Hmmmm

A man who stabbed to death 19 residents at a care home in Japan for people with disabilities has been sentenced to death.

Satoshi Uematsu, a former employee of the Tsukui Yamayuri En (Tsukui Lily Garden) facility in Sagamihara, south-west of Tokyo, carried out the attack in 2016, in which residents were targeted as they slept.

Twenty-four other residents and two care workers were injured in what is one of post-war Japan’s worst mass killings.

The 30-year-old admitted to the rampage during hearings at Yokohama district court but pleaded not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility, with his lawyers claiming he was suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the attack.

He was sentenced to death by hanging.

Uematsu told the court last month he would not appeal against his sentence, no matter what it may be, newspaper Mainichi reported.

Police said Uematsu, described by neighbours as polite and helpful, was motivated by a deep-seated hatred of people with disabilities. He told police after his arrest that society would be better off if disabled people “disappeared”.

Certain of the Fabians – the Webbs perhaps – would be arguing for a medal for such actions.

17 thoughts on “Hmmmm”

  1. Sagamihara? That is right next to where I first lived when I moved to Japan in 2017. Kanagawa seems to to be a hotspot for nutters, there was a story not long after I’d moved to Japan of a guy keeping his victims heads in his freezer, and a woman was stabbed near my local station in my second year there.

  2. The plus side of closing US schools is they save on the weekly mass shooting. Anyhoo on the eugenic shame of the illiberal left, lets not forget it was your big mates, the Nationalist right,who really went for Darwinian pseudo science, as they still do today .The first real murder victims of the Nazis were the disabled.
    The Christian insight that we are all god`s children was the West`s best defence against this evil and others.

  3. Corona virus must really have gotten to Violet Elizabeth Newmania, his drivel quotient is on the increase. Firstly describing Nazis as “Nationalist right” wen any fule kno that they were Socialist to their very core. It was the leftist Fabians that were the proponents of eugenics, lovely blokes like George Bernard Shaw all the way through to David Attenbrough today. Then being a cunt, but then that’s to be expected.

  4. What’s the Fabian point of killing disabled people in care homes? They’re not going to reproduce if they’re in homes. Sure, there’s an on-going cost to keeping them alive; but it’s not a significant part of the overall government budget.

  5. Ah but Pat Kane (pseudo-intellectual from Hue and Cry) tells me that Eugenics is a Tory thing on Twitter and quotes Gerald Warner to prove it! So I see your Webb’s, Shaw’s and Stopes and raise you some columnist who isn’t even a leading Tory thinker….
    “Coronavirus might even prove mildly beneficial in the long run by disproportionately culling elderly dependents”. Eugenics deeply baked into high Tory culture these days. That’s what 10 year rule unleashes… (& wasn’t Warner of this parish once?) telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/… (@thoughtland)

  6. For those that care, here’s an updated version of arsewipe that works with both 2007 and 2020 themes on here. I repeat the previous instructions for reference.

    1) Think very carefully about adding browser extensions from some random bloke on the internet. Study the code before installing it, or get someone to explain it to you.

    2) Create a directory somewhere, put this in a file called manifest.json: https://pastebin.com/WSjrfV1x

    3) In the same directory, put this in a file called arsewipe.js: https://pastebin.com/zwrdiRnY

    4) Go to chrome://extensions/ , click “Load unpacked extension” (you may need to enable developer mode first for this to show up), and select the directory you created in step 2.

    5) When Chrome has installed the extension, reload any page on Tim’s blog to filter out the comments from people you just skip anyway.

    6) To customise the list, edit arsewipe.js in the obvious place, reload the extension on the extensions page, then reload the blog page.

    BTW, it’s named in honour of Arnald

  7. Hi Newmonia! Thought you’d be sitting by the deathbed of your beloved Union Europea in its final days. The letters DNR are being written on its medical notes in big red ink. It’s rapidly proving itself totally unfit for purpose & headed for the wastebin of history. It will not be mourned.

  8. Newmania,

    The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples ( Slavs). And that, too, is a progress.” – Frederich Engels
    Let’s let the Nazis speak for themselves:

    Why Are We Socialists?

    We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

    Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

    The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

    The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

    We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.Explanation: “The thinking worker comes to Hitler,” the caption says. A communist and a socialist are accusing each other of betraying the working class.

    Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

    We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

    We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!
    We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

    We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

    We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!

