Direct Link to Latest News


Is Assisted Suicide Part of NWO Agenda?

June 4, 2016


 "The State has given life and the State has taken it away ... blessed be the  State!"

The legalization of 'medical assistance in dying' 
is 'New World Order' policy. As is typical, Canada 
is on of the vanguard of the coming dystopia.

(Disclaimer: I favor medically assisted suicide but Oliver raises valid concerns.) 

"I suppose it can't be that difficult to euthanize a population, if you have already lobotomized them. "

by Oliver Heydorn

As I write this, Canada is on the verge of legalizing both euthanasia and assisted suicide under the euphemism of "medical assistance in dying". 

The Supreme Court struck down the ban on assisted suicide last year as "unconstitutional" in yet another example of judicial activism and interference forcing Parliament to draft a new law. In principle, Parliament could invoke the 'notwithstanding clause', but, with someone of the low intellectual and moral calibre of Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, there is no prospect of being rescued by the executive branch.

While I think the typical arguments raised by the pro-euthanasia crowd are easy to dismiss, this development that should be of great concern.
The legalization of 'medical assistance in dying' is 'New World Order' policy. As is typical, Canada is on of the vanguard of the coming dystopia.

While advanced in the name of such 'feel-good' concepts as 'freedom', 'privacy', 'compassion', or other words that might cause the unthinking to salivate, legalized euthanasia is an egregious breach with the tradition of civilization and, like all such violations, is never as innocent as it is made out to be. Long-term political agendas are being served, namely the further centralization of power in the hands of a national and international oligarchy.

According to the proposed law, voluntary euthanasia will be made legal for competent patients who 1) 'clearly consent to the termination of life' and 2) 'have a grievous and irremediable medical condition that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition'. 

The language is so vague and the "safeguards" so low that it would be easy for doctors to kill people and then to claim afterwards that they consented to it, amongst other possible abuses. Alex Schadenberg has some good informatiom on this.

Incidentally, as I understand it, the "deadline" - no pun intend - that the Supreme Court has set for legalization (with or without a law) is this Monday, the sixth day, of the sixth month, of a year ending in six ... surely this is not an accident.


The state has now arrogated to itself the right to divide the population into two categories: those who are 'killable' and those who are not 'killable' (because they are deemed 'worthy of life'), and it has also assumed the right to determine whether or not its criteria are met in any particular case. The State, or, more precisely, the representatives of the State (i.e., legal officials, doctors, etc.), will now become the arbiters of life and death.

 Since innocent post-partum human life will no longer be something of unconditional value in the eyes of the law, as something sacrosanct that is beyond the jurisdiction of the law, the parameters of "who ought to live" and "who ought to die" can, of course be changed as circumstances or political agendas change. 

Before, not even the State could legally sanction or effect the death of an innocent human person after birth. Now, the State has the power not only to do both, but to change at will the conditions under which people might be killed or otherwise 'suicided'. 

In brief, legalized euthanasia sets a terrible precedent. What we are looking at here is nothing less than creeping (and creepy) Totalitarianism: "First they came for the so-called incurables, and I was not an incurable, so I did not speak out ..." 

In the meantime, the bulk of the Canadian public sleep on, like the anaesthetized automatons that our oligarchic elites think they are. I suppose it can't be that difficult to euthanize a population, if you have already lobotomized them. 

Be that as it may, I do find it incredible that people, when not indifferent to these types of ethical and legal questions, can be so easily brainwashed into acting as cheerleaders for NWO policies whose sole purpose is to disenfranchise them. They cheerfully consent to what can only be described as a metaphysical rape provided that it is sold to them in the name of "progress", "dignity", "freedom", and "equality", etc. 

Perhaps they deserve what is coming to them after all.

M. Oliver Heydorn, left, graduated summa cum laude with a Ph.D. in philosophy from the International Academy of Philosophy at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. The IAP is dedicated to the study and promotion of realist phenomenology and other closely related schools of continental thought. For ten years, Dr. Heydorn taught philosophy to undergraduates at three different institutions in three different countries. His articles have appeared in both scholarly and more popular media. He is the author of Social Credit Economics, The Economics of Social Credit and Catholic Social Teaching, and, more recently, Social Credit Philosophy.


Oliver adds: Another aspect of this issue: as our rulers increase the pressure on people and artificially build up the tension in their lives - I swear that life was much simpler in 1986! - through constant economic stresses, social engineering (trans and homosexual ideology being shoved down people's throats, alongside feminism, multiculturalism, etc.), GMO's, Chemtrails, vaccines, etc., Al-Qaeda 'terrorism' and now that of ISIS, etc., etc., legalizing things like euthanasia and assisted suicide also provides a release valve while serving another objective: depopulation. 

