Why is the eugenics-obsessed political establishment so opposed to suicide?

[Geolibertarian]

As anyone who's seen Alex Jones' Endgame already knows, the eugenics-obsessed plutocrats who've hijacked our government are hell-bent on reducing the human population by at least 80%.

Yet this same plutocrat-controlled government is extremely hostile to suicide:

----------------------------

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/05/27/91-year-old-grandma-busted-in-california-for-suicide-kit-business/

91-Year-Old Grandma Busted in California for Suicide Kit Business

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com
5/27/11

Sharlotte Hydorn, a 91-year-old great grandmother was busted in California this week for selling suicide kits over the Internet from her home. She had been selling them for 20 years but opened her door to FBI agents this week.

The FBI raided her home and combed through it for 11 hours after a 29-year-old man killed himself using one of the kits she sold. Nicholas Klonoski, from Oregon, was described as otherwise healthy until he decided to take his own life.

The agents had a 337-page search warrant from a local judge and she is now under investigation for alleged conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion and the “sale of adulterated or misbranded medical device.” She sold the suicide kits under the name GLAD, Glorious Life and Dignified Death.

Earlier this month, members of the Oregon Senate voted to ban the sale of the kits in a bill passed unanimously in response to the death of Klonoski, who killed himself after using a kit he purchased from a company in California. The bill prohibits the sale or transfer of “any substance or objects to another person knowing that the other person intends to use” it to commit suicide. Hydorn has been able to evade a loophole in California law to sell the kits but may have run afoul of federal laws.

[Continued...]

----------------------------

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction? Do they oppose it because every time a person goes out on his own terms instead of theirs, it deprives them of the demonic pleasure of seeing him suffer first (whether physically or psychologically)? If not, then what?

Whether suicide itself is an unconditional wrong or not is besides the point. The point is that the very same psychopathic control-freaks who are on record as wanting most so-called "useless eaters" dead cry foul whenever one of those "useless eaters" dies by his own hand.

[Protean]

RE: Why is the eugenics-obsessed political establishment so opposed to suicide?



I think Louis-Ferdinand Céline's book title "Death on the Installment Plan" sums it up.

As long as "the elite" can make profit from your death they are for it, and the longer they can profit the better, but should you pull the plug on your life, of your own "free will", that might start a nasty trend of people acting "on their own"---independently  of their owners consent.  This independent act could lead to another--if life is so bad people are willing to take theirs--is there an alternative?
Yes--if you are willing to die--then you are willing to risk everything to fight your oppressors.

The elite must maintain a certain reality: it is a crime to advocate a non-elite-profit suicide because you do not own your life--they do. The elite must "control" everything.

[Geolibertarian]

I think Louis-Ferdinand Céline's book title "Death on the Installment Plan" sums it up.

As long as "the elite" can make profit from your death they are for it, and the longer they can profit the better, but should you pull the plug on your life, of your own "free will", that might start a nasty trend of people acting "on their own"---independently of their owners consent.

The lust for profit is, of course, always "a" motivating factor, but in this case I have difficulty believing it's the primary one, because the filthy-rich "elite" already have far more money than they'll ever know what to do with.

This independent act could lead to another--if life is so bad people are willing to take theirs--is there an alternative?
Yes--if you are willing to die--then you are willing to risk everything to fight your oppressors.

Now that, to me, is a more reasonable-sounding explanation than the mere quest for ever-higher profits.

The less afraid people are (particularly of their own deaths), the more difficult it is to control them via fear-mongering and psychological warfare.

The following clip makes that very point quite effectively:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

[starvosan]

They are not against suicide, they are for it.  Just an article highlighting suicide will result in an increase in suicide attempts.  As will all those 'death ed' classes being taught in our schools and in all the glorification of death we see in our major media.  But they do like to give the impression that they care, hence their putative objection to suicide.

[Geolibertarian]

They are not against suicide, they are for it.

Sure doesn't look that way to me:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/08/17/paralyzed-man-weeps-as-high-court-denies-his-right-to-die/?test=latestnews

[bento]

This is to garner "right to die" arguments by the public saying just let the poor man die. They can then mold these sentiments into the death care agenda, where the doctors can then chose for you to die. They just need to recapture the arguments that are getting away from them as people are starting to resent the elite choosing when you die.

[Brocke]

It's about control.

The "Elite" abhor free will, liberty and independence.

You cannot "opt out" of their system unless they approve it, and if possible profit from it.

[Geolibertarian]

This is to garner "right to die" arguments by the public saying just let the poor man die.

I think it's to reinforce (if only at a subconscious level) the silent assumption that our lives our not our own, but -- like the government and practically everything else -- the private property of the economic ruling class.

They can then mold these sentiments into the death care agenda, where the doctors can then chose for you to die.

Exactly. This is about getting people used to the idea that they don't have the right to make that decision for themselves -- that some higher "authority" must always make that decision for them (for a "price," of course).

If you don't even have the right to "die" on your own terms, then on what logical basis can it be argued that you have the right to live on your own terms?

Or is that precisely the sort of question we're not supposed to ask in the first place, lest it awaken us to the true extent of our enslavement?