Trending Ep366 - The Assisted Dying Bill Is BACK

A fresh attempt to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales has been launched, with the MP behind the plan telling the BBC she wanted to "finish the job". Iran and US agree deal to end war as Trump says Strait of Hormuz will be reopened. Starmer is set to complete another U-turn by unveiling a FULL social media ban for under-16s. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has confirmed new VAT rates for UK drivers of older petrol and diesel cars.

You can watch the full episode FOR FREE over on https://ickonic.com/Watch/3913

You can also subscribe to Ickonic to receive…

-  New Content Daily
-  Feature-Length Documentaries
-  Exclusive Original Series

Start your journey today for just £1.99 for the first month

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:04

Good morning and welcome to Monday's episode of Trending. Hope you had a lovely weekend wherever you are in the world. We've got a lot to get through this morning, mainly focused here on the UK and obviously the big news coming out of the Middle East late last night. To start with, here in the UK, we're going to talk about assisted dying and this new bill, or not so new bill, because it's one that came through Parliament, got rejected, and now is coming back again. Myself and Gareth spoke about this extensively at the time, and we said this was a delay rather than something that was going away. It was always going to come back. It was going to be rebranded. It was going to be sold slightly differently because this is part of the agenda. And when things are part of the agenda, they always get through. Even if they didn't get through at the first hurdle, they'll go, as I said, they'll go away, they'll re-badget, they'll rebrand it, they'll come again, and they'll do that as many times as they have to do to get what they want to get over the line. And the fact that this bill is back and back so quickly just reaffirms that. So what the assisted dying bill is being sold as is essentially kindness and compassion for people who are suffering from degenerative illnesses, where they either lose control of their body or their mind. They have their own say essentially when they choose to end their life so they don't go through periods of a steep decline where they lose, you know, any knowledge of who they are, and their family and loved ones remember them as the people they are, not the people they became, as their body or their mind starts to give up, essentially. And I can you know speak from personal experience. I've seen grandparents with dementia and lose their sense of who people are, who they are, and so on. And it is very difficult to watch, and I can't imagine being in that position. So that's where it's being sold. It's being sold as kindness for those people. Now, on that level, you can see why there is an argument that some people support it. And if you lived in a world where your governments and regulators and authorities genuinely had the care and love and you know, feeling of responsibility for those they are elected to represent at heart, then maybe we'd be having a slightly different conversation. However, we know based on the world that we live in, based on the country that we live in, that's simply not the case. So anything that's coming out from the establishment, we need to look at with extreme skepticism. Because if not coming out for our benefit. And we've seen with these policies already being rolled out in countries like Canada that there is no checks and balances, and there is massive opportunities for either manipulation of the elderly or sick by whether that be depraved loved ones, whether that be the state, whether that be physicians, people in positions of apparent trust. We've seen that firsthand in countries like Canada. There's been multiple stories coming out of there. So there's clearly lots and lots of concerns and lots and lots of things to discuss with this issue. But why are they doing it? That's the big, big one. Because, like I say, they're not doing it for a compassionate reason. They're not doing it because they care genuinely about people. Because these are the same elderly and vulnerable people that they're trying to tax up to the hilt. They're making everything more unaffordable for, they're working harder and harder to make them feel isolated in society with this incredible technological explosion, including all government services, which means people that have grown up without technology every day are finding it more and more difficult to just do the basics. Yet, on the other hand, they now want to help them. Those two things don't correlate, those two things don't add up. So, in order to answer the question of why are they doing this, we're going to go back in time slightly to 1969 and talk about a guy called Dr. Richard Day, who worked for the Rockefeller organization Planned Parenthood, and was very much an insider in this system and in this cult. He was essentially a gopher, uh, a bagman for the Rockefeller family, who, as you all know, the Rockefeller family and the Rothschild family are two of the most prominent families you can track through history in terms of global influence, infiltration of society, and so on. Now, he spoke at a meeting of pediatricians in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US in 1969. And rather than do the presentation he was um booked there to do, he decided to just tell them the what how the world was going to change, and he asked everybody to stop recording and stop taking notes, and he was going to tell them how over the next half a century the world was going to change dramatically because the force that he worked for was going to be behind a lot of the change. When you know where the world is planned to go, predicting the future makes it very is very, very easy because if you know you're trying to go here and nothing is in the middle intervening, you know that's going to happen. So therefore, predicting the future is very simple. Now, one doctor in the audience, a guy called Lawrence Dunegan, decided to take notes. And before he died, Lawrence Dunnegan did a few interviews where he spoke about what Day said that night, because in the passage of time following that evening, he saw that a lot of the things Day said had come to fruition. One of which was something called the demise pill. Now, the demise pill was sold as essentially you'd get to the end of your life or an