The Highwire with Del Bigtree - IS EUGENICS MAKING A COMEBACK?

Episode Date: October 18, 2024

From loss of life for the greater good to sterilizations to medically assisted suicide, world government’s role in population control has become a matter of humanity. Is eugenics no longer being hidden in western culture? Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

You have the statement from President Biden. This was last year. And he said, climate change is, it poses a greater threat than nuclear war. Well, clearly the moment we find ourselves in, I think he obviously believes that that's true because it looks to me like we're a lot closer to nuclear war than being ended by climate change at the moment. Exactly, exactly. And so when the public sees this from a leader and it's echoed through major media, this emergency state, this heightened emergency state with maximum fear and the censoring of dissenting opinions,

this gets really dangerous. So he says it's more dangerous than war. Let's talk about wars. Let's talk about one of the last major wars the U.S. was involved in. That was Iraq. And that was Saddam Hussein. We overthrew Saddam Hussein because allegedly he had something to do with 9-11 and it turned out he really didn't.

But let's look at Madeline Albright at that time, who was on the media. She was on 60 minutes. And listen to what she had to say. Secretary of State, by the way. Take a look. All right. Madeline Albright, the United States representative at the UN, says the U.S. is trying to prevent Saddam Hussein

from making and dropping a nuclear bomb or chemical weapons on other countries. And she says he's still lying about his weapons programs. We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. It is a moral question, but the moral question is even a larger one. Don't we owe to the American people and to the American military and to the other countries in the region that this may not be a threat?

I don't know where you're going with this, but I forgot. 500,000 children, Madeline Albright does not blink. She does not say that's an inaccurate number. She says, we do think that this is worth the price. Yeah. And simply what I'm saying is what gets lost in the mix in this frenzy is humanity, morality. Yeah. Who is she?

I wasn't in on that conversation. How is she deciding that for the American people? And so let's bring this down to something our audience has a big interest in, which is health. And just recently, we have Michael Conradon. He was the attorney that has now won against the EPA. Yeah, water fluoridation. This is working with Aaron Serian Glimstad now, so he's on our team. Absolutely.

So psyched about that. One of the biggest public health victories when it comes to something outside of vaccination that we've really seen in our lifetime. And so during that time, he deposed a woman named Dr. Lewis, pediatrician, also part of the American and Pediatrics oral health division at the time she was being deposed. Listen to what she had to say and see if you can follow this line from Madeline Albright to this deposition. Take a listen. At this point in time, you are not. prepared to say that you would withdraw your support of water fluoridation, even if the evidence convinced you that it's reducing the IQ by five points in 5 to 10% of the population.

Objection, form, and scope. You still would support water fluoridation at that time. Same objections. Well, again, because that's not the scope of what I was asked to look at. it's difficult for me to answer the question, but there are circumstances where I can imagine that that would be an appropriate trade-off. Okay, well, you're saying there are circumstances where I can't imagine. I'm asking you, based on those facts I've given you, would you or would you not withdraw

your support for water fluoridation? Same objections. I would not withdraw my support of community water fluoridation. Okay. That's an amazing moment. I mean, by the way, just let's take, let's take and breathe in what we just said. I have shown you the evidence. It is now clear, which is what we know he just won the case on,

that the fluoridation in water is affecting 5 to 10% of our kids and reducing their IQ levels by at least 5%. Are you saying that's a tradeoff so that we have stronger teeth? I mean, you didn't make that part, but stronger teeth. She's like, absolutely, I believe that that is. Which proves. Like, clearly, we would wrap. rather be stupid in America than ugly. Yeah, we don't want to go back.

No more wooden teeth. We're not going back to wood teeth. No, we're not going back. That's out. I mean, it's just unbelievable. You're right, though. Like, in your mind, if you're raised and believe there's a crisis of cavities, and then this is the solution, then you'll just, and this is the problem with people.

We're just, like, whatever we're focused on, I don't care. Don't tell me about what's happening over here. One of the greatest public health accomplishments in modern day, Florida, Asian. We can't ever go against that. what we see, no matter what evidence tells us. And this is what happens when this emergency thing gets stamped into people and they're in positions of power. Yeah. You see this happening. And so this, where we're going on this, we're going down this ride right now. I'm taking people down this ride right now. So what are we talking about? We're getting flavors of the old

eugenics. You're getting people talking about the human life really isn't that important when it comes to these bigger social issues. Right. And, you know, we've talked about you and I talked about Francis Gault and the father of eugenics, Thomas Malthus, and where it really is. And we're really was born and a lot of people think well that was so long ago this isn't happening but in 2009 there's a headline that came out this mainstream media and I think a lot of people may have missed it and it was talking about a billionaires club and it says billionaires a billionaire club in bid to curb over population now it says in the article it was a secret secretive meeting and it goes on to say who's in this club yeah it was described as the good club they possibly can't do anything wrong by one insider

