This is my last post (for a while anyway) regarding the threat posed by the neo-Nazi parties to people with disabilities, (for my previous post, which links to other posts please go to https://kevinmorris101.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/arthur-kemps-march-of-the-titans-revels-bnp-as-anti-disabled-and-racist/). In my earlier posts I draw attention to statements by members and supporters of the British National Party and the National Front indicating their support for eugenic measures such as the sterilisation of disabled people (for example a short piece, on the National Front’s website, by Eddy Morrison in which he advocates that the party adopt a programme of eugenics and social Darwinism). However the most blatant expression of support for the Nazi’s killing of disabled people which I’ve come across is a post entitled “did the Nazis murder inicent disabled people?” which can be found on the far-right Vanguard News Network Forum. To put the thread into context, a supporter of the British National Party asks the question and is provided with a plefora of answers to the effect that the Nazis did, in fact murder disabled people but it was perfectly justified for them to do so. The below quote is typical of the views expressed by forum members

“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




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).” (See http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=1068489)..


So there we have it, in the view of the neo-Nazis it was perfectly justifiable for the Nazis to kill disabled people as they were “useless eaters” who placed a burden on the German Reich. So, according to this logic people with disabilities do (presumably) still constitute an unacceptably high cost to society and should, therefore be subject to a modern day version of the Nazi’s T-4 Programme under which approximately 200,000 mentally and physically disabled people were murdered simply because they didn’t fit in with the Nazi’s concept of physically and mentally healthy ayrian individuals.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4 (a good overview of the Nazi’s T4 Programme)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Pearson (a good article on the advocate of eugenics who was involved in the founding of the Nazi Northern League, after World War II and who’s books are frequently to be found in the bookshops of the far-right political movements)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund (an American organisation which it is alleged has had leading members who have expressed support for the eugenic measures pursued by Nazi Germany)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics (an article which provides an overview of eugenics and shows, among other things that the Nazis built on already existing ideas (I.E. eugenics wasn’t simply an invention of the Nazis, however it took on its most extreme expression under them)


About kevinmorris101

I live and work in London and blog as a hobby. If you would like to contact me please send an email to animalia at shiftmail.com (the address is rendered in this manner in order to try and defeat spammers)!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. McLeach says:

    I think the fatal error here is to believe it can only ever be ‘neo-nazi’ bogeymen who would enforce such a programme if in government.

    • I agree that eugenic measures could be imposed by parties of either the extreme right or the far left, but I can’t see any of the democratic political parties attempting to implement state enforced eugenic measures. We have the European Convention of Human Rights and a long standing tradition of democracy in the UK. These factors don’t mean that such measures could not be enforced, it does, however mean that there are strong forces militating against their enforcement. What we may see as geene therapy becomes more afordable and safe is individuals voluntarily choosing to undergo genetic modification both in respect of themselves and their children. Provided these therapies are aimed at removing geenes which cause severe diseases and/or extremely painful disabilities I don’t perceive most people having a problem with parents exercising their choices. However when it comes to genetic manipulations which could (potentially) enhance intelligence you will get more voices raised saying that this is a step to far. Were exactly you draw the line, in a free society is a very delicate matter.

  2. a citizen says:

    “A great dictator can do nothing without a great number of followers. If the dictator gets down, still remains the followers. So, who are the followers ?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s