Podcast Logo


Posted on May 3rd, 2022 by Clyde Lewis

Since last year, Canadian law has allowed its citizens to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. This is very much like the assisted suicide clinics in Soylent Green, or the voluntary suicide pills called, Quietus, in the movie, undefinedChildren of Men.undefined Furthermore, the recent arguments about Roe vs. Wade and the leaking of a decision to end it is certainly a stepping stone for more issues dealing with eugenics, body autonomy laws, and eliminating those who eventually become burdens on the system. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis talks with Rob Davenport about SOYLENT GREEN IS CANADIAN. 





I once had a friend who once told me that she felt the Roe vs. Wade would be overturned. I told her that I donundefinedt think it would be because it is one f the landmark cases that ensure that a silent eugenics program will continue where the government allows for the killing of the poor.

I often said that government canundefinedt just kill people anymore and justify it as they did when they had Eugenics directives at the turn of the century. They had to do it in a more subtle way -and abortion filled that need.

Well, I guess I was wrong because of what I read this morning.

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court.

Now keep in mind this is just a leaked memo.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision — Planned Parenthood vs. Casey — that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. It’s unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft.

No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.

The draft opinion offers an extraordinary window into the justices’ deliberations in one of the most consequential cases before the court in the last five decades. Some court-watchers predicted that the conservative majority would slice away at abortion rights without flatly overturning a 49-year-old precedent. The draft shows that the court is looking to reject Roe’s logic and legal protections.

This is a huge decision undefined but this also needs to be put into a wider context. I know that every argument will be political and some will see this as a religious miracle.

But I see all of those arguments and I declare that what is happening here is that the state is going to make laws that affect your body autonomy undefined abortion is just the beginning and eugenics directives will be making a huge comeback.

All of this indicates a new path forward for large corporations and government entities that want to achieve absolute social control.

To be honest this looks like a Eugenics trojan horse,

Let me begin by saying we must never stop working to protect life, We always should fight preserve our freedoms and maintain some semblance of our humanity.

Body autonomy laws are going to be the next move and while we can all argue about abortion today undefined we will also need to remember that Body autonomy also includes fight laws requiring all points along the continuum.  Abortion, vaccine mandates, transhumanism, transgender laws and even assisted suicide are all part of the un=umbrella that cover body autonomy.

These battles over vaccine mandates were merely the tipping point. The groundwork being laid with these mandates and abortion laws are  a prologue to what will become the police state’s conquest of a new, relatively uncharted, frontier: inner space, specifically, the inner workings genetic, biological, biometric, mental, emotional of the human race.

You may not see this now undefined but all of these issues have been discussed in many of our well known science fiction stories.

Does anyone remember the Thanatorium in the movie, Soylent Green? Soylent Green posits a catastrophically polluted and over-populated future society in which suicide is not only legal but encouraged and facilitated by the state. In the New York City of 2022 , there exist institutions where people can end their lives peacefully and beautifully.

They are called, Thanatoriums.

Edward G. Robinson plays the character Sol figures out that the oceans are gone and there is no plankton. Soylent is a lie. This revelation causes him to despair. He writes Heston’s character a note about going “home” and Heston cannot stop him in time. “Going home” refers to visiting a large, clean, friendly euthanasia clinic where people are asked their favorite color, and music, and are laid on a bed and given a poison to drink.

And then they are shown movies of what the Earth was like before the man-made devastation — rivers, trees, mountains. Animals. All extinct. He’s given a final look at a beauty that doesn’t exist anymore. It is a heartbreaking scene,

He eventually closes his eyes and that is the end for him

It was especially unnerving to see that there were long lines  to have this procedure done in the film.

You get the overall feeling that this is something the government approved of and encouraged.

In the movie, Children of Men, the government would peddle suicide kits called, Quietus to its citizens. Not so much out of “goodwill” but as a means to “thin the herd.” Nonetheless, it’s technically an act of kindness even if done for non-altruistic reasons.

