When I was 13 or 14, I not infrequently went grocery shopping for the household, carrying the bags the short distance from the local Cooperative Pioneer to our house nearby (I would selflessly volunteer for this task so that I could insinuate a few processed packets and E-numbers in amongst the fruits, vegetables, and vegan sausages.)

As I was lugging the bags home one day - I think they were particularly heavy on this occasion, a bit of a burden, one might say - I have a vivid memory of suddenly experiencing a flush of irritation, and thinking to myself:

"If you think about it, this is all one big waste of time. All this food is going to disappear soon and then all the packaging goes in the bin, as if it never existed. Why not just dump it all in the bin now, rather than delaying the inevitable?"

It's not a particularly logical thought - since there's obviously a rather vital middle stage before food debris is binned, i.e., eating it - but nevertheless, what I thought was, technically, true. All the food we buy ultimately disappears - we either eat it or it goes off, and then whatever is left in deposited in the bin.

So maybe we should just save ourselves a lot of time and effort, stop trying to stave off the inevitable, and just dump it in the bin as soon as we've bought it, rather than going to all the hassle of preparing it, cooking it, and eating it?

Yes, this would cause us to rather rapidly die, but hey, aren't we eventually going to anyway?

I relay this adolescent anecdote today, as this is exactly the same "logic" as is currently being deployed by the UK government in their latest, rather more explicit than usual, attempt to kill us all off.

The current Labour administration is in the midst of pushing through a so-called "assisted dying" bill - though state-sponsored suicide is a rather more accurate description - and is busy defining who should be eligible for this "service".

We are told state-sponsored suicide will only be available to those with "terminal illnesses"... but what is a terminal illness?

According to the government committee currently "refining" the assisted dying bill, conditions such as diabetes and eating disorders could qualify for this description, even though people with these ailments can and do live for decades and not infrequently, to or past normal life expectancy. Also, both of these conditions are fully treatable and (presuming the diabetes is type 2, as it most often is) reversible.

If, therefore, the assisted dying bill is successful in redefining these conditions as "terminal illnesses", there is really nothing to stop the bill from defining life itself as a terminal illness.

After all, if a diabetic or anorexic is deemed "terminally ill" simply because without certain lifestyle adjustments, they would eventually die, then aren't we all terminally ill, since without access to certain "lifestyle accoutrements", such as food and oxygen, we would all die, too?

Realistically, life is a terminal illness. Nobody is immortal (not even - or maybe especially - Bryan Johnson), thus we are only able to stave off our inevitable demise for a few decades by doing things like eating and breathing. So if one were to argue - as my irritated-with-burdensome-shopping teenaged mind did - that engaging in life-sustaining behaviours such as eating is really only delaying an inescapable final fate, then perhaps it's more expedient to withdraw the sustenance we all need to live, and simply succumb to the inevitable now? I mean, since it's going to happen anyway and all that?

That is ultimately where any state euthanasia campaign will go: that, as death is unpreventable for all of us, we are all effectively "terminally ill", and, as such, there is a very strong case to be made - especially as we get older and get closer to natural death - for simply skipping large parts of the journey and arriving at the final destination in a rather more accelerated fashion.

Whatever flowery language it's dressed up in, what an assisted dying bill for the terminally ill is really saying is "they're going to die anyway, so you might as well get to the point and finish them off now."

And that could easily be applied to anyone.

Especially, for instance, pensioners, in an era of social care crisis and when the current system is severely struggling to meet all care needs (an estimated 2.6 million people aged over 50 in England alone are currently unable to access the care they need).

Cue the social engineers with their (final) "solution":

"Look, they're going to die soonish anyway, and rather than ploughing through hundreds of thousands of pounds sustaining their life and care, why not just cut to the chase and get rid of them now? I mean, they're not really contributing to society much, are they?"

Similar "arguments" could be made for the mentally ill, the addicted, the disabled, the unemployed, the homeless, and, indeed, the conspiracy theorists.

What is happening now is about a stark redefinition of the very meaning of - and value of - human life. There is in progress an intensive campaign to reframe public perceptions that life is only really worth living (and the living are only really deserving of retaining this privilege) if that life is deemed important enough to continue by some higher external authority.

Remember "essential" and "non-essential" workers during the fake plague?

The social engineers used those terms for a very specific reason. It was to train the public to begin to think of other humans, and of themselves, in these terms. Essential or non-essential. Useful, or a burden.

