Not my words to describe yesterday's grotesque decision to pass a state-sponsored suicide bill - theirs.

Esther Rantzen, the alleged "national treasah" and highly unlikely palliative care expert, has been the grimacing celebrity face of the assisted dying movement for some time, and when MPs voted to pass the bill yesterday by a vote of 330 to 275, she declared herself "thrilled".

I'm sorry, but thrilled?

This bill is talking about intentionally terminating human life - in what can be extremely frightening and excruciatingly painful ways - when the human being in question may have been undergoing months, years, or decades of horrendous suffering.

Even if you support the bill, there is no room, in any capacity, whatsoever to declare yourself "thrilled" by this thought.

Matt "midazolam" Hancock, meanwhile, reports himself "delighted".

Combine this with how these two creatures behaved during the fake plague, when Rantzen declared the unvaccinated should refuse NHS care, even if seriously ill, and Hancock guffawed with glee at the thought of vulnerable pensioners being pummelled with bioweapon injections, and the truth becomes irrefutably, appallingly clear:

The establishment loves killing people. This "thrills" them.

When you examine the power players at the top of the ruling class hierarchy, it soon becomes apparent that their behaviour can't be driven merely by a desire for money. Those at the top have so much money, they couldn't possibly spend it even over ten lifetimes.

The "follow the money" argument might account for why some lower-level gofers are willing to be foot soldiers in pushing various agendas, but the higher you go, the clearer it becomes: this is not about money.

It's about power.

And they want to exercise the ultimate power: the power over who lives and who dies.

They've already got that control at one end of the life cycle, with abortion - and the Abortion Act, like the Assisted Dying bill, was also brought in by a strenuously opposed Private Member's Bill.

(The proponent of the Abortion Act - Liberal MP, David Steel - was suspended from the Liberal Democrats in 2019, after an admission that he was well aware that former Liberal Democrat leader, Cyril Smith, was a prolific child abuser, but nevertheless, Steel failed to take any action to have Smith investigated. The proponent of the Assisted Dying bill, Kim Leadbeater, is also an exceptionally shady character.)

When the Abortion Act was made law in 1967, we were given all the same assurances we have been given now: that this change in the law was only to protect vulnerable people in desperate circumstances, who would simply have the free choice to undergo a procedure safely and legally, rather than risk the dangers of seeking out back-alley or black market provision.

We were told it would simply be "a woman's choice". That there would never be any element of coercion involved.

57 years after abortion was legalised, and over 8 million legal abortions later, the number one reason women give for getting one is lack of sufficient support.

When abortion was not legal, there was a far higher weight of social expectation that families, including and especially the baby's father, would support a woman to go through with an unplanned pregnancy.

But now abortion is legal, the weight of expectation is inevitably placed on the woman, instead: that "this isn't convenient right now, just get an abortion".

While there's an enduring image in certain right-wing circles of the high-powered career woman who gets an abortion in her lunch-break so she can get back to the boardroom, this does not represent the average woman obtaining one, and far more likely candidates are vulnerable women in difficult financial and social circumstances who lack the support of their families and communities to continue with the pregnancy.

So they get an abortion because they feel they have no other choice.

That's not an autonomous personal decision. That's coercion.

And it will be exactly the same with the assisted dying bill - except worse.

Because, okay, babies require some intensive care for the first few years of their life, but they quickly become relatively independent, spending all day at school and allowing their mothers to go back to study or work. Having a baby is a strictly time-limited "inconvenience".

But caring for a chronically ill person is not. Those with chronic illnesses - whether physical or mental or both - can require round-the-clock care for many years or decades. There is no clearly identifiable endpoint when the carer will be liberated from this "burden", other than their death.

So there is a huge incentive for the carers and families of those requiring additional care to put pressure on them to prematurely terminate their lives (especially when this might free up substantial money and resources for struggling younger family members).

And many, many vulnerable people will do this, just as many, many vulnerable women who didn't really want abortions have had them anyway, because of the pressure from those around them.

(It's not at all uncommon for unwilling fathers to threaten to terminate the relationship if the woman doesn't have an abortion.)

So we already know exactly how the Assisted Dying bill will play out, because we've already seen it with abortion.

Whatever "safeguards" we are told will be put in place will be meaningless, because there's no reliable way of discerning whether somebody deciding to end their life is doing so under coercion, just as there's no reliable way to tell this when someone seeks an abortion.

Whilst some women seeking abortions are indeed doing so entirely out of their own free will, and sometimes overriding the objections of family, this is ultimately not the norm, and nor will it be with Assisted Dying.

It will simply become a way for anyone who represents the slightest inconvenience to the state or to those around them, to be terminated.

At the moment, we're told it's just those with "terminal illnesses" (though note, that would include an anorexic who refuses to eat) who would qualify for assisted dying, but these things are always expanded, and/or interpreted by the judiciary in such a way that they can be applied to cases they weren't originally intended for.

We can already see in other countries with assisted dying that entirely physically healthy 20-somethings are euthanised for being "depressed".

We can see that the disabled get offered state suicide rather than the assistance to live they've requested.

It would, therefore, simply be delusional to imagine the same won't happen in the UK - and quickly. Especially given - and as was irrefutably revealed in the "pandemic" - it already happens anyway.

People without terminal illnesses were euthanised in hospitals using drug cocktails and ventilators, with their families told they'd died "of Covid", whilst those with conditions such as learning disabilities and Down's syndrome were slapped with DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate orders) without the knowledge or consent of themselves or their families.

The NHS has literally now been handed a licence to kill, and kill it will, with impunity (it already does).

Yet in fully comprehending this bill, we've got to ask - as for everything high-profile - "why this, why now?".

It's no coincidence this Bill is being proposed at the tail-end of 2024, nearly five years after the "Covid" episode.