The message? "Yes the world is going to hell in a hand basket, but at least now you will be able to get the doctors to out your light!" Once introduced and progressively widened, it's conceivable that such practices will eventually become culturally normalized or even expected. The Illuminati will be quite happy to see more and more people out their lights, with or without medical help. It saves them the trouble. It's the same modus operandi: get the people to do it to themselves and make them think it was their idea.

Don't ge me wrong, I have great compassion for people who are suffering from some terrible terminal illness or condition. At the same time, I am convinced that there are many effective alternative treatments that are being suppressed or ignored by the conventional medical community. Ty Bollinger did a great job just recently with his series of documentaries dealing with effective cancer cures: Also, a palliative care doctor that spoke to a group of us last week told us that with effective palliative care virtually all dying people can have their pain kept in check if not completely eliminated and that the small number (less than 5%) who might not derive the expected benefit from pain killers can be sedated if necessary. A lot of the time it is access to that palliative care that is lacking.

First Comment from Dan: "If anyone tells you State termination of life is going to remain voluntary, tell them they're an idiot. "More people are killing themselves in the US, Canada and UK than ever.  Last month the CNN ran this headline; U.S. suicide rates on the rise - Do you think those people needed an appointment with a doctor to be "granted a mercy death"?  

Listen folks.  We're not cats and dogs.  When a human being is really ready to end their life, they do the act themselves.   The exception is people who are already flat on their back, being kept alive by doctors to begin with.   That's how they get "State assisted suicide" accepted.  But in every State that's made it legal within the last ten years, they've already moved to "allowing" perfectly healthy people who want to die. 

BELGIUM let's doctors kill healthy people for "unbearable psychological suffering."   One such case was the 'trans man' (woman who wanted to be a man) who became depressed after "sex reassignment" surgery.   Euthanasia for emotional pain: Mercy or a "culture of death"?

This origin of the idea goes back a hundred years.  The Euthanasia 'movement' was a dream of the Fabian Society think tank, funded in the United States at Rockefeller-Carnegie funded research facility at Cold Harbor, New York.  State sterilization of certain people was legalized in several states exactly the same way as Gay 'Marriage' was a few years ago.   The German branch of the Eugenics movement took on the job of R&D of State "mercy death" for those "unworthy of life" during the late 1930's.  Hitler had to cancel the T-4 Euthanasia program on August 18, 1941, due to public outcry by German Catholics, but secretly the operation was carried on in Poland. 

First Comment from B

I worked for over 35 years in major Detroit area hospital Intensive care units.   This is absolutely nothing new but only the legalization of what we have been already doing.  White coat murder has gone public and has become fashionable.

Early termination of life comes under many labels including but not limited to:

1) Deceiving loved ones to sign a DNR directive by telling them how traumatic and cruel a CPR is "I wouldn't want put my Mother through this........they will break bones............She will have pain"  this may happen even when the patient is of sound mind.

I ask: is pain is the worst thing that can happen to a person?????? What about Hell??!!!

2)  Getting (bullying, manipulation, coercion, browbeating and guilting...................................) the family to donate organs which most assuredly will alter the definition of death to make sure the organs are viable.

3)  Palliative care.

4)  Hospice.

5)  The staff overrides the family's wishes by quietly doing what they call:  "slow codes" or "walking codes"

6)   A  complete redefinition of life and death to justify abortion, euthanasia, and premature organ harvesting (yes this absolutely happens).

Henry this has been going on for years and years and I have been retired for almost 20 years so God knows what they are doing now.
Who is the ultimate killer?  The synonym for "The thief" is Satan.

John 10:10 "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." 

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Is Assisted Suicide Part of NWO Agenda? "

VR said (June 5, 2016):

I am in favor of assisted suicide, in fact that is what I want when I have had enough -
but I will not necessarily need the 'assisted' part if they just allow me to get the drugs
without arguing with me - I consider it my decision and no-one else's business !!!!
I get the "Exit International" newsletter so I keep up with what works, and it seems that the most simple way is either nitrogen tenting or the animal euthanasia drug.

There are many people out there involved in this, so I am hopeful common sense will prevail and it may be a simple thing when I get to that point in time, maybe in 10 years
as I am now 76 !

I just wanted to express the seriousness of this conversation & how just thinking about lying around in a bed in discomfort for months on end, makes me ready to get off the planet NOW !

Life is sweet, but we have to go and I would rather go when I choose, than let some other
human make the decision to keep me 'alive' for no practical reason.

I bet you get a lot of emails to that effect !

Elaine said (June 5, 2016):

Of course it is. Anything that has anything to do with darkness and death is on their agenda. So many people are as ignorant as a barrel of bricks, they won't see anything wrong with it. There's plenty wrong with it, but I don't expect the average Canadian to know enough to figure it out. If it makes Canadians feel any better, Americans are in the same boat heading in the same direction and won't know anymore than the average Canadian. I know the powers that be are already doing such things in the U.S.

LM said (June 5, 2016):

This is just a diversion away from a real killer of people by our supposed medical saints. I am talking about iarogenic deaths. Deaths of patients by "mistakes" of doctors and nurses.

