company. You dramatically underestimate how stupid 80 IQ is. The US military (all branches) refuses anyone below 83. People with such low IQs used to be able to have jobs and be productive, digging ditches or doing other mindless labor. But there is no more mindless labor, machines do the mindless labor now, people need to have basic intelligence even for labor jobs. 15% of the population is unemployable. 40% of blacks are unemployable. This is a serious problem that nobody is even willing to discuss.

Violent criminals and their offspring should be euthanized.

Reported for intl.

80 IQ is literally gorilla level. Koko is better than most niggers, but Koko has no place outside a zoo.

Is it? I thought 70 was the cut off point for mental retardation.

Have you seen Africa? Yeah. And they have around 80 IQ.

No their conciousness should be transferred into biologically grown/mechanical super soldier bodies in order to fight the enemies of the Vaterland.

I think it was absolutely disgusting, and just one of the many reasons why NSDAP ideology has not place in the current year.

Sarcasm is becoming harder to pick up every day.

Well now you're talking about splitting the population into classes or castes. Race horse, pack horse, war horse, tame horse. That's a whole different discussion, and "slim chance of genius from morons" isn't really a good argument for it at all. If anything, you don't want that happening.

IQ is heritable and retardation is relative.

Someone with IQ 90 isn't retarded compared to someone with IQ 100. Just a bit slower. But they're both retarded compared to IQ 140.

It is imperative to ensure the average IQ of the nation rises. Especially if we want any hope of becoming a space faring civilization. And we must, or we will perish.

Is there a need to sterilize everyone literally under average (~50% of the population). No, clearly that would be overkill, especially if population is in decline anyway. But the bottom 10%, give or take, absolutely. The need for mindless labor is dwindling. And a nation whose population is spread too far across the IQ spectrum can be no more stable than a nation that imports inbred desert monkeys. You need a measure of uniformity for people to understand and relate to each other.

Side note: Have a look at the Flynn Effect. That's the name for the effect that lefties like to cite when they insist average IQ has been rising. Spoiler: It's actually been dropping for decades, it was only rising in the decades following WW2. Part of it is the result of importing shitskins. But even accounting for that, it's still dropping. We need to get it rising again. Fast.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

You cannot rely on meritocracy alone. Poor, unsuccessful people tend to breed a lot even in the absence of handouts. It's a mix of stupidity, nothing better to do, and adopting "make many kids who'll take care of me" as a survival strategy. Successful people tend to breed less because they're busy being successful. Right now, there are a lot of cultural and legal factors that make these tendencies even worse. These need to be reversed and factors with the opposite effect introduced. Breeding of successful people must be subsidized, and vice versa. But that means a bit less pure meritocracy and bit more socialism… just not the leftist kind.

Reported.

For some of the poor creatures I've seen in my travails, always with a nurse, dressed in fine clothes, in a pushed wheelchair, barely cognizant of anything around them like someone blackout drunk with fleeting moments of lucidity, barely alive, trapped in a useless body, and used as a living virtue-signal by glad-shouting happy clappy preachers and well meaning simpletons; It would be a mercy to kill them. The ones that didn't at the in-vitro testing stage after conception are worse sinners than anyone except the Jews for trapping an innocent in hell for their own selfish purposes.

If NatSoc euthanasia was around the whole world by now. Half of the Holla Forums would be euthanised for autism. Also killing children for being born blind is just stupid.
And look how many great autists humanity have brought to us. Sam Hyde for example.

I believe we should sterilize people with brain dysfunctions or diseases that can pass to offsprings. Not kill them all for no reason.

Although your message is right.

Kinda. Below 70 was an indication of mental retardation, but not a 100% diagnosis. And no, gorillas do not have 80 IQ. They are too dumb to be tested. The insane woman who keeps Koko claims she is anywhere from 70-95 IQ, but does so based on a combination of *infant* IQ tests and outright lies.

I believe the official cutoff is 70. I believe it used to be higher, but was lowered for (((political reasons))) when it was discovered that too many niggers fell below the cutoff.

You wouldn't have children like these killed: ?

Americans generalize autism and mental disorders with completely non-functions bodies of some children born with most awful diseases.
You can't put a child who sucks at math mentally because he has low IQ with a child who can't move his limbs at all and practically in half death state already.

Sure is summer up in here.
Sage, hide, and report template threads.

So would you have those children killed or not?

Only in some extreme instances like the ones that were posted. General mental problems don't exactly deserve death.

Suppose we flip it on its head: No one has the right to breed, it is a privilege that one earns by demonstrating their fitness. A privilege that comes with lots of perks (tax benefits, etc.) so that people really want to earn and exercise it if they can.

A couple that didn’t make the grade might still be allowed to reproduce via egg and/or sperm donation from those who did.

You should be euthanized for even having that shit saved on your computer.

This is like banning guns in america. You will have to control every single penis and vagina in the country for this to work.
No.
First step: voluntary eugenics.
Second step: National Socialist revolution.
Third step: Reeducation on why hypocritical libshit signaling must be stopped.

