Originally published via Creed Speech Substack.
The depopulation agenda is so overt once you become attuned to every sinister malevolent governmental act always posing as a ‘greater good’ – doctors and nurses stealthily coming for the mentally, physiologically, and emotionally vulnerable – like smiling assassins offering medically assisted dying.
The core tenet of the depopulation agenda has always been to make people want their own demise. Convince people that our earthly resources are finite and that overpopulation is an existential threat to humanity. Once this seedling takes route in the brain stem of a free-willed human being who is indifferent to evil – they knowingly or unknowingly choose evil. Not only do they then want their own demise, but they see humanity as a cancer on the planet. They drink the ecocide kool-aid. They actively seek instruction from their sociopathic government misleadership to direct their rage at whomever is categorised as a ‘useless eater’.
Matthew Parris is a columnist for The Spectator and The Times. Writing in 2015 and recently republished in the Spectator, Parris invokes the argument that assisted dying has always been around, even if it has been seen as taboo:
Assisted dying is not a novel desire, not a strange new way of thinking. As a moral impulse, the idea that one might hasten one’s end because one gained no pleasure from living and one had become a burden on friends, family and the state has been with us since the dawn of man. You will find it in literature right down the ages. In your own lifetime you will have heard it expressed by others of your acquaintance. The impulse, though, has usually been discouraged — resisted as an unworthy attitude to life — and this cultural disapproval is reflected in law.
Parris goes on to cite the cost of medical provision “eating into Britain’s economic competitiveness against less socially generous nations.” The overall tone of the article is careful not to outright advocate for euthanasia “assisted dying” programs:
I do not therefore need to campaign for assisted dying. I do not need (and wouldn’t want) to persuade anybody that the time has come for them to end their lives. I don’t need to shout from the rooftops that suicide can be a fine and noble thing, or rail against the ever growing cost of medical care in the final, prolonged phase of people’s lives. My opinions and my voice are incidental. This is a social impulse which will grow, nourished by forces larger than all of us. I don’t exhort. I predict.
The author also cites that ending legally prohibited assisted dying would be a social signal.
His article acts as a social signal.
Parris’ stance wears a mask of self believed intellectualism, hiding the face of eugenics. Just as Hollyweird and Wokeflix predictively programs us with shocking storylines so that our brains are wired to receive them actualised in the real world, so it is also done via writing and publication. Therefore, to ‘predict’ can also be to ‘curate’ reality itself.
Fast forward to a (paywalled) Times article from Parris published on 29th March 2024, and the tone is much more overt and confident in advocating for euthanasia.
No longer content with predicting, Parris is more confidently opinionated in 2024, musing on assisted dying programs leading to pressure on the terminally ill to kill themselves:
“I believe this will indeed come to pass. And I would welcome it…How much is all this costing relatives and the health service?”
The shiny veneer of euthanasia advocates feigning compassion for would-be eligible ‘patients’, has now been given a tough love switcheroo for cold, hard, economic costs.
Humans are no longer to be thought of as sentient beings with feelings, souls, dreams, and families. Now we are asked to consider one another as units of profit and loss to the economic net positive or detriment of our nation state. If we get sick or too old, we are told that this is burdensome on society, and *nudge-nudge-wink-wink* we should just do everyone a favour and off ourselves. Medically assisted, of course. Completely legally, absolutely. Well then, that makes it absolutely fine and righteous, doesn’t it? [sarcasm]. If you are a death cultist, I imagine it really does.
It gets worse and more sinister still.
A flurry of euthanasia stories have been making the rounds in 2024 to date, with an alarmingly young demographic. This is indeed sending a strong social signal, which could promote ‘medically assisted’ suicide into becoming a popular ‘treatment’ option for depression.
The case below reported in March 2024 details the court ruling, whereby details of how a 27 year old woman has met the criteria for MAID have not been disclosed. Her father is understandably distressed and is trying to have the judgement overturned.
A Calgary judge has issued a ruling that clears the way for a 27-year-old woman to receive medical assistance in dying (MAID) despite her father’s attempts through the courts to prevent that from happening.
The judge also issued a 30-day stay of his decision so that W.V. can take the case to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which means the interim injunction will remain in place for the next month.
But W.V. believes his daughter “is vulnerable and is not competent to make the decision to take her own life,” according to Feasby’s summary of the father’s position.
“He says that she is generally healthy and believes that her physical symptoms, to the extent that she has any, result from undiagnosed psychological conditions.”
Her only known diagnoses described in court earlier this month are autism and ADHD.
This is a heartbreaking story that feels wholly immoral with state intervention preying upon a mentally vulnerable young person. Imagine being in the father’s position, having his daughter’s lawyer refer to his own flesh and blood as the ‘client’ in such a heartless manner:
Lawyer Austin Paladeau said the case boils down to his client’s right to medical autonomy and argued W.V.’s love for his daughter “does not give him the right to keep her alive against her wishes.”
This is terribly, terribly wrong. Society has fallen to lower depths of depravity. In a healthy, functioning society, all of the lawyers and judges would be criticising the mere existence of MAID, and promoting a dialogue between father and daughter to explore therapy and other treatment options, actively dissuading the girl from choosing death.
Instead, the system is hellbent on ‘approving MAID’ and obsessed with the victimhood status of this poor confused girl, playing the medical autonomy card in the most ruthless way imaginable.
For the history books, we know that Canada’s government paid no due to medical autonomy when it came to the C19 EUA countermeasure injection. Yet, when a young person is requesting to die, the government champions medical autonomy.
