Often, I have come to observe in my studies over the course of the years that euthanasia is taboo among the common populace. Perceptions of voluntary self-death seem to drift between shallowly considered propagated beliefs tailored to suit the many delusions of the worshippers of the meat-grinder that is the cycle of life.
Among these reasons, we have: remaining alive for the sake of one’s family and friends, workplace drone peer pressure, religious threats, cultural disregard for individual suffering or self interest, having enough soldiers for wartime, yolo, conspiracy theorist propaganda about population control etc.
If voluntary euthanasia was commonplace and accepted, humans would not grieve so much over the loss of ones close to them, or even over strangers as the acceptance of the right to choose to pass away would not be seen as heresy to the selfish requirements of the living. In ancient societies suicide was commonly practiced as a method of redemption for one’s honor which stemmed into Christianity’s clever Machiavellian perversion of this into the inverse—being that it is instead iredeemable to take one’s life—as many earlier sects were dying out due to the rejection of the world and their realization of life entailing inevitable suffering—with suicide being the most logical solution. However the movement could not spread if the followers kept dying and so, suicide became an act against God.
As for war, is living for the sake of dying for the politics of billionaires really a—to phrase it as the gullible virtue ethicists would deem appropriate—noble and honorable cause?
And ludicrously enough, ideas of voluntary euthanasia being genocide to the Caucasian race, or Zionist memetic population control… The human race is a self fulfilling prophecy of Sado-masochistic addiction to recurrent deprivation and alleviation of such, even video games simulate this habitual training as “fun” because it is so thoughtless and surrogately removed from actual deprivation in life itself, acting as exposure therapy for some and dissociation from the reality of life for others, all sharing the same localized personal hardships, each relevant to oneself and blind to the hardships of another but for selfishly rooted personal motives of self-righteous sympathies, just to get through the act of maintaining one’s life. The terminally ill patient accepts and adapts to his pain just as the hardworking athlete who comes in last place at the sports ball tournament adapts to his trauma. The relative suffering of one may measure another where it seems the other should be on the greener side of things because the survival of life depends on competitionThere is no real race when one has become as ash or a pile of bones—in life it is much the same, man goes about his way unconscious to the many taxing agonies within himself, let alone others—gleefully smug to eat hamburgers while another man slowly starves to death or is beaten in an alley, another is dying from cancer with no reasonable accommodations, Ebola takes out an entire villiage, but at least the new episode in the series on the television is satiating enough for adequate distraction from his minor case of athletes foot.
Another counter argument against the right to suicide is that if it were made acceptable, everyone would do it, except for the Jews because they are the ones behind the agenda, so that they may have their "happy” frontiers amongst themselves. Does this theory not give even more credence to Zionist thought that goyim are incapable of agency and self determination?
What are your thoughts on the matter?