In recent years, the conversation around population control has mainstreamed to the heart of public policy, climate change, bioethics, and civil rights. Thanks in-part to villainous figures like WEF’s Klaus Schwab and the nightmarish treatment of the public during the failed pandemic response, a new sober understanding of government’s relationship with The People has formed.
From declining birth rates in developed nations to historical and ongoing examples of forced medical interventions, the public is beginning to finally witness a troubling trend whose roots were laid long ago. The issue rests upon the depth of erosion to informed consent and the threat it poses to human sovereignty.
What a common person would describe as insane, the current ‘Canadian case’ is especially telling.
The Canadian Paradox: Declining Population Growth and Assisted Death
Canada, like many developed nations, is experiencing a demographic decline. A recent report shows that the country’s population growth has slowed to historic lows. On the other end of the life spectrum, Canada has seen a sharp rise in medically assisted dying (MAID). It now accounts for 1 in 20 deaths in the country. This “squeeze” at both the beginning and end of life raises fundamental questions: What kind of society are we building, and who gets to decide who is born or dies?
In the middle of this human crisis driven by policy, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) made headlines by supporting Bill S-228, a legislative effort aimed at ending forced and coerced sterilizations—especially among Indigenous communities. It was a reminder that these practices, often thought to be relics of the early 20th century, are not only part of our recent past but are still ongoing.
A 2018 Senate Committee on Human Rights report confirmed that coercive sterilization remains a reality in Canada. Victims shared testimonies of manipulation, confinement, and medical procedures performed without consent—effectively stripping women, particularly First Nations and Inuit, of their reproductive abilities.
The Long Shadow of Eugenics
Far from just a Canadian issue, the history of population control and eugenics is far-reaching and global. In the U.S., eugenics policies once led to forced sterilizations under the guise of “public health.” Influential figures like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and Bertrand Russell shaped early eugenics policy. Policies like National Security Study Memorandum 200 laid a philosophical and bureaucratic foundation for controlling population growth—particularly in lower developed countries.
National Security Study Memorandum 200, authored in 1974 by the U.S. National Security Council, explicitly called for “creating conditions conducive to fertility decline.” The document outlined the importance of using mass media, economic aid, and international organizations like the United Nations and USAID to influence population policies abroad. Although cloaked in diplomatic and humanitarian language, the underlying message was clear: population reduction was seen as a strategic necessity.
At the same time, The Club or Rome and MIT’s Limits to Growth entered the picture officially labelling human’s as the primary threat to the planet seeding the early climate change narrative.
Fast-forward to 1982, USAID begins its official Population Assistance program in Peru which was later reported as follows:
“An unsettling aspect of the entire Peruvian campaign is the involvement of the US government. The specific agencies that were involved in Peru’s sterilization campaign were the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the NIPPON Foundation (a Japanese nonprofit). It is known that UNFPA donated $10 million for the forced-sterilization campaign.”
Anti-Fertility Vaccines: Fact, Not Theory
While many dismiss the idea of anti-fertility vaccines as conspiratorial, there is clear documented evidence suggesting efforts to develop such technologies. A WHO-funded study in the 1976 successfully created a way to use the immune system to prevent pregnancy by targeting human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a hormone essential for sustaining pregnancy. Researchers chemically linked hCG to a tetanus toxoid, tricking the body into producing antibodies that would attack early pregnancy signals.
The result? Women who received the vaccine could unknowingly become infertile through their body’s own autoimmune reaction to themselves.
Fast forward to Kenya in 2014, where the government, supported by WHO, launched a widespread tetanus vaccination campaign—but only for women aged 14 to 49. The Catholic Health Commission raised alarms, questioning the timing and selective targeting.
Independent labs later tested the vaccine vials and confirmed the presence of hCG in half the samples—a hormone that should not be in any tetanus vaccine. Despite media attention and a study confirming these findings, there was little global reckoning or accountability. The incident faded from public consciousness, but its implications remain important.
The Stripping of Consent in the Modern Era
Perhaps most alarming is how informed consent—once a sacrosanct principle of medical ethics—is now being legally undermined. In 2024, under the Biden autopen administration, the FDA introduced a new “final rule” allowing to waive or alter informed consent requirements for certain “minimal risk” clinical investigations. While presented as a technical regulatory update, this move sets a dangerous precedent.
What qualifies as “minimal risk”? mRNA vaccines? Experimental contraceptive technologies? Without rigorous oversight, such a framework opens the door to covert experimentation and coercive interventions—precisely what Canada is now trying to stop through Bill S-228.
The throughline in all these events—from sterilizations in Canada to covert vaccine campaigns in lower developed countries—is the recurring assault on individual autonomy. Population control may be dressed in modern language—“health equity,” “climate sustainability,” or “global development”—but when individuals are denied the right to informed consent, it becomes a violation of human rights, no matter the justification.
This is not just about history or ideology. It is about the present and the future. A society that fails to respect bodily autonomy—whether through forced sterilization, manipulated medical consent, or silent demographic engineering—is a society that fails to recognize the fundamental sovereignty of the individual…in short, an anti-human leaning.
Informed consent is not a bureaucratic checkbox; it is a moral imperative. In a world increasingly managed by centralized health authorities, opaque global agencies, artificial intelligence of highly questionable ends, defending this principle is more urgent than ever. We must demand transparency, accountability, and above all, respect for the dignity and autonomy of every human being. Anything less is not only unethical—it is inhumane.
FULL REPORT
https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/canadian-bill-exposes-dark-eugenics-history/