I would go continue being lazy neet virgin in such a government, to be honest. You make it sound motivational.


I am posting autistic stuff because the thread is about killing autistic children.

Bad idea. Normalizing people raising children they aren't biologically related to is a bad idea for a thousand reasons. It's fine but far from ideal in the rare edge-case of orphans, but it absolutely should not be made into the norm for wide swaths of the general public.

No national socialist or fascist state will tolerate you. Not even tankies would. You will die in any upheaval.

Right, these are stupid ideas. The fix is easy. Stop fixating on the invalids that can't breed anyways, and focus on the best. Send the best kids to the best schools when they will grow up together, fall in love with each other and have the best kids to be the next generation at the schools. Give them incentives to have lots of kids. Give the rest of the population incentives to have fewer kids.

Also reminder that NatSoc Germany was also exterminating people with "anti-social behaviors". It would lead to no animefags in sight.


Hello tranny, only Holla Forums uses that term for stalinists or marxist-leninists as opposing faction.

That may be true, but he's not wrong that your kind will be purged.

Also reminder that nobody here believes your kike fantasies Schlomo.

That would translate to you and other leeches. I will be busy being a gunsmith or an armorer in the new Wehrmacht. You will die.
And I use words the way I want, you piece of shit.

Nah, i am also supporting Gorsuch desire to increase medical aid in dying. You know, if you were to kill me i would be only glad to die nowadays.
Think well if european race is not suicidal as fuck.

Autism is a spectrum, some of them are mentally incapable of contributing to society and the further development of the species. Some of them are extremely intelligent (and socially awkward, yes) and are in their own way useful for a society. Talking about Vikernes you should watch this.


Yes, although I'd think Holla Forums is quite divided on Vikernes. Personally I think he is right about 95% the time and is one of the few that is not a shill like Jonestein the happy filter merchant. That been said, I do not believe that anarcho-primitivism is the only solution to our modernism problem. most hate for him comes from /christian/ and those who want to see a fully automated future that borders communism with universal wages

Eugenics should be a thing, but outright killing someone because they are disabled is just plain immoral. I would focus on prevention in form of sterilization.

This. If it's for only retards and the deformed I'm fine with it, but with the modern state of psychology where everything from grief to teen angst can get one labeled as 'insane' I'd have to say the standards must be redefined.

Keeping people like this alive is immoral:

Eugenesia and Euthanasia are not the same thing. They may start with the same two letters, and be somewhat related, but they are not the same.

Eugenesia does not require killing a single person.
Negative Eugenesia, which is the part of Eugenesia concerned with making certain people not reproduce, still does not require a single death, castration suffices.

Euthanasia means killing people because their lives are not worth living, or it is not affordable for the state. Germany could ill afford the resources, food and such, and the time of medical professionals their soldiers and productive populace needed going to the vegetables, profoundly retarded and criminally insane. These where not merely blind people. They where internees for life, which soiled themselves, which could not survive without outside attention.

To translate the picture in the OP:

This sufferer of hereditary disease costs the people's community 60 000 Reichmarks over a lifetime.

Comrade, that is your money too!

The argument, so called, of "OMG they would have killed everyone no blonde, blue eyed and two meters tall" is fallacious. They even let such people as stated before live, and remember this was no small thing, there were many and Germany was poor in the extreme, until they were at war.

Profound mental retardation is the rarest and most severe form of intellectual disability, comprising just under two percent of all individuals with mental retardation. (Severity is typically categorized as mild, moderate, severe or profound.) A person with profound mental retardation has an IQ score of less than 25. Many are blind, deaf, mute and/or physically disabled.

Many people with profound retardation have an underlying neurological disorder, such as Down syndrome, Cerebral Palsy or Fragile X syndrome, that is at least partially responsible for their intellectual disability. Prenatal conditions and complications, such as severe malnutrition, rubella, toxoplasmosis or fetal alcohol syndrome, may also lead to mental retardation.

Signs of profound retardation are often discovered at birth or soon after. Simple speech and communication is very difficult for these individuals, and they often have to rely on basic gestures or sounds to communicate their needs to others. Children with profound intellectual disability are unable to read, write or do basic math. Their education will often focus on life skills, such as how to respond to potentially dangerous situations or events. Individuals with profound mental retardation are unable to work, live alone or care for themselves.

While many people with profound retardation are immobile, some are able to move around with the assistance of wheelchairs or walkers. A large portion of these individuals live in highly supervised homes and receive assistance for their basic needs, such as eating, bathing and getting dressed. Even when a person with profound retardation lives at home with family, they often require the help of a nurse or other specialist.

The American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) has developed another widely accepted diagnostic classification system which focuses on the level of support required rather than the individual’s limitations. The categories include the following: intermittent support (mild retardation), limited support (moderate retardation), extensive support (severe retardation), and pervasive support (profound retardation). Pervasive support refers to lifelong, highly-supervised daily support.

Example: The group home offers 24-hour care for individuals with both severe and profound mental retardation.