Like there shouldn’t even be a question that people ought to have access to quick and easy “self-termination” should they get wise and finally take the plunge. Maybe it’s deemed “too grim” and “too unpleasant” still, but that doesn’t change the reality that some people (particularly non-billionaires without a spaceship) will want to make the choice to leave this planet in the only foolproof way possible when the great environmental reckoning comes. Granted, it’s already here.

As Quietus so matter-of-factly—yet also euphemistically—puts it, “It’s your life, it’s your choice.”

Sound familiar?

Kind of like My Body My choice- both said by those who believe a woman has a right to choose as does a person who wishes not to get a vaccine.

It is all about Body autonomy undefined whose body is it anyway- yours or do the technocrats own you.

Their quest is to see how far they can go with body autonomy and how far they can go to convince you that you have no right to be here undefined no right to food water or shelter. They will tell you what to own, how many babies you can have, and with reproductive laws they can pretty well speculate just what your child will be worth in the worker class.

The end goal? Population control and the creation of a new “human” species, based on genotype, those who do not measure up to the future criteria will be asked to voluntarily kill themselves.

My Body my choice -will become a killing joke in the future.

Up until now, we have largely focused the privacy debate in the physical realm as it relates to abortion rights, physical searches of our persons and property, and our communications. Yet humanity is being propelled at warp speed into a whole new frontier when it comes to privacy, bodily autonomy, and what it means to be a human being.

We haven’t even begun to understand how to talk about these new realms, let alone establish safeguards to protect against abuses.

Humanity itself hangs in the balance.

So-called “suicide capsules” are being developed in Switzerland — 3-D printed pods that allow people to choose the place where they want to die an assisted death.

Sarco Suicide Pods can be operated by the user from the inside.

Dr. Philip Nitschke, the developer of the pods and founder of Exit International, a pro-euthanasia group, told SwissInfo.ch the machines can be “towed anywhere for the death” and one of the most positive features of the capsules is that they can be transported to an “idyllic outdoor setting.”

Much like the Thanatoriums in Soylent Green.

Currently, assisted suicide in Switzerland means swallowing a capsule filled with a cocktail of controlled substances that puts the person into a deep coma before they die.

But Sarco pods — short for sarcophagus — allow a person to control their death inside the pod by quickly reducing internal oxygen levels. The person intending to end their life is required to answer a set of pre-recorded questions, then press a button that floods the interior with nitrogen. The oxygen level inside is quickly reduced from 21 per cent to one per cent.

After death, the pod can be used as a coffin.

You see Euthanasia eliminates the need for abortion undefined because it can be seen as a very late late term abortion. It can be seen as a threat to body autonomy. Take the required pills, get the required shot, say the appropriate words and you know longer are a burden for others.

They will eventually see this as dignity.

Remaining singularly human and retaining your individuality and dominion over yourself—mind, body and soul—in the face of corporate and government technologies that aim to invade, intrude, monitor, manipulate and control us may be one of the greatest challenges before us in the future.

Who gets to decide when it comes to bodily autonomy?

Where does one draw the line over whose rights are worthy of protecting? And how do present-day legal debates over bodily autonomy, privacy, vaccine mandates, the death penalty and abortion play into future discussions about singularity, artificial intelligence, cloning, and the privacy rights of the individual in the face of increasingly invasive, intrusive and unavoidable government technologies?

Caught up in the heated debate over the legality of abortion, we’ve failed to think about what’s coming next. Get ready, because it could get scary, ugly and overwhelming really fast.

Thus far, abortion politics have largely revolved around who has the right to decide—the government or the individual—when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy in one’s body, sexual freedom, and the rights of the unborn.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides for a “right to privacy” that assures a woman’s right to abort her pregnancy within the first two trimesters.

Since that landmark ruling, abortion has been so politicized, polarized and propagandized as to render it a sparking point -for the powder keg of culture war.