Were you judged as "essential" during the Covid chapter?

Were all your family and friends?

I wasn't, and only a small fraction of people I knew were.

Throughout Covid, the "essentials" got special perks: not only were they permitted to continue with their employment and move around relatively freely, whilst the rest of the country was plunged into hard lockdown, but they got special bonuses, discounts, and even subsidised housing - whilst many of us "non-essentials" struggled to get by, the government having torpedoed out ability to make a living.

This was very blunt and intentional social stratification on the part of the ruling classes, aiming to get us to clearly understand where we are to be placed in the new social pecking order.

As Orwell so prophetically put it - “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

How far could this new way of classifying people go? In another manufactured crisis, such as war, with attendant food shortages, would the "non-essentials" be conscripted to fight, whilst the "essentials" would be both spared, and prioritised for enough to eat?

What all this signals is that we are being primed to enter a deeply dystopian future where we may ultimately be required to justify our existence as being "essential" enough - that is, useful enough to the ruling classes - to qualify for certain "privileges", and even, ultimately, to qualify for the "privilege" of continuing our existence at all.

It sounds like the stuff of crude science fiction, but it wasn't that long ago that prominent social engineer, George Bernard Shaw, called for this very thing.

Shaw suggested that, once every five to seven years, all adults should be hauled up in front of a panel of "experts" to justify their existence. If they could not demonstrate they were sufficiently contributing to society - giving more than they took - they should, Shaw felt, be euthanised.

Shaw was a founding member of the Fabian Society, the powerful socialist organisation of which every Labour Prime Minister in history has been a member - and to which MP Kim Leadbeater, proposer of the new assisted dying bill, belongs.

While the glossy PR front of the Fabian Society claims it is about advancing social democracy and generally championing cultural progress, the reality is rather different...

The Fabian Society was named after a military strategist, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, nicknamed Cunctator, meaning 'Delayer'. An explanatory note appearing on the title page of The Fabian Society's first pamphlet declared:

For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.

The original coat of arms for The Fabian Society was literally a wolf in sheep's clothing.

To sum, the Fabians (who exert enormous influence over the political left) have disguised themselves as champions of the people, so they can lure the populace into a false sense of security over a long period of time, and then, eventually, launch their assault. It's a war tactic.

All predators know that their prey is most vulnerable when separated from the pack, which is why the same social engineers behind the Fabian Society and the assisted dying bill have spent all the post-war decades decimating human communities and breaking up families, so that more people than at any previous point in human history are lonely, atomised, and untethered to any larger group.

If you are a member of a large intergenerational family where you all live nearby and are closely involved in each others' lives, then, if the state tries to suicide one of you, its going to have an almighty fight on their hands as your family and friends fight to defend you.

But few people have that these days. It's far more common to live with just one other person, many miles from other family or close friends - if you have them at all, since certainly not everyone does - or completely alone (single person households having exploded in frequency in the last fifty years, to now represent nearly 1 in 3 of all households).

That simply does not put people in a strong position if they are facing any kind of struggle - be it physical, mental, or financial - and therefore, they are highly vulnerable to being targeted for state suicide.

We already see exactly that happening in countries where state suicide is legal, like Canada: that a very significant driver of suicide of all types, including so-called assisted dying, is loneliness and isolation. Chronic loneliness often results in people concluding their lives are worthless. They give up.

This is because we are simply not built to navigate life alone, or with just one other person. We are tribal, pack animals meant to exist in integrated wider communities of about 150 other people. And until the relatively recent past, we did.

Yet sly social engineers craftily broke up these communities, by enticing the young away from their hometowns with promises of education, opportunity, and adventure.

For some, and for a fairly short period of time historically, that worked out well. People coming of age in the sixties, seventies, and eighties often benefited from the social changes and more mobile communities, and were able to access meaningful and rewarding lives that may not have been available to them had they remained in their hometowns.

But subsequent generations have not fared so well, as opportunities dwindle, competition intensifies, and living costs soar - and the social costs for many have been enormous.

Older people who encouraged their children to prioritise career and move wherever it took them, now find themselves lonely and alone in towns where they no longer know anyone, hundreds of miles from family.

Younger people live in tense flat-shares with complete strangers, in cities they're not from and have no enduring connections to.

Neighbours don't know each other and do not speak, whilst people instead argue on the internet with faceless anons thousands of miles away.

