This has to do with the two, twin, opposite ends of the spectrum, pillars of any National Socialist leaning government: Eugenics and Euthanasia. The former meaning literally “good breeding” with the latter meaning “mercy killing”.
(As an aside, there is as far as I’m concerned a third “EU” although you’ll not be able to find it in any dictionary. At least I’ve never been able to. It seems as though this was a word coined by that old carny and Devil worshipper, Anton LaVey. The word was “eustress”. The opposite of distress. The fun/fear or thrill you get from riding a roller coaster or going through a “haunted house”, etc. A very real concept.)
Perhaps most will argue against euthanasia these days because it invades the “rights” of the individual. We know what Hitler had to say about this business of “rights”. There is but only ONE “human right” and it is the same as the one supreme duty: To maintain and procreate the race PURE!
And these days no one will stand in favor is eugenics because it now has become the accepted norm that to do anything other than let the race fall to pieces is a kind of evil. “Fascist” or “Nazi”, etc.
Even more conservative Christians declaim eugenics because it takes away from the role of God in human matters. They attack euthanasia on the same grounds.
We, as human beings with dominion over all the earth and its contents, have been practicing with animals both eugenics and euthanasia for centuries and with marked success. Commander Rockwell hit the nail on the head when he declared that he had found the Achilles Heel of the commie/Red/liberal sickos: If there is no God, as they maintain, then that surely renders us as no more than animals like any of the rest. Why then should we be exempt from any of the rules that are applied to animals?
Personally, I think the evidence is crystal clear that we ARE animals which have been mutated into something higher by forces from off of this earth. Of course, that would have to be “God”. A “domesticated ape”, perhaps. But with this domestication comes many problems, primary among them the presence of “free will” and the danger of biologically back-sliding through the crossing of breeds or of species.
These creators realized this and gave us many laws or commandments to, hopefully, guard against this. With time and proximity to other races, these laws have always broken down and been followed by the collapse of the civilization itself and, with the exception of a certain remnant, the destruction of the very people themselves thus leaving another blot, another stain on the surface of the globe a la the “Third World”.
Admitting or recognizing that we ARE animals and subject to every law that all other animals are subject to – including breeding – and the obvious reality that there was/is a Creator who clearly hates and forbids the mixing of breeds, what sane and thoughtful person could possibly find fault with the idea of taking these beginning of life and ending of life principles and applying them to ourselves? If there is any way of bringing heaven to earth, this would have to be it.
Within the past forty-eight hours I’ve had these two scenarios presented to be my close acquaintances. The first from an elderly man who had had a terrible struggle with alcohol in his past but somehow managed to survive and overcome it. At the end of his “rehab” one doctor took him on a tour of some state facility for hopeless cases. Among the rest was a pair of naked adults in a sandbox. At play basically like small children. The doctor said that they’d be “hosed off” about once a week and then be allowed to go on. No hope. You get the picture in all of its many variations.
When I was locked up in maximum security, I learned that it cost the tax-payers $30,000.00 per year for my upkeep. Today I live well and comfortable on less than a third of that. But for me there was definite hope. You get the picture.
In Germany there had been a state-sanctioned push for euthanasia and it had actually been implemented. Amazingly enough, public protest all but put an end to the program. National Socialism wasn’t granted the time needed to raise up a fresh generation which hadn’t been so thoroughly inculcated with silly ideas. But the National Socialists had produced and released one documentary film exposing the fact that, statistically and through these modern and crack-brain notions, the hopeless among their society were GAINING in number against the healthy producers. Exactly as with the static or declining – or POLLUTED – birthrate, this trend would have to be HALTED.
What farmer would tolerate this for an instant within his stock?
Last year after Trump won the election, a number of pieces of literature on his life and background appeared on the newsstands. One revealed that his father had been a man who believed that if you mated two excellent human types, the result would be an excellent type. Only those having been thoroughly subjected to massive BRAIN-RAPING could in a million years have issue with this. It is only fact, only reality. These bastards of the media ran this so as to DISCREDIT Trump and his background.
The second scenario that came to me was from a lovely girl I’ve known for some years discussing marriage, family and children. (Yes, if I were somewhat younger, I’d step in and answer that problem personally.) I laid it out to her that, first, “marriage” up until the Twentieth Century, had been a matter of sheer survival and to hell with considerations of “love” and “romance”, which, in any event, soon enough wear off with the novelty of sex itself. There was no Social Security and there was no welfare. Children were a matter of survival as most people were on the farm and who was going to run the place when you grew too old? Today it’s no longer an issue of immediate, personal survival and the “moral” issues which didn’t linger long have completely given way. The society is dying by great leaps and bounds.
To have children, yes. The marriage had a fifty/fifty chance of making it but at least there’d be the children, albeit with a broken home. Choose a good biological mate, I told her, so as to give the children the best possible advantage in life. She’s from a country in Eastern Europe and so I think she’ll be alright in choosing a mate. But she’s twenty-seven years old now and needs to step on it.
The best possible way to eugenics is through the total separation of the races. Then very little can possibly go wrong. But this whole earthly experience is but one, great biological experiment. And each one of us is a biological experiment in microcosm. There will be goofs and failures. Then eugenics needs to borrow from euthanasia to keep things on track so that the whole thing doesn’t degenerate down into one big failure. That in fact is what is on the way through mankind’s supreme conceitedness and it will be the reason for the “return of the gods” to step in at the last moment and see that their experiment doesn’t go all the way down the drain.
It was Darwin who first came up with natural selection but it was his cousin, Galton, who first came up with eugenics as a natural consequence. At about the same time in France, Gobineau was formulating actual racialism. But all of this – from a mythologized angle – was as old as Genesis itself. Of course it took the Jews along with an army of hare-brained Whites to deny all of this scientific reality and replace it with sloppy, sentimental – and suicidal superstition. “Equality” and “the rights of man” bullshit. Control and restraint as opposed to absolute anarchy. It applies to all things and it most certainly applies to human breeding. Anarchy will gain you just that and, at its logical end, total oblivion. We can see that end even now peeking over the horizon. It screams out to each one of us to “hang onto what we’ve got” – that is our good blood and our awareness – just as it screams out to the gods to either quickly use it or get off of it.