    Why a Workers’ Party? Work is not mankind’s curse, but his blessing. A man becomes a man through labor. It elevates him, makes him great and aware, raises him above all other creatures. It is in the deepest sense creative, productive, and culture-producing. Without labor, no food. Without food, no life.
    The idea that the dirtier one’s hands get, the more degrading the work, is a Jewish, not a German, idea. As in every other area, the German first asks how, then what. It is less a question of the position I fill, and more a question of how well I do the duty that God has given me.

    We call ourselves a workers’ party because we want to rescue the word work from its current definition and give it back its original meaning. Anyone who creates value is a creator, that is, a worker. We refuse to distinguish kinds of work. Our only standard is whether the work serves the whole, or at least does not harm it, or if it is harmful. Work is service. If it works against the general welfare, then it is treason against the fatherland.

    Marxist nonsense claimed to free labor, yet it degraded the work of its members and saw it as a curse and disgrace. It can hardly be our goal to abolish labor, but rather to give new meaning and content. The worker in a capitalist state — and that is his deepest misfortune — is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker.break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

    We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!
    We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

    We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

    We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!

    Why a Workers’ Party?He has become a machine. A number, a both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

    We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!

    We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

    We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

    We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!

    Why a Workers’ Party?without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces. Labor is for him only a way to survive, not a path to higher blessings, not a joy, not something in which to take pride, or satisfaction, or encouragement, or a way to build character.

    We are a workers’ party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. Money is the measuring rod of liberalism, work and accomplishment that of the socialist state. The liberal asks: What are you? The socialist asks: Who are you? Worlds lie between.

    We do not want to make everyone the same. Nor do we want levels in the population, high and low, above and below. The aristocracy of the coming state will be determined not by possessions or money, but only on the quality of one’s accomplishments. One earns merit through service. Men are distinguished by the results of their labor. That is the sure sign of the character and value of a person. The value of labor under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to the whole community. Labor means creating value, not haggling over things. The soldier is a worker when he bears the sword to protect the national economy. The statesman also is a worker when he gives the nation a form and a will that help it to produce what it needs for life and freedom.

    A furrowed brow is as much a sign of labor as a powerful fist. A white collar worker should not be ashamed to claim with pride that of which the manual laborer boasts: labor. The relations between these two groups determine their mutual fate. Neither can survive without the other, for both are members of an organism that they must together maintain if they are to defend and expand their right to exist.

    We call ourselves a workers’ party because we want to free labor from the chains of capitalism and Marxism.In battling for Germany’s future, we freely admit to it, and accept the odium from the liberal bourgeoisie that results. We know that we will succeed in bringing new blessings out of their curses.
    God gave the nations territory to grow grain. The seed becomes grain and the grain becomes bread. The middleman of it all is labor.

    He who despises labor but accepts its benefits is a hypocrite.

    That is the deepest meaning of our movement: it gives things back their original significance, unconcerned that today they may be in danger of sinking into the swamp of a collapsing worldview.

    He who creates value works, and is a worker. A movement that wants to free labor is a workers’ party.

    Therefore we National Socialists call ourselves a worker’s party.

    When our victorious flags fly before us, we sing:

    “We are the army of the swastika,
    Raise high the red flags!
    We want to clear the way to freedom
    For German Labor!”

    Those Damned Nazis

  9. What Henry Crun said.

    This is somewhat shorter.

    Richard Overy, historian (Quoted from a review of his book): “But the resemblances are inescapable. Both tyrannies relied on a desperate ideology of do-or-die confrontation. Both were obsessed by battle imagery: ‘The dictatorships were military metaphors, founded to fight political war.’ And despite the rhetoric about a fate-struggle between socialism and capitalism, the two economic systems converged strongly. Stalin’s Russia permitted a substantial private sector, while Nazi Germany became rapidly dominated by state direction and state-owned industries.

    In a brilliant passage, Overy compares the experience of two economic defectors. Steel magnate Fritz Thyssen fled to Switzerland because he believed that Nazi planning was ‘Bolshevising’ Germany. Factory manager Victor Kravchenko defected in 1943 because he found that class privilege and the exploitation of labour in Stalinist society were no better than the worst excesses of capitalism.

    As Overy says, much that the two men did was pointless. Why camps? Prisons would have held all their dangerous opponents. Who really needed slave labour, until the war? What did that colossal surplus of cruelty and terror achieve for the regimes? ‘Violence was… regarded as redemptive, saving society from imaginary enemies.'”