it included David Rockefeller Jr., the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett, and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner, and Oprah Winfrey. One of the guests said there was, quote, nothing as crude as a vote, but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy, don't say what strategy, in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social, and industrial threat. Now, right after that, that same year, you saw the media spin machine go into play. You saw op-eds being written with that flavor of ideology, and here we are again. So in 2009, we have The Guardian writes this article, an uncomfortable truth, it says, as the planet's resources dwindle, a debate on population control is needed more than ever.

And this is what it says. Some disability groups strongly object to any discussion about population limits, fearing that it disguises an insidious prejudice against those with disabilities. Indeed, any consideration of what are called life-bought ethics, who would have to be thrown overboard first, uncomfortably reminds us that in extremely hard situations, some become superfluous. It's horribly uncomfortable to ask, it says, even to think how many seriously disabled are very old people with expensive support needs any society can carry. But any one of us can become frail, disabled, unproductive, and in need of more than we can contribute. Having too many of us in this position becomes a socioeconomic problem. To think in this vein is not disableism or ageism, but necessary worst-case planning.

Wow. So. And I mean, where did Hitler start, right? Right. In the infirm, you started with the handicapped, the crippled, you know. Exactly. And I'm bringing this up because in this environment, when the media, when there is an immediate present danger of a disaster in our south, in North Carolina, The media decides to talk about human-made global warming and what people are doing to the

planet and you get these conversations that are backed by the media, this becomes very dangerous. And now, I want to move into this conversation. We've been talking about how much it costs to keep people alive when they're at the end of life. But what about the conversation about how much money we would save if we ended people's lives? And what I'm talking about there is a medically assisted suicide. And this is a phenomenon that really became supercharged in the Netherlands and Belgium in the early 2000s. Not too much fanfare.

It really didn't become that popular. But it really became mainstreamed when Canada did it. And Canada did something, a couple things really different. And they had what was called Maid. That was the acronym. And we can look at the bill here. And I want to break this down. It's medical assistance in dying.

What they did was they enshrined that in their charter of rights, which is kind of like their version of what we know as a constitution here. And they had two tracks. track, which a lot of people could understand, the compassionate of us could say, well, the first track is if you're in a position where a doctor have given you a prognosis, you're going to be dying of a terminal illness in six months, this is something you can sign up for. But they added a second track, and this is where it becomes problematic. And I'll even read from this.

The second track says the request can be made to made by a person whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. That opens the door to a lot of things, Dell. So we're talking about conditions that are just uncomfortable. We're talking about disabilities. I mean, the sky's the limit here.

And as soon as this was passed, you saw headlines talking about the bureaucratic aspect of it, the costs. And this is one of them right here. Medically assisted deaths could save millions in health care spending, report. And think about that.

Doctors put persuasive pressure on their patients all. the time for vaccinations, for medications. But what about for utility? What about for a greater social good? I mean, are we seeing this? It doesn't take long before we started seeing this. Here's some of the headlines that have come out of Canada recently. Paralympian claims Canada offered to euthanize her when she asked for a stair lift. Another one, Ontario mother paralyzed after COVID boosters refuses two offers of maid. And now we have just last week in the Toronto Sun, We have disability groups have now banded together and pushed a legal challenge to remove this from the Charter of Rights.

Toronto's son, compassion or a death sentence is the op-ed. There's a coalition of groups representing people with disabilities, and it says this. A law, quote, a law that allows people with disabilities to access state-funded death and circumstances where they cannot access state-funded support they need to make their suffering. Tolerable is grossly disproportionate. The group claimed in its filings against the federal government and the Ontario Supreme. court. So this is the slippery slope and it's sliding. This is the moral. I mean, when you think of this concept in a socialized medical system, right? I mean, we've heard of the death panels, which, you know, you have to be honest, if everybody's money is in something, at some point you say,

can we afford, how many people can be on a medication that costs, you know, $100,000 a year or whatever? They make those decisions. How old are they? Does this make sense? Because sending an elderly person to surgery for cancer when they're 88 years old. I mean, these are the decisions that, you know, a socialized system makes. If you're loaded, it doesn't matter. You've got your, you know, you go and get what you want. But when we're all put in the same system, what happens if this ends up being the case? Well, what is the value of this? We saw this during COVID. This do not resuscitate orders that has been spoken about, you know, all over. So many interviews that we've done of elderly, of minorities. Nicole Syrotech, the nurse, that was saying, I'm in hospitals,