It is sick and twisted.
Let’s briefly peruse the 17 page document released by the Canadian government.
The presence or a history of illness that may adversely affect capacity or a previous finding of incapacity to consent to a treatment or intervention including incapacity to receive MAID, does not automatically mean a person is currently incapable of consenting to MAID. Similarly, a past history of suicidality does not mean that a person is necessarily incapable of consenting to MAID. Capacity needs to be assessed in the context of the current request.
Wow. Ergo, a past suicidal history scores more points on the suitability and approval index. If you approached a MAID nurse practitioner, their guidelines are to validate your history of suicidality as qualifying as capable consent criteria for MAID.
A person who requests MAID may believe that they have a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability. However, it is the assessor and provider who must be of the opinion that the person has a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability. ‘Incurable’ means there are no reasonable treatments remaining, where reasonable is determined through a process of the clinician and patient together exploring the recognized, available, and potentially effective treatments in light of the person’s overall state of health, beliefs, values, and goals of care.
The state absolves its hands by just setting up the legal framework and allowing the “assessor and provider” to decide. The state enables but avoids direct responsibility. Just like with the C19 EUA countermeasure injection campaign.
6. How do I assess whether a person’s request for MAID is a form of suicidal ideation?
It is important to remember that suicidality (thoughts or wishes to be dead, plans, notes) can arise at any time during the life span, including at the end of life. Completed suicide is not exclusive to persons with mental disorders, but as a group, persons with mental disorders are at higher risk of completed suicide as are certain other demographic groups such as Indigenous persons and military veterans. It is also important to remember that not all individuals with mental disorders experience suicidality, including those for whom suicidality is a potential symptom of the condition (a person can have such a condition without having that symptom).
At an individual level, anyone with suicidal ideation may require active suicide prevention efforts whether or not they belong to a high risk group. Similarly, a MAID request by a person who belongs to a high risk group should not be assumed to be evidence of suicidality.
There is debate about whether to consider a request for MAID as a form suicidal ideation.
This is the most nonsensical part of the document, in a ritualistic humiliation sense. The first paragraph feigns concern for the individual that they might have “suicidal ideation”. I.e. A preoccupation with suicidal thoughts. The guidelines suggest suicide prevention. Then the wording immediately contradicts the previous advice, by throwing out the “high risk group” phraseology. In which case, no problem?
Attempts to distinguish between suicidality and euthanasia are made in vain in such documents. The words may differ in meaning, but the end result is the same.
‘Euthanasia’ is just a way to try and make it sound more humane and palatable. The etymology of the word:
In 2022, Canadian fashion retailer Maison Simons launched this creepy video promoting euthanasia:
Top voted comment on the YouTube link:
Weird how this is the only commercial I’ve seen that’s diversity-free.
Video Transcript:
Last breaths are sacred. When I imagine my final days I see bubbles. I see the ocean. I see music. Even now as I seek help to end my life there is still so much beauty, you just have to be brave enough to see it.
One scene by the beach looks like the cult suicide cliff jump scene from Swedish horror film Midsommar:
I do not see beauty or bubbles. If there is still so much beauty to see in life, then why not live it?! I see only a government / corporate sponsored death cult, preying upon the vulnerable, the young, and the impressionable. Ripping children away from their frantic, despairing parents. Promoting Statism in the most perverse and shameful way possible.
In April 2024, a Dutch lady has decided to be euthanised due to depression, autism and borderline personality disorder.
She said she decided to be euthanized after her doctors told her, “There’s nothing more we can do for you. It’s never gonna get any better,” according to the Free Press.
It is tragic that this lady feels this way, so hopeless and convinced by ‘experts’ that this is the only way out. Everyone around her has utterly failed her.
Also notice the pattern, in that both this story and the Canada story details the women in question having autism. It reeks of eugenics, in terms of the targeting by the state – crafting the ‘criteria’ to be met so easily for people with mental disorders (beyond depression).
All of this is taking us down a dark road.
Young people are feeling hopeless and instead of being offered love and support, they are encouraged by the state apparatus to die – medically assisted.
The terminally ill and the elderly being chastised in legacy media as being a financial burden, and to instead “hasten their deaths”.
I haven’t even touched on the articles connecting climate change to suicide.
Will the sick and the elderly soon be fighting for the right to live, in a society that is embracing eugenics slowly, then all at once?
Will it get even more insidious, with people proclaiming before their assisted deaths, that they are “doing it for the greater good, so that others can have a better life”. Just like the c19 injection hysteria but with a darker twist. Will people proclaim themselves to be making the ultimate sacrifice to reduce their carbon footprint and their economic burden on society?
**EDIT**
I have touched on the weaponisation of euthanasia as I see the writing on the wall. Dr. Vernon Coleman has since released a video elaborating on this subject in great detail, with terrifying precision:
They want to KILL you (here’s how they they’ll do it) – Dr. Vernon Coleman:
If you prefer to read the transcript of the video, it can be found here.
As I’ve said before here on other issues in this inverted world of everything – whenever we stay silent in the face of evil, we normalise it and we facilitate it.
Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok-based writer. Follow Creed Speech on Substack. All content is free for all readers, with nothing locked in archive that requires a paid subscription. Any support is greatly appreciated.
39CbWqWXYzqXshzNbosbtBDf1YoJfhsr45
Monero address:
86nUmkrzChrCS4v5j6g3dtWy6RZAAazfCPsC8QLt7cEndNhMpouzabBXFvhTVFH3u3UsA1yTCkDvw