    Anthony Flew, philosopher (in a book review of “The Lost Literature of Socialism”): “Many of his findings are astonishing. Perhaps for readers today the most astonishing of all is that “In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engels’ article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist and no conservative, liberal, anarchist or independent did anything of the kind.” (The term “genocide” in Watson’s usage is not confined to the extermination only of races or of ethnic groups, but embraces also the liquidation of such other complete human categories as “enemies of the people” and “the Kulaks as a class.”)”

    George Watson, historian and literary critic: “Ethnic cleansing was an essential part of the socialist program before Hitler had taken any action in the matter. The Left, for a century, was proud of its ruthlessness, and scornful of the delicacy of its opponents. “You can’t make an omelette,” Beatrice Webb once told a visitor who had seen cattle cars full of starving people in the Soviet Union, “without breaking eggs.”

    There is abundant evidence, what is more, that the Nazi leaders believed they were socialists and that anti-Nazi socialists often accepted that claim. In Mein Kampf (1926) Hitler accepted that National Socialism was a derivative of Marxism. The point was more bluntly made in private conversations. “The whole of National Socialism is based on Marx,” he told Hermann Rauschning.

    Rauschning later reported the remark in Hitler Speaks (1939), but by that time the world was at war and too busy to pay much attention to it. Goebbels too thought himself a socialist. Five days before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, in June 1941, he confided in his diary that “real socialism” would be established in that country after a Nazi victory, in place of Bolshevism and Czarism.

    The evidence that Nazism was part of the socialist tradition continues to accumulate, even if it makes no headlines. In 1978 Otto Wagener’s Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant appeared in its original German. Wagener was a lifelong Nazi who had died in 1971. His recollections of Hitler’s conversations had been composed from notes in a British prisoner-of-war camp, and they represent Hitler as an extreme socialist utopian, anti-Jewish because “the Jew is not a socialist.” Nor are Communists–“basically they are not socialistic, since they create mere herds, as in the Soviet Union, without individual life.”

    The real task, Hitler told Wagener, was to realize the socialist dream that mankind over the centuries had forgotten, to liberate labor, and to displace the role of capital. That sounds like a program for the Left, and many parties called socialist have believed in less.

    Hitler’s allegiance, even before such sources were known, was acknowledged by socialists outside Germany. Julian Huxley, for example, the pro-Soviet British biologist who later became director-general of UNESCO, accepted Hitler’s claim to be a socialist in the early 1930s, though without enthusiasm (indeed, with marked embarrassment).

    Hitler’s program demanded central economic planning, which was at the heart of the socialist cause; and genocide, in the 1930s, was well known to be an aspect of the socialist tradition and of no other. There was, and is, no conservative or liberal tradition of racial extermination. The Nazis, what is more, could call on socialist practice as well as socialist theory when they invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 and began their exterminatory program. That is documented by Rudolf Hoess in his memoir Kommandant in Auschwitz (1958). Detailed reports of the Soviet camp system were circulated to Nazi camp commandants as a
    model to emulate and an example to follow.

    The fact that there is no non-socialist tradition of genocide in Europe has not even been noticed.

    That is an impressive act of suppression. The Left may have lost the political battle, almost everywhere in the world. But it does not seem to have lost the battle of ideas. In intellectual circles, at least, it is still believed that racism and the Left do not mix.

    Why is this? How has the evidence of socialist genocide, how has Hitler’s acknowledgement of his debt to Marx, been so efficiently suppressed?

    The answer, I suspect, lies in the nature of political commitment. Political knowledge is not like botany or physics, and commitment is not usually made by examining evidence. When socialism was fashionable I used to ask those who believed in it why they thought public ownership would favor the poor. What struck me about their responses was not just that they did not know but that they did not think they were under any obligation to know. But if they had really cared about poverty they would have demanded an answer before they signed up, and would have gone on demanding an answer until they got one. In other words, they were hardly interested in solving poverty. What really interested them was looking and sounding as if they did.

    When Marxism was fashionable, similarly, I used to ask Marxists what book by Marx or Engels they had read all the way through, and watch them look shifty and change the subject. Or, for a change, I might ask them what they thought of Engels’s 1849 program of racial extermination, and watch them lose their temper. Politics, for lots of people, is not evidence based. It is more like showing off a new dress or a new suit.”