mostly black people and they're just pointing do not resuscitate on them and you know we just and we're venting them, just apparently killing them. Yeah. You know, and not reviving them and you have to ask yourself, when you watch, you know, Cuomo in New York, you make sick people go into old folks homes and you and I've talked about this in private. I mean, this did seem to wipe out, you know, worldwide the pension Social Security class. Like the group of all these countries and states that are going bankrupt,

because they basically stole from the pensions and social security funds of people. They're not going to be able to pay for them. Suddenly, all of a sudden, a disease comes that if we put it, do not resuscitate, all these people will stick them on oxygen, stigma on remdesivir, they die. I don't know. I mean, it's a big conspiracy theory, but it is weird, right? It's something we should at least be allowed to investigate. Absolutely, yeah.

And you want to talk about the disability class that this medically assisted suicide has been used for people with autism, just for the simple fact that they have autism. And the do not resuscitate orders for kids with Down syndrome during COVID. And in fact, there is a woman, Charlotte Fine. She was at the UN's Council on Human Rights, and she gave this testimony just a handful of years ago. Take a listen. The future of Down syndrome is in grave danger.

The government's health and health ministers are keen to get rid of us. Some countries like the Netherlands have put a price tag on our heads. They think the world will be better about people like me. We have made so much progress in the past 60 years. We have gone from being left in hospitals after birth to being raised at home by families who love us. We have gone from being shut into special schools to be able to be raised at home by families who love us. to being in major education. Some of us are even going on to university.

So why are we in such danger of being made at stake today? Because Hugueness is becoming a feeling to admire. A perfect baby, a perfect family, a perfect society are now possible. But are they really? really? No, of course they aren't. There is no such thing as perfection. You can try to kill off everyone with down syndrome by using abortion, but you won't be any closer to a perfect society. You would just be closer to a cool, heartless one, in my opinion. The only way to change society to be of us is to be part of our community, to go to the same

schools as other children, to not be hidden away like we were in the past. That's some of the most powerful and courageous testimony I've ever seen. You know, it reminds me of that dystopian movie and novel Logan's run when you're talking about this perfect society. This is this idea. It's this Malthusian society that's set up with what they see as a perfect balance between people and resources. And government sanctioned, you have to be, you have to basically end your life. You have to ascend at 21.

And when you have to look as well. Remember that as a kid, right? Yeah. The runners, the runners that would run away from because once they hit 21, they would all gather around in a circle for a ritual where they would be restored. And they'd all cheer about being restored because their hand is blinking and their time is. up and then of course the leads, who I think were the trackers at first, you know, they were like arresting people started going, wait a minute. Yeah, yeah. I think they're actually killing us. I think that we could probably live beyond 21, right? That thought occurs. And that's symbolic too

because it's the people within the system that are seeing the full fruits of the system that go, wait a minute. This is really ugly. This is not what we're telling the public what's happening behind the scenes is a whole different thing. And this is where the power comes from these people working within these systems. It just hit me right now. And in every, and in every, Every movie like that, you're arrested if you speak out against the system and how I started this show. With all the technology that we're looking at, where you're going with this conversation, you know, the issues at hand, whether it's AI or whatever it is, of all the times for our government to say we're going to, we are going to have to be deciding what is true information and not true information, be able to arrest you if you're not speaking the truth, which is clearly obviously just the ruling classes truth. I mean, it really is horrifying. I mean, just really just go to the science fiction area.

I mean, just any book, grab it. And just go, oh, my God, it's happening. And from that time, we have people like George Bernard Shaw, who's one of the prominent figures in eugenics in England. And as we know as history shows, the England eugenics movement came over to the United States and really it got stamped into law. We scamped into the medical system. And from that, you know, we saw it go into Nazi Germany.

But here's George Bernard Shaw. Just simply stating this, we played this in the show before, but it bears repeating because how far have we moved from this statement? Take a look. Yeah. I object to all punishment whatsoever. I don't want to punish anybody. But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you. You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this word, who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board,

just as he might come before the income tax commissioners, and say every five years or every seven years, just put him there and say, sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, If you're not producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can't be a very much use.

Of course, he went on to have ideas about perhaps a gas, a friendly gas, it was enjoyable, they would just, you know, put it. He was serious about this stuff. This is a whole society. serious about this stuff. And we grew up, I'm amazed that we grew up in schools, that that's required reading. I mean, that's the author of Pygmalion, which ends up being, you know, my fair lady, pretty woman, this idea that you take the poor, ugly girl, but if you give her money and, you know, teach her, she can, you know, become an elitist. Just that idea of upbringing.