We are talking hundreds of thousands of people a year. We are talking millions of people significantly injured a year.

The last place I want to be, given the staggering amount of mistakes, honest, careless or deliberate, is a hospital.

Chet said (June 4, 2016):

I think the Assisted Suicide laws are a very bad idea b/c, at least in the States, they involve the medical profession, thus subverting their mission of saving lives. To trust the NWO State with decisions expediting deaths is naive beyond belief. Because as all readers of this column should know by now is that They Want You Dead.

I had the good fortune to meet Dr. Paul Byrne a few years ago. He is a very respected retired pediatrician who patented a life-saving device for infants. He is carrying a lonely battle to say that the "brain death" term is indispensable to the organ donor industry. Once a person is truly dead, his vital organs (as opposed to corneas) are worthless. In fact, these organs are harvested from still living persons. Too much to explain in this venue, but please check out his website:

Also, it saves hospitals from lots of expensive treatment that would no longer be deemed necessary.
Most people who want these laws do so out of fear of suffering "needlessly." Inform your relatives you do not want to be a donor and not to consent on your behalf out of misplaced compassion.

James C said (June 4, 2016):

Assisted suicide is a Talmudic principle being sanctioned by the state.

As Elizabeth Dilling documented in her book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today ([Torrance, CA: The Noontide Press, 1983], p. 25):

Is Assisted Suicide Part of NWO Agenda?
Elaborate pains were taken, rather recently, by Rabbis to deny that "mercy" killings are
permitted in Judaism — because they are. The public discussion was on whether or not a
hopelessly sick person should be put out of his misery. The Rabbis denied that would be proper,
necessarily knowing that the Talmud states otherwise. The Talmud, Sanhedrin 77b-78a, contains
these rabbinical edicts:

"Both agree that if he killed a Terefah [explained in a footnote as 'a person suffering from
some fatal organic disease, recovery from which is impossible'] — he is exempt." And: "If one
kills a Terefah, he is exempt; whilst if a Terefah committed murder: if in the presence of a Beth
Din [i.e. a Talmudic law court] he is liable; otherwise he is exempt."

Tony B said (June 4, 2016):

Henry, it may be coincidence; then too . . .

I have just been reading (Catholic) writings concerning horrible suffering of some people. It was pointed out that many saints became saints through just such suffering. It often makes one realize that God is important, nothing else. The gist of the writings is that people who have no sort of suffering in their lives are much more prone to pride, self love and lack of attention to the demands of God than those who have any sort of physical impediment. In other words, suffering, no matter how terrible, can be the best thing that ever happened to some people as it may be the difference for them of an eternity in heaven or in hell. How does premature death contribute anything to that? It does the opposite, giving the devil more souls which could have been saved from him.

Of course, you have to believe in heaven and hell to see the advantage here. Still, it really doesn't take much mental application if one truly wants to know.

AH said (June 4, 2016):

Hi Henry - I was living in the Northern Territory, Australia, when this became an issue. Former chief minister, Marshall Peron, tried to legalize it back then, due to the fact that he had watched his elderly mother die of a terminal disease. There is no doubt that this affected him, as it would any decent human being.

Arguments offered against euthanasia came thick and fast - some from the religious community, based on their various doctrines or social policies. One of the best arguments put forward at the time came from Europe, where Holland had legalized euthanasia of the ageing and terminally ill some time before.

Some 27,000 people had died under their new law, and most of them were found to have been terminated with a doctor and family members signing their lives away on court documents - many of them, so that "family" could get their hands on the family inheritance. There were no real safeguards in place and palliative care didn't even rate a mention.

For me, it's like the death penalty imposed in various countries for heinous crimes. At first it looks good, sounds like a deterrent, but then along comes a bevy of corrupt officials and politicians who use it as a mechanism for payback and getting rid of rivals through apparently legitimate means.

In short, it's too risky at the best of times, to allow medicos and greedy family members to play God with people's lives...

Al Thompson said (June 4, 2016):

The main problem with assisted suicide is that any way I look at it, the act is murder which is forbidden by the commandments. The idea of man playing God in life and death decisions is evil and it is of the devil.

I think the NWO freaks like to focus on death rather than help people live happy lives. Assisted suicide or euthanasia crosses the line and violates God's commandments. That's really the only way to make a decision. Euthanasia is murder. It opens the door to even more evil and puts the state in the power of God. Assisted suicide is not a good idea.

Dan A said (June 4, 2016):

I believe in physician assisted suicide. I believe that medical technology in various forms keeps people alive who really should be dead. So people should have the right to end their suffering based on their personal choice. In other words, if someone wants to die I think they should have the right to die assisted by health care providers in some way. People commit suicide primarily to end their pain, physically or intrinsically. So if someone wants to end their life I believe the medical community should assist them in some way.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at