    NEVER BLAME THE LEFT

  10. Marx and Engels were virulent racists.

    Much more serious than plagiarism is the fact of Marx’s anti-Semitism and racism. Many Marx scholars are still squeamish about this subject, but the evidence is undeniable. The authorities on this subject are Julius Carlebach and Robert Wistrich, neither of whom is cited by the new biographers, but who agree that Marx went beyond any previous expressions of anti-Semitism by blaming Jews for the corruption of Christian society and demanding their “abolition”. Marx’s early essays “On the Jewish Question” are, in the words of Carlebach, “a logical and indispensable link between Luther and Hitler”. Marx vilified Jews — “whose god is the bill of exchange” and who created Christianity in order “to attain world dominion” — and Judaism, a religion so “anti-social” that it “makes even the lavatory an object of divine law”. Later, his anti-Semitism became less Hegelian and more racist. His notorious description of his benefactor and rival Ferdinand Lassalle as “a Jewish nigger”, whom he accused of selling out the socialists to Bismarck, is all the more odious when one considers that Marx had in fact allowed himself to be used by the Austrian government as a source of intelligence on the exiled revolutionaries in London. He also demonised Jewish bankers in his 1856 article “The Russian Loan”: “Thus we find every tyrant is backed by a Jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit.” Marx loved conspiracy theories: he believed, for instance, that the English ruling class, led by Lord Palmerston, was in the pay of tsarist Russia.

    This unpalatable side of Marx is scarcely a secret. I have in front of me a copy of Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle (Berlin 1913), in which is reprinted the notorious article “Hungary” of January 1849 from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, of which Marx was editor. This piece, written by Engels but with Marx’s full approval, denounces the “ethnic trash” (Völkerabfälle) who will always support the counter-revolution “until their total extinction or loss of nationality”. The article continues: “The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but entire reactionary peoples to disappear from the earth. That too is progress.” This warrant for genocide has been known for a century, yet Marx and Engels still get a good press.

  11. “In 1950, the prosecutor told the jury that the defendant went nuts and killed two people. In 2013, the defense lawyer tells the jury that the defendant went nuts and killed two people.”
    –Sippican Cottage

  12. Umm.. Neumonia…

    Eugenics is not a pseudoscience… It’s a practice applied to our domestic animals since at least the early Stone Age. Modern science actually confirmed the Wisdom of the Ages of breeders of horses and budgies alike, on how you go about it, and what you can expect, including the nastier bits. Science just added knowledge of the physical machinery behind the process people already knew.

    Now.. leaving the social aspect of dealing with the Nasty Bits aside, the problem with eugenics in humans is not in the physical process.. It’s in the generation time.

    Even heavily reinforced ( requiring copious amounts of close incest…) , and not being too ambitious in scope, you need anywhere between 10 and 25 generations to breed a stable line and get rid of most of the obvious side effects. More likely the latter, because you don’t get to start with relatively “clean” lines to begin with, since, unlike horses or cattle, we haven’t been selectively bred, other than through our environment. We’re “wild” types.. Not the best start…

    The generation time in humans is roughly 16 years. That means that you need anywhere between 160 to 400 years, with probability favouring the latter, to end up with what you started to aim for.
    It’s not impossible, and intended or not , it has (partially) happened in past societies, either through stratification** or social/religious/physical segregation.***
    Getting it done by design in “Modern Society”? Not a chance. It would imply politicians planning well beyond their tenure. And not just one, but the vast majority of them. That alone is….very long odds..

    But technically and scientifically possible? Oh yes, it is…

    ** European nobles messed up by letting primogeniture trump ability, for instance. So they ended up with weak chins and Habsburg noses, and a serious problem with conceiving and a host of other problems. There’s a solid reason Royals seek their partners amongst “Commoners” nowadays…

    *** Spartans, but also the Athenian elite, several flavours of Jews. Modern provincial goatherders Cultural Enrichments.

  13. There’s people out there bemoaning that the increased screening and rise in abortion rate means that Downs Syndrome may disappear from society, claim that it’s a form of eugenics

  14. @Henry Crun

    Extinction Rebellion in favour of Eugenics too

    – Extinction Rebellion to ramp up ‘extreme activities’ despite Coronavirus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hBT3IV5etQ

    Climate hoax zealots: A small number of mentally ill people that need sectioning

    @BniC March 16, 2020 at 5:42 pm

    Also dwarfism, spina bifida and cerebral palsy. Yes, it is NHS approved eugenics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *