Where good will provides cover for predatory population enslavement
by Denis Rancourt, PhD
This article was first published on Dissident Voice (LINK).
A society of socially engineered individuals who cannot identify their own anthropological dissonance is a depraved society.
Its depravity is further established by its managers who do not
experience profound discomfort in the face of the state’s domestic and
foreign perpetual mass crimes.
Here, I explore the role of so-called health care in maintaining
Canadian societal depravity. Canada is a satellite state of the USA,
which defines itself as a jurisdiction with public medical services.
The truth is Canadian “health care” has become a system in-effect
designed to keep Canadians stupid and sick. This design serves the
global-elite bosses, the political class, the medical profession and the
Big Pharma predators, in what is a symbiotic mesh of enslavement. So
Canada defines itself by one of its main systems of social control.
I’m driven to write this by a few recent events that point to a downward spiral.
First, in 2017 the Ontario government announced its new publicly
funded “pharmacare” program for people 24 years old or younger, which
includes virtually every patented “behavioural enhancement” drug. This
was done in a total absence of scientific impact studies and in a total
absence of independent studies of hierarchical needs and drug efficacy.
Then, last month, in a further cynical move to buy votes in time for
the June 2018 election, the Ontario government expanded its “pharmacare”
program to seniors, the most over-mediated segment of our drugged
On top of it all, I had the displeasure of reading the leading Left health-care guru’s 2017 book Better Now – Six Big Ideas To Improve Health Care for All Canadians
by Dr. Danielle Martin.
Martin’s book is superbly researched, authoritative and beautifully
written. It is an essential current resource for medical care activists
and managers. But it plays right into the hands of the said mesh of
enslavement by recruiting Left organizers and people of good will to
believe that fixing is possible — if guided by research, brave
implementations and a moral desire for a fair society.
Such fixing by gradual change from within is not possible with the hydra that we are contemplating. Yet, Martin states:
In the anatomy of a system for change, clinicians are the
feet that do the walking. They can also be the feet that drag. […]
Making change is always about the art of the possible. Sometimes it
would be great to pass a piece of legislation requiring hospitals or
doctors to do something, but it just isn’t feasible. At other times it
would be better to engage physicians and inspire them to drive change
locally, but sometimes they’re frankly unwilling or unable to do so.
You get the drift. It’s on and on like that.
Martin’s “six big ideas” are too many: (1) return of the
patient-physician relationship, (2) too much prescribing of drugs too
expensive, (3) get physicians to voluntarilly “do less”, to stop harming
patients and to reduce costs, (4) do more with less, (5) eliminate
poverty to improve health and reduce overall government expenditures,
and (6) be smart about actuating change.
A realistic campaign would have just one idea: The
medical-establishment-led so-called health care system does far more
harm than good and is a system of exploitation and enslavement that must
be dismantled. With one application note: The reform will have to be
grassroots and culturally anchored or it will easily be hijacked.
Contrary to Martin’s thesis, death by medicine is not some manageable
feature that can be remedied by better procedures and more responsible
practice. Rather, it is systemic and would require accountability and
publicly documented enforced penalties, which exist on paper but are in
reality foreign to the profession.
In my 2015 critical review of the scientific literature, I summarized the problem of fatal medical “errors” this way:
In the words of Dr. Barbara Starfield, and many others,
it is therefore incontrovertible that establishment medicine is the
third leading cause of death in industrialized countries, after deaths
from heart disease and cancer, which in turn are causes that medicine
can do very little about. The next and fourth leading cause of death is
cerebrovascular disease and its rate is far below that from
medical-induced (iatrogenic) deaths, such that “medical manslaughter” is
not about to give up its rank of third leading cause.
In concrete terms, I calculated that this means that between 6% and
8% of advanced Western state citizens die from medicine rather than any
other cause, including both medical-error deaths and non-error medical
In the West, medicine causes more deaths that all wars, violent
crimes, car accidents… you name it. It is routinely referred to as an
epidemic in the scientific literature, yet it is not on the radar of
media-driven public policy concerns. The media is too busy telling us
about the supposed dangers of self-administered cannabis.
You are at more risk walking into your doctor’s office or into a
community clinic than from virtually every other thing you will ever do.
You have been hoodwinked. To achieve this, it is necessary to
continuously engineer and maintain a cultural veil that makes one
fundamental biological truth impenetrable: almost always the body heals
itself, and does a remarkably good job of it if dominance power does not
interfere. The human body has been doing this for more than a million
years; and this self-healing capacity has sustained the most successful
species of large mammals on the planet, despite the opportunism of witch
doctors and fortune tellers.
The only exceptions are the inevitability of old age and accidents
that are fatal in the absence of crisis intervention. Medical crisis
intervention means: Stop the bleeding and repair vital organs that will
not repair themselves in time to prevent death or permanent disability,
without causing death by the intervention itself. Modern heart attack
interventions and repairs following massive lacerations are examples.
