Along the list is undesirable, the enemy indignant. We are talking about the early 40s, but how sad these words are still. And as far as they could, alas, suddenly become the essence of the present days. In other words, there is a scandalous pact of sorts, but not written between those who draw the line and those who prefer to stick to it, the forbidden fruit promised, indicated, desired or eliminating the outbreak, even cruel, own impulses. In other words, what is the point of preaching free violence without designated victims, on which it could be downloaded?

That is why the urgency of searching for victims, that is, obscenities, namely undesirable, is explained by a well-planned device for the progressive plundering of human characters. In other words, the segregation process reveals this horrific aspect of the Nazi operation: prisoners are reduced to simple objects, unnamed or unmarried livestock, simple mockery, fun and debauchery from their fugitives, healthy and strong, and therefore worthy to live, Reich people. Dissolution of family ties is cruel.

Separation without farewell injures prisoners and provokes in them a feeling of powerlessness, worthlessness and rejection. The second gesture is even more cruel: personality, anonymity. All the detainees are shaved, all wearing the same suit. All with the same blank look.

Dehumanization is a consequence of the bureaucratic structure of the Nazi political power, that is, the desired fruit, but also a useful tool that facilitates the work of those who are actively involved in the chain of destruction. When Eichmann announced the famous process in Jerusalem, everyone responsible for the long and complex chain of the death industry survived hell, which was produced, lived and immediately on a daily basis, managing a kind of "mental reserve", a deliberate choice not to think , do not have too much trouble, wash your conscience pilotically, truncating behind the famous excuses of a corrupt conscience, namely, “obedience to the order” and “rejection of real alternatives”.

On the other hand, what were the prisoners still? How can you deal with insect humanity? So who can think that you are doing evil? But if it provokes disagreement with the Jews in Europe, hunting across the continent, and begins to exterminate, what can we say then about people with disabilities who were tested and tested shortly before that? In this case, let's look at the abyss worse than the sick Nazi culture. In the national-socialist perversion, the task of medicine is no longer to cure the sick, but to strengthen the healthy; Do not damage, but cause harm; Do not seek the welfare of the patient, but his suppression.

On the other hand, if the political power has already decided who is worthy of life, then it automatically follows that medicine must accept this goal: to promote natural selection in its fatal and remarkable task or eliminate it less. Thus, we have tubes for nurses who diligently allow them to die in order to inflict indifferent babies or prescribe lethal doses of sleep for disabled children. Recognized doctors who have sworn in Hippocrates, misinterpret their mission to create the death of their patients, with gas, injections, with inadequate drugs, with dubious experiments.

In propaganda, they died a pitiful or, at best, movement and expected departures. In fact, it was the largest and historically recognized euthanasia operation by political power. They, the weaker, most helpless, the most direct representatives of human vulnerability, have experienced a sad primacy, a terrible Nazi concept of health. Although, frankly, one could make a few doubts about the "sweet" nature of such repression.

And if historians are shrinking for historical reasons of this cultural breakthrough due to obscene visceral evidence, here we cannot ignore the general attitude towards people with disabilities. As Di Santo recalls, disability implies limiting activity and social participation, regardless of the degree of deterioration that a person can live, even if it is unthinkable that a more complex pathological condition is likely to be affected by the possibility of being affected by areas of their own social, relational, ecological and personal life.

And here we turn to the problem or, if you wish, to a general ambiguity or to the identification of a person with a disease, an individual with a pathology, an existential universe with disability itself. The presence of the main obstacles, of various etiologies, does not coincide with the levels of the human personality, but adds to the latter an aggravation over and above the weight that our society usually imposes on the basis of its specific socio-ecological organization. But the disease does not make a man! However, as a misunderstanding of the smoothing of the existential fate of people in the pathology of those who suffer.

If we expanded this landmark, very few would enjoy the burden of health. But there is no compassion or sympathy for the disabled. Rather, to them the dislocation is aimed at the concentration, separation, separation of the "healthy" from the "sick". Anxious problem of diversity.

“A look at disability” is one of the most obvious demonstrations of how our view of things always depends heavily on the meaning they take for us. But in the end, this is normal, because “a look at a disability causes the fear of losing its physical integrity and everything that was built around it.” Rejection, more or less covert, disgust, more or less hidden, denial, more or less pronounced, feeds on this, that is, an excess of protection, which, between the conscious and the unconscious, is between legal and forbidden, between rational and irrational, determines the response of the subject perceived disability in its immediate vicinity.

Of course, in this tension, and tense, nothing matters, does not interfere, it does not mean that disability is only a physical - bioecological state, and that there is always a human person behind it, flesh and bones, with first name and surname. Disability significantly increases its size to overwhelm the same confidence of the subject and cause in the last phenomena of rejection, aversion, escape, avoidance. Freud could synthesize them, perhaps, into a single, elementary, defensive mechanism of the ego, that is, denial, as opposed to real danger, as here, a fictional or purely symbolic danger.

But when we enter the path of a symbol, it always happens, that is, that fictional scenarios correspond to real emotions. Now, if a disabled person never presents a real danger to a “healthy person,” the fear of the latter will always be, and damned, real. Refusal to disability, which is a symbolic ritual of exorcism in that the disability includes, physically, socially, culturally, economically and which seems undesirable, encourages subjects to support more or less hidden forms of dislocation elsewhere in the disabled, to claim medical care, hospitalization, concentration in special institutions and far from civil and public life.

You have no experience, it means that you have no fear of losing what you have or have, and you can become like them. On the contrary, it is obvious that, just like human beings, namely composite and fragile creatures of any nature, we are all potentially disabled since the maximum physical strength is provided only to a group limited in human life and gradually over time and that nothing is enough to lose everything.

The secret device, sadly disguised for the noble intention of dealing with people with disabilities, perhaps with the best methods and special personnel, acts as a safety valve for tragic and pitiful human feelings or fear, fear, disgust, He adds, and Schumann is also wise: Fragility, vulnerability, death, surprise, loss of integrity. The type of disability associated with the difficulties that it implies causes a feeling of fear, disgust, fear of seeing a disadvantaged fate in people with disabilities.

Human relations, even understandable from a certain point of view, but, of course, unethical. And no one can take care of this. And it is strange, after so many years, to remember and evaluate the extreme distance from the reality of the facts. Nevertheless, at that time the sensations were lively, strong, intense, extremely real, but where the chances of their appearance were really low. Again, we reject feeling as elemental, as wrong, that is, fear. And although we constantly strive to eliminate all those aspects of complexity, fragility, vulnerability, which characterize our life, disability there, to remind them always.

Therefore, we no longer want to see her. But beware, disability is by no means a metaphor for the fall of life, it is by no means a symbol of existential fragility and is not a sign of what we are, but “this is a real expression.” Disability has always lived with our existence, always accompanied our steps, implied our life, characterizes what we are. However, we are born with disabilities, we live with disabilities, we will probably die with disabilities.

Here, then, he begins to take on his own connotations of the deep meaning of the human relationship to disability. In fact, “disability” also refers to some of the painful aspects of life that we are trying to remove: illness, seniority, and deprivation of the body.

And here we return to the Nazi extermination. In this crazy ideology uniting decadent, esoteric and Darwinian motives, the cult of physical, physical, mental, morphological, aesthetic, medical, anthropological cultures is noted in all respects. But its consequence is a symbolic irritation of the psychological mechanisms of repulsion and the fear of deviation from the “norm”. On the other hand, it is also impossible to deny that the extermination of people with disabilities is the inevitable consequence of the “palingenetic myth of a new person” in order to activate all the devices deemed necessary to achieve “striving for optimal physical conditions”.