I would be hard pressed to report to anyone in this moment undefined that the new Roe V Wade decision is a trap undefined it is a Eugenics trap when it comes to body autonomy.

It always has been no matter what side you are on with this issue.

At a time when abortion is globally accessible (approximately 73 million abortions are carried out every year), legally expedient form of birth control (it is used to end more than 60% of unplanned pregnancies), and considered a societal norm (according to the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans continue to believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases), it’s debatable whether it will ever be truly possible to criminalize abortion altogether.

What I wish to do is to open your mind to another part of what this means.

Life is an inalienable right. By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights. The abortion debate—a tug-of-war over when an unborn child is considered a human being with rights—lays the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights: the disabled, the aged, the infirm and even the poor,

Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. In fact, the ever-generous Canadian state will even pay for their deaths. What it will not do is spend money to allow them to live instead of killing themselves.

As with most slippery slopes, it all began with a strongly worded denial that it exists. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed 22 years of its own jurisprudence by striking down the country’s ban on assisted suicide as unconstitutional, blithely dismissing fears that the ruling would ‘initiate a descent down a slippery slope into homicide’ against the vulnerable as founded on ‘anecdotal examples’. The next year, Parliament duly enacted legislation allowing euthanasia, but only for those who suffer from a terminal illness whose natural death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’.

Then 5 more years passed and the slope was certainly getting more slippery.

The Canadian parliament enacted Bill C-7, a sweeping euthanasia law which repealed the ‘reasonably foreseeable’ requirement – and the requirement that the condition should be ‘terminal’. Now, as long as someone is suffering from an illness or disability which ‘cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable’, they can take advantage of what is now known euphemistically as ‘medical assistance in dying’ (MAID for short) for free.

Soon enough, Canadians from across the country discovered that although they would otherwise prefer to live, they were too poor to improve their conditions to a degree which was acceptable.

Not coincidentally, Canada has some of the lowest social care spending of any industrialized country, palliative care is only accessible to a minority, and waiting times in the public healthcare sector can be unbearable, to the point where the same Supreme Court which legalized euthanasia declared those waiting times to be a violation of the right to life back in 2005.

Many in the healthcare sector came to the same conclusion.

Even before Bill C-7as enacted, reports of abuse were rife. A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000.

According to the Canadian government, the assisted suicide law is about ‘prioritizing the individual autonomy of Canadians’; one may wonder how much autonomy a disabled man lying in his own filth had in weighing death over life.

Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages. Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year – a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year.

Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’. And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance.

And yet Canada’s lavishly subsidized media, with some honorable exceptions, has expressed remarkably little curiosity about the open social murder of citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Perhaps, like many doctors, journalists are afraid of being accused of being ‘unprogressive’ for questioning the new culture of death, a fatal accusation in polite circles. Canada’s public broadcaster, which in 2020 reassured Canadians that there was ‘no link between poverty, choosing medically assisted death’, has had little to say about any of the subsequent developments.

Next year, the floodgates will open even further when those suffering from mental illness – another disproportionately poor group – become eligible for assisted suicide, although enthusiastic doctors and nurses have already pre-empted the law. There is already talk of allowing ‘mature minors’ access to euthanasia too – just think of the lifetime savings.

The arguments about Row V Wade and the leaking of a decision to end it undefined is certainly the stepping stone for more issues dealing with Eugenics and eliminating the babies that eventually become burdens on the system. However they will be much older undefined and in the same fashion as grooming kids to identify as a different gender they will be encouraged to end their lives if they see themselves as a burden on sustainable resources.

Again this is very much like the assisted suicide clinics in Soylent Green , or the voluntary suicide pills called Quietus is the movie undefinedChildren of Men,undefined

The acceptance of death of human life in babies born or unborn opens the door to the arbitrary taking of any human life. From then on, it’s purely arbitrary.”

