It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Explain how destabilizing an entire nation by wiping out the elderly members would be good for it in any way? Why not do that to third world countries through economic manipulation like what has been done for ages in Africa. Why do it on home soil? Please explain.
Originally posted by redoubt
i keep rounding back to the inflation effect. Energy is already hugely expensive and if our currency devalues more than a little, even the best intentions will run into an economic brick wall. This isn't even taking into account the cost of food and what a poud of fatty burger might cost after the default.
Originally posted by LexiconV
Originally posted by Solasis
I can't believe I'm arguing for the sensibility of any of this, but---
A contagious virus would be far too risky. There's probably no way to guarantee immunity among the elite, and their ability to survive the crisis would be paramount to their plans. They would hide in bunkers, but that is far too risky for the aims and desires of any ruling group of that sort.edit on 28-7-2011 by Solasis because: (no reason given)
Ever heard of vaccines?
Originally posted by boncho
Explain how destabilizing an entire nation by wiping out the elderly members would be good for it in any way? Why not do that to third world countries through economic manipulation like what has been done for ages in Africa. Why do it on home soil? Please explain.
Over time Pfannmuller set up Hungerhauser (starvation houses) for the elderly. By the end of 1941, euthanasia was simply "normal hospital routine."
If you remove people who get hand outs you have less of a financial burden on the state... less medicare going to them, more resources...
Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by GonzoSinister
If you remove people who get hand outs you have less of a financial burden on the state... less medicare going to them, more resources...
I am going to single this out for a reply simply because Social Security is not a 'hand out'. People pay into this program their whole working lives. It is not an entitlement program any more than an insurance policy that you keep up with monthly premiums.
This is not welfare. It is a program bought and paid for by the same people who stand to have it ripped out from under them so that the funds can be redirected elsewhere in the case of a default.
The point that followed was, and is, that this will lead to those least capable of survival, to survive not. And once gone/dead/vamooshed, the government can relax because they won't have to pay them any more. Dead people don't need food, rent or meds.
This plays well into the NWO's supposed plan at depopulation. If it does exist, then the first culling would, in one manner of logic, be directed at the people least able to contribute (aka: pay taxes) to their coffers.
Still glad to see me redoubt? lol.
Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by boncho
Explain how destabilizing an entire nation by wiping out the elderly members would be good for it in any way? Why not do that to third world countries through economic manipulation like what has been done for ages in Africa. Why do it on home soil? Please explain.
You're asking me 'why' it would be done to begin with? I have no idea. I don't see the benefits of the current level of globalization. I don't see anything good in watching your nation's industrial plant flee overseas. I don't know why we have embraced this horrible concept to begin with... but we have and so has most of the industrialized west.
As to ant benefit of destabilizing... I can see one; as a reason to install a police state, decommission the constitution and disarm the populace.
I do agree that strictly from a business sense, it is terribly counter productive.