That chapter ruined a lot of people's lives, in a multiplicity of ways. It collapsed businesses, destroyed marriages, and caused irreparable harm to mental health, especially that of young people.

It also laid the foundations for the biggest eugenicist depopulation drive in history, easily dwarfing any war, where billions of people have been given a toxic bioweapon injection engineered to shorten life.

Part of this process involves inducing serious illnesses and disabilities, which - given the pathetically small level of support available to them - can make people wonder what there is left to live for - as in the case of this man. Already vulnerable and suffering with mental illness, once he incurred a Covid vaccine injury, he chose to be euthanised. He was only in his 40s.

So ultimately, this is a hideous kind of "problem-reaction-solution".

The ruling classes have engineered the "problem" of shattered lives, where many people have lost their financial, social, and physical security, and have become more lonely and isolated than ever.

This has been exacerbated exponentially by the rise in WFH culture and screen-based shopping and "socialising", meaning that real-world community bonds are becoming more fractured and scarce than ever.

This kind of atomisation in itself is enough to induce serious physical and psychological illness, with loneliness and isolation known to be as harmful to health as smoking and obesity.

So our societies have been ruthlessly hacked away at for decades, with these anti-social, anti-human trends dramatically accelerated through "Covid", to push many people towards lives of total despair.

So, along comes the government, with the "solution" of ending them.

This is why when, in vehemently opposing this bill - which of course we must - we've also got to oppose the kind of society that laid the foundations for it.

Those who have peopled, supportive, meaningful lives, overwhelmingly are not going to be seeking an "assisted death", even if they do develop a health problem or disability, just as properly supported women generally don't seek abortions, even if their circumstances for raising a child aren't ideal.

Our societies are deeply fragmented - by design - and the obstacles that used to act as a protective barrier between the sovereign individual and the tyrannical state, such as family and community, are rapidly being eroded, as families are scattered and communities don't know each other.

This has been done on purpose.

"They" gave us soap operas so we'd watch the fictional lives of Neighbours on screen, rather than talking to our actual neighbours.

They gave us Facebook and Netflix, so we'd "socialise" online, rather than going out to the pub or the theatre.

And now they've given us ChatGPT, so we've got that ever-sympathetic, always patient, perfect cyber pal to meet our every emotional need, rather than talking to a pesky flawed human.

All of these things have served to take people away from each other, and away from what ultimately makes life meaningful and worthwhile.

So, in fighting this bill, it's not just about opposing the legislation itself, but opposing the devious social engineering that has created the kind of society where the offer of a state suicide might appeal to so many.

It's about taking steps to rebuild integrated human communities where neighbours talk to each other; where we know if there's a vulnerable or elderly person living nearby who might need some extra support; where we meet in person rather than online, use local shops rather than delivery apps, take steps to connect with nearby like-minded people.

And the other thing we can do, to safeguard ourselves and loved ones from ever being in a position where we might even consider "assisted dying", is taking steps to ensure our own continued health as we age.

Contrary to the constant barrage of propaganda being spewed out by the usual suspects, chronic illness and agony and being unable to take care of oneself isn't actually an inevitable consequence of old age.

My great-grandmother lived to the age of 96, without dementia or chronic illness, and lived independently right until the end (despite having been blind since early adulthood). It's eminently possible.

Currently, the number one cause of death in England and Wales, and the thing most people fear most about old age, is Alzheimer's disease / dementia.

Yet Alzheimer's is not inevitable, even if you have a strong family history.

Although there are compounding co-factors, ultimately Alzheimer's disease is caused by aluminium accumulation in the brain, and the world's foremost expert on aluminium toxicity has definitively stated: "no aluminium, no Alzheimer's".

It is therefore not surprising that Alzheimer's has become a leading cause of death, when neurotoxic aluminium is laced into so many everyday products, including personal care products, cookware, and even tap water.

It's also in a lot of widely used vaccinations.

There are therefore two things we can do to reduce our body burden of aluminium and risk of developing Alzheimer's, including:

Using an aluminium-free deodorant;

Using stainless steel or cast-iron cookware rather than non-stick;

Drinking bottled spring water rather than tap, or getting a high-quality water filter (aluminium is added directly to municipal water supplies, and can have tragic consequences, as per the Camelford poisoning incident);

Avoiding all aluminium-containing vaccinations (and ideally all vaccinations).

As well as avoiding aluminium exposure, we can also reduce our current body burden of the substance - as it's impossible to avoid entirely - by drinking liquids that are naturally rich in silicic acid, a specific form of silica which is able to pass through the gut wall and remove aluminium from the whole body, including the brain (other forms of silica like horsetail and DE can't do this, as they can't pass the gut wall and so only remove aluminium from the gut).

Liquids naturally rich in silicic acid include several mineral waters like Volvic and Fiji, and also certain beers! (IPAs in particular.)

(I have a theory that one reason dementia is more common in women than men is that men tend to drink beer, which is a powerful aluminium detoxifier, whilst women drink wine, which not only doesn't remove aluminium but actually contains considerable amounts of it. Existing research seems to back up my theory, showing beer consumption does reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease.)

Obviously there are other things we can do to preserve our health as we get older, such as eating healthily (and insisting on "full fart milk"), with the overarching point being that there are plenty of ways we can empower ourselves, and those around us, to improve the quality of our lives in all respects, so that we, our families, and communities, are insulated from ever even considering "assisted dying".

And I can honestly state that the fact the establishment has made it so explicitly and abundantly clear that they want me dead, makes me stubbornly determined to live as long, healthy, and meaningful a life as possible.

So never mind calling another General Election (although I can imagine recent developments will give the petition a huge boost), that right there - reclaiming our own health, purpose, and power - is the real revolution.

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.