Think of all of the ways we can do postpartum abortions. Of course they wonundefinedt call it that undefined it will be considered a noble and human choice undefined much like a martyrdom for the greater good of mankind.

Meanwhile the technocrats are regrouping and still plot the many ways to thin the herd. Not only does abortion takes life daily on a horrendous scale, nuclear war threatens life on a previously unimaginable scale.  Public executions are fast becoming weekly events in the most advanced technological society in history, and euthanasia is now openly discussed and even advocated.

Each of these assaults on life has its own meaning and morality. They cannot be collapsed into one problem, but they must be confronted as pieces of a larger pattern.

To suggest that the end justifies the means (for example, that abortion is justified in order to ensure a better quality of life for women and children) is to encourage a slippery slope mindset that could just as reasonably justify ending a life in order for the great good of preventing war, thwarting disease, defeating poverty, preserving national security,

Such arguments have been used in the past to justify such dubious propositions as subjecting segments of the population to secret scientific experiments, unleashing nuclear weapons on innocent civilians, and enslaving fellow humans.

The sad thing is when we come to the topic of abortion undefined everyone plays into the trap of doublethink -we tend to have a double standard because politics clouds the mind and we just donundefinedt even think of slippery slopes.

Think of all those who shouted the right to body autonomy when they were told they had to get a COVID-19 shot undefined many feared that this was also some ritualistic Kool aid drinking to eventually cull the population and we have roughly 5 years to find out.

People were shouting my body my choice. how empty are these words now.

Many of those who historically opposed the government usurping a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and privacy have no qualms about supporting vaccine mandates that trample upon those very same rights. Similarly, those who historically looked to the government to police what a woman does with her body believe the government should have no authority to dictate whether or not one opts to get vaccinated.

The government has made us all trained seals undefined who go in and out of double think when it is necessary -and they know that they can count on you to make the ultimate sacrifice undefined if wind up poor or too sick to be useful.

After all you took the shot without questioning what it might do to you in the long term.

I see a time where your political affiliation will be that of either and isolationist or a desolationist. You either support life or you wish to see it go but of course desolationists are very selective- they will only eliminate those that donundefinedt necessarily agree with them.

I think that these people already exist undefined but they are called Conservatives and liberals.

Desolationists are content to fight over God, guns and gays, arenas where they can shoot right wing tin foil hatters in a barrel while ignoring bi-partisan systemic evil.

Desolationists have no class consciousness and no international solidarity, especially with people of color.

In the end, they seldom get what they want. Hence, their state of complete emptiness and/or destruction. Desolationists believe that countries at war are an opprotunity tp virtue signal by waving the colors of another country as they are slaughtered.

And even then it is  not nearly as important as being pro-choice or supporting gun control or marriage equality or critical race theory or some other cause that they can hashtag on twitter.

If you tell a desolationist- that their instant causes are distractions they will try and silence you -or say that you are pushing disinformation.

They canundefinedt handle anything that challenges their thinking or thrust them into thinking about the big picture undefined and how things like body autonomy laws are purely pretext to eugenics directives aimed at population control undefined for the greener and sustainable world.

Desolationists love identity politics, they believe symbols are victories.

But they just donundefinedt get that they are being led to their horrible ends.

They donundefinedt know the equality also means that we are all equal when we voluntarily die for some cause that they have supported.

If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection. There’s an idea embraced by both the Right and the Left according to their biases that there is a hierarchy to life, with some lives worthier of protection than others. Out of that mindset is born the seeds of eugenics, genocide, slavery, and war.


After finishing college for application programming Rob Davenport abandoned civilization for a life of remote undefinedoff the gridundefined living in the Northwest Territories of Canada.  In his 20 years above the arctic circle, Rob has spent much of his time researching political and technological conspiracies which lead him to build the fastest growing alternative video network known as undefinedThe Conspiracy Channelundefined. He is the developer of Ground Zeroundefineds digital playground, Aftermath Media.