But can you imagine, you imagine, of all the court cases to go to every five to seven years, you have to go defend your existence? Yeah. I mean, it'd be a, I mean, a, Nerv-wracking, that'd be a nerve-wracking case. They're deadly serious. He's not just pontificating. I mean, this took root in America, and they sterilized thousands of people. And they did that with disabled people, poor people as well. Of course, Planned Parenthood.

I know people. Martin Sanger came out of that. Magrissar comes out of this entire group of people, just like, let's give the poor a way to eradicate their children so that they don't bring society down. Right. You have to account for your existence in society. Well, that will never happen again, right? Well, let's go back to how we started this conversation. We have the climate narrative, let's say, fear, end of the world if we don't change this.

It's human cause. It's your fault. Here's the headlines. Not from 2007 when Al Gore was talking. From this year, from several months, this last several months. Take a look at this. Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children.

Here's another one. How many children should couples have given ongoing climate change? It says, given that the phenomenon known as climate change is upon us. The seemingly private decision of couples about how many children to have is, in fact, no longer private. And this decision has clear and negative environmental effects for both present and future generations that need to be accounted for. It's like a bait and switch. I see. It's just we're going to move society functioning well with the climate narrative.

But what's mishearred, too, with this whole medically assisted suicide is the drug companies are opportunistic as we've seen. And it appears they're setting up kind of a cottage industry, a really dark cottage industry here. This was in The Guardian. And it says, Republicans demand answers for Pfizer links to Canada's euthanasia lobby. Lawmakers demand drug maker reveal if U.S. taxpayer funds, ready for this? If you don't hate Pfizer enough, already. Just in case. You know, we're holding out a little warm spot inside yourself from Pfizer. Let's just, Jeffrey, you're going to snuff out everything you have left for Pfizer. Okay. They're saying, if you're not hating Pfizer enough, this is a reason why you should hate them more.

Okay. So, you know, they were given cash during the COVID response by our government, so they're being accounted for. How did you use that cash? Because they were lobbying, part of the lobbying group to get this bill in Canada passed. So it says in here, these lawmakers, they want to know whether Pfizer has a financial interest. The company makes drugs used to euthanize patients, including cystotricuremen, bisolate, diazepan, fentanyl, medazalam, says the letter, the lawmakers ask if Pfizer is trying to increase market demand for its products. Your company is dismantling public trust in our nation's health system by supporting an organization that aims to take the lives as young children, the letter says. And this is not just happening in Canada, in the Netherlands, in Belgium. We have 10 U.S. states, including Washington, D.C., that have medically assisted suicide that are moving forward.

We have bills that are moving forward in this legislative session that are moving towards the United States. The UK long has resisted this, is now coming to their shores. This is an opinion piece that was written. Starmer, who's the PM there, Starmer Socialist Britain is about to take a morbid turn. The UK's broken welfare state will turn personal tragedy into a Canadian-style national catastrophe. And he argues here, he said, while the case for legalization is compelling, there's that compassion piece, I hesitate to embrace it. I worry that it would soon be grievously abused as a result of our pathologically broken welfare state.

I fear the safeguards won't last. I'm terrified of the cultural impact of eliminating one of the last taboos, emphasizing the sanctity of life at a time when all other traditional restraints are dissolving, of racing down a slippery slope towards institutionalized, scenicide of human life becoming a fiscal matter to be treated as a cost. We're not just talking about a slippery slope here. We're talking about a moral line. a cavern that if we cross this on at scale, this becomes extremely detrimental for our society.

It's really, really shocking. Again, all of this being set out in the open now. I mean, I think that, like, you know, we're going after your First Amendment. We believe we need to cull the herd, if you will. We're going to hold back on, you know, on the amount of children that you can have. We're moments away for you'll be shamed for walking on the street with three children or four children. Like, how dare you do that? I see it in the young people.

Some of my own family and friends, college students, are coming out saying, I don't want to have babies. You know, college students tying their tubes doing things just like it's just not, I'm saving the planet. I mean, it's just unbelievable. Meanwhile, the actual cases you well know is fertility is dropping. We do not have a replacement society coming because our birth rates are far below where they should be. So once again, once again, I mean, we could do this all day. we do it every week on the high wire is point out how the government is actually lying to us. They're saying we're overpopulated, but China is terrified about the crash that they're involved.

Japan is terrified because they're not having a replacement, you know, childbirth rate. So in other countries, they know the crisis is actually depopulation, not overpopulation. Yeah, we are being sold a totally different story here. So incredible reporting. And I love how you tie that all together. And it really is, it's amazing. how comfortable they are with death. Just accepting death of human beings

and we're just numbers clearly to a lot of the system. Exactly.