There are so many haunting cautionary tales starkly showing us what happens when community breaks down like this, such as the case of Joyce Vincent. Joyce was a once-vibrant 38-year-old woman, who came from a big family, and had had jobs, friends, and relationships - but who died alone in her tiny flat, and was not discovered for nearly three years.

Something similar happened to 58-year-old Sheila Seleoane, a social housing resident who had a job and a brother, but nevertheless, when she died suddenly, her body laid undiscovered in her flat for two-and-a-half years.

Such scenarios are becoming more and more common, as society fractures further and loneliness and isolation becomes more widespread, and not just in the UK, but all over the world. In Japan, almost 40,000 people died alone in their homes in the first half of 2024 - and of that number, nearly 4,000 went undiscovered for more than a month.

What we must be aware of is that none of this is accidental and none of it developed organically: rather, society has been deviously engineered to be this way, specifically in order to make people isolated and disconnected, and, therefore, maximally vulnerable as the ruthless classes reach the apex of their long-game predatory strategy and literally move in for the kill.

They're ramping up their attack at this specific time because technological advances in AI mean that, within the next five to fifteen years, vast swathes of the populace are going to become completely redundant. Whole industries will be overtaken by artificial intelligence, leaving millions without an obvious social role through work, or the means to earn enough money to autonomously sustain themselves.

I've already seen it happen to people I know - people who had worked consistently for 20+ years, now on the dole and unable to find work. I don't just mean work in their field, I mean any work at all, with available vacancies facing a record surge in applications as jobs dwindle. Supposedly "lowly" service industry jobs, for instance, are so sought after, that it's actually easier to get into Harvard than to get a job at McDonald's - and McDonald's will soon be fully automated anyway.

The brutal corollary of this is, once the ruling classes no longer have a function for us as worker-drones or tax slaves, they have no requirement to keep us around, so they are engaging in a mass cull. The Covid "vaccines" were stage one, explicit state extermination via assisted dying is stage two (and the death penalty is stage three).

The predator classes are endeavouring to make us feel both isolated and useless - "non-essentials" - in order to make us easier to kill.

Therefore, to effectively resist their ruthless assault, and robustly fight back, the single most important thing we can do is rebuild and restore our communities.

We can't stop the march of AI (although we can take steps to insulate ourselves from its worst effects), and the future of employment is inevitably going to look very different to the past - but there are ways we can positively respond to these changes to ensure we continue to have meaning and value and purpose which is not solely defined by our job (which is the sole measure by which the ruling classes would like to define it, and therefore, kill us off as soon as we are made redundant or reach retirement age - which they have long since been trying to do to pensioners with the 'flu vaccine).

I have talked to three different people in the last week, all in very different situations - different ages, genders, and backgrounds - who are all considering abandoning their "independent" (isolated) lives in towns they are not from, either living alone or flat-sharing with strangers, and moving back to where family, roots, and connections are.

I know that's not an option for everyone (it's not for me - my family are scattered all over the country, with only my elderly grandmother remaining in our hometown), but for those who it is, it might be worth considering, and for all of us, it's vital to do all we can to strengthen local bonds with friends and potential friends.

If you're struggling to find like-minded people nearby, Stand In The Park (worldwide) and Third Wednesdays (UK only) are good options. There are also opportunities to organise street parties to get to know your neighbours.

Based on my own observations and experience, it is my opinion that what everyone really wants is - not simply the dream job, big house, ideal partner, or cute kids (perfectly fine things as these are to acquire) - but to be a meaningful part of an integrated community. That's really what we're looking for. That's what's missing.

It's what we're built for and it tends to bring out the best in us, as well as protecting us from the evil machinations of the predator class - hence why they've done everything possible to take it away from us.

Being a meaningful, valued, essential part of a real-world community is what makes us feel there's a deeply important purpose to living. It not only literally makes us healthier, but makes us feel profoundly committed to extending our lives as long as we can - even if we're not in perfect health, or are getting older, or experiencing money struggles. It's what makes us feel "essential" in our own lives, regardless of what some psychopathic panel of "experts" thinks.

Or to put it another way - and to return to my opening anecdote about burdensome shopping bags - it's what makes us feel there's a deeply important purpose to preparing, cooking, and enjoying the food, rather than simply transferring it straight to the bin.

Except, maybe, for those vegan sausages...

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.