Virtually everything else involves simply securing an environment
that optimizes healing by ensuring security, alleviating stress and
removing causal factors. Admittedly, these are difficult healing goals
in a dominance hierarchy of lobotomized and exploited individuals being
milked for service charges and drug dependence by a “health care”
The said biological truth has been replaced with a constellation of
lies: That industry-recommended “medication” and interventions are
required and beneficial; That pain plays no useful role and should be
artificially suppressed; That drugs accelerate healing without
diminishing the body’s ability to heal itself; That disconnected doctors
know best; That technological tests and physical measurements are
substitutes for self-knowledge; That it’s better to consult rather than
try to be one’s own doctor; and so on.
In 1974, Ivan Illich put it this way and things have only gotten much worst since:
Within the last decade medical professional practice has
become a major threat to health. Depression, infection, disability,
dysfunction, and other specific iatrogenic diseases now cause more
suffering than all accidents from traffic or industry. Beyond this,
medical practice sponsors sickness by the reinforcement of a morbid
society which not only industrially preserves its defectives but breeds
the therapist’s client in a cybernetic way. Finally, the so-called
health-professions have an indirect sickening power – a structurally
health-denying effect. I want to focus on this last syndrome, which I
designate as medical Nemesis. By transforming pain, illness, and death
from a personal challenge into a technical problem, medical practice
expropriates the potential of people to deal with their human condition
in an autonomous way and becomes the source of a new kind of un-health.
“The medical establishment has become a major threat to health” was
true is 1976 and that threat has only dug itself in and widened.
However, more is scientifically known now about the mechanistic cause
of ill-health of the individual animal then was known in the 1970s.
Therefore, then and now, in addition to hiding the truth about healing,
the fundamental truth about the cause of ill-health must also be hidden
from the individual and buried as deeply as possible.
Even at her most progressive, Martin in-effect plays this role
admirably well. She points to the large area of health research known as
“social determinants of health”. The researchers in this field avoid
treating the harmful nature of establishment medicine itself and,
instead, focus on the societal factors that statistically correlate with
They find that the dominant factor that correlates to ill-health and
mortality is poverty, and that this correlation is significantly
modulated by a co-factor that is the magnitude of the income gap between
rich and poor in the society. Martin concludes, therefore, that
governments should eliminate poverty to improve public health and to
reduce overall government expenditures.
Martin’s economic structural solution amounts to what doctors do
best: Divert resources and attention towards suppressing the symptoms
rather that addressing the cause, even though she firmly believes that
she is addressing a cause. Eliminating poverty by systemic change is an
honourable and just cause in itself and it should not be anchored in any
ancillary goal, especially not one that relies on the medical
profession for its accomplishment.
Of course, extreme poverty causing fatal nutritional and
environmental deficiencies causes death. That is not controversial.
However, all such extreme poverty has been structurally eliminated in
Canada and the killer now is the subjective stress and self-image
devaluation caused by the inherent violence of society’s dominance
hierarchy, including the violence from the medical enterprise itself.
This is true to different degrees in all social classes, from
professional workers to aboriginal reserve residents to urban homeless
Martin in no way is contributing to a solution. Rather, she is vying
for partisan influence for good-will managers and enlightened
professionals. However, the problem is deeper than anything addressed by
establishment forces, including the progressive ones.
Both private (USA) and public (Canada) medical systems are networks
of oppression and enslavement run by collaborating corporate, government
and professional bodies whose members derive disproportionate and
immoral benefits. Arguing which is best is akin to arguing about whether
to vote Democrat or Republican, prior to the somewhat democratizing
anomaly of Trump that was enabled by the technological opportunity of a
temporarily free social media.
At its heart, individuals have been infantilized and reduced to
following directives under paternalistic umbrellas. On the contrary,
knowledge and individual responsibility must be distributed and
accompanied by individual influence and power. The structures that have
neutralized us in every sphere and the forces that keep us depressed are
the factors that make us sick and keep us dependent.
The way forward is to fight for fundamental rights that ensure a
measure of influence and power, starting with the most fundamental
rights of free expression and free association.
Furthermore, those with institutional power must be accountable,
rather than shielded. The professional associations, colleges and
councils that shield lawyers, doctors and judges must be defeated and
made to answer to their victims.
“Whistleblower protection” cannot mean tenuous protection for the few
individuals who expose egregious abuses. It must mean broad effective
protections for all employees who wish to disclose and complain about
government and corporate employers and procedures. It must mean actual
transparency by distributed impetus.
“Freedom of the press” cannot mean shielding government and corporate
media from accountability and protecting journalist shills who serve
interested publishers. It must mean distributed power to individuals to
publish in social media without imposed constraints, with effective
protection against establishment hijacking of technological venues.
Actual education is a collective and self-organized societal process,
not a method to train and indoctrinate. Optimal freedom gives
enlightened and healthy individuals. Excessive domination gives the
opposite. This principle is increasingly painfully obvious.
Everything else is a surreal argument about whether the organized oppression is fair or unfair.