age that was agreed, if you like. You'd have a nice meal with your family, and you basically have an exit from the world. And then you take this pill and you'd go off the end. So, euthanasia, assisted dying. Now, there was no mention of this being a decision that was made by the person. There was no mention of this being something that was done to people who were sick. It was mentioned as a matter of course that this is what's going to happen. You know, you're in, you have your life, 60, whatever age, you take this, off you go. Now, the fact that he wrote about, sorry, spoke about that in 1969. It's worth also adding that he spoke and wrote about smart TVs 20 years before they came out. Sorry, um, the internet 20 years before it was invented in 1988. He spoke about smart TVs, which officially were invented in 2008, 40 years before they came out. He even spoke about things like making boys and girls the same, nodding towards the whole gender ideology movement that we have seen in the last 10 years. So 50, 60 years ahead of the curve on that one. So many things that he said have come to fruition. So when he speaks about something like the demise pill, it needs to be taken very seriously because it's not being said because it was just a, oh, well, yeah, an opinion. It's being said because that's the plan. And the fact that we're seeing assisted dying bills in lots of different countries goes to show that this is not an organic thing. This is something that is being picked off country after country because this is a global plan. Now, you can argue the reasons why they want to do this. The obvious one is the Henry Kissinger line of useless eaters. Once people get to a certain age, they're taking out of the system rather than putting into it. And if you're running a system purely for the economic benefit and the control of yourself and a few people you represent, the cult, not the people, then you don't want people taking out the system. You want people paying into it and then off they go. You don't want pensioners, you don't want people who might be a strain on the system, whether that be use of the NHS or public services. You don't want that. So that's one aspect of it, massively one aspect of it. And another one is if this becomes reality, the amount of control it gives the state, they essentially become judge, jury, and executioner. They become the ones in charge, they become the one calling the shots. Because the reason this bill failed the first time or failed to get through parliament, is because a lot of MPs that voted against it or abstained said they weren't comfortable there was enough checks and balances to make sure that this law would not be abused and you wouldn't have elderly or ill people being coerced or manipulated into ending their life when perhaps they didn't want to if they were left to it. And that should be the absolute number one priority of any type of medical-based procedure, whether it's a vaccine, whether it's an operation to do anything, there needs to be checks and balances, there needs to be a real informed consent where the person undergoing the procedure, whatever it is, understands the risks, understands the benefits. There is no coercion whatsoever. You know, for me, if you're having an operation of any kind or some kind of medical procedure that could potentially change your life, certainly in this case, somebody completely independent who has nothing to do with the state, nothing to do with your family, nothing to do with the doctors, nothing to do with any institution, should be there for you to talk to, to ask you the questions, to make sure that you understand exactly what you're doing, exactly what the implications are, and there's no risk at all of you being manipulated or coerced? How many times do you think you've got elderly parents who maybe are worth a few, a few quid and you've got kids that maybe don't get on with them that will be manipulating and coercing them into doing certain things? How many times do you think that happens? How many times do you think doctors and physicians and people in positions of influence know that actually they're going to get a payout if this happens? They're going to get a payout if that happens. Just like we saw through COVID when we saw the um ventilators, hospitals getting benefits because ventilators were giving them bonuses. The opportunity for manipulation here is absolutely massive. And it's very, very important that this is what is discussed over the next few weeks as this bill comes back. So the one that's being billed this time is by an MP called Lauren Edwards, the Labour MP for Rochester and Stroud. She said this would be bring an identical bill basically to the one that passed last year. That bill was brought by Kim Ledbetter of the Labour Party as well, but was not passed by the House of Lords. So it was passed in Parliament, it wasn't passed by the House of Lords. The opponents argued, as I just said there, it had substantial flaws that risked vulnerable people being pressured into ending their lives early. This is another one, just like digital ID, where we need to make sure this does not come through without severe investigation, without severe questioning, and making sure that they can't just put something through that benefits the state. I think this probably will go through in some shape or form, but we need to make sure that we don't let this go through in the format that allows people to be manipulated and coerced. And, you know, it's one of those. We need to make sure we're opposing it. Because I don't think anybody agrees that we can give the state this kind of power, we can give it this kind of control. There's an argument many people will have, I'm sure, especially those that have had elderly loved ones who have had degenerative illnesses like Alzheimer's, dementia, and so on. And you have seen that cognitive decline, physical decline. There's an argument that can be made that you're putting people out of their misery and their suffering. And I understand that argument. And like I said at the top of the episode, if we had a state that we trusted, we'd have a different conversation and give people maybe a little bit more freedom to make their own decisions in these instances. But we don't have that. We have a state that consistently abuses the power given to it already. So the last thing we want to be doing is giving it more power, giving it more influence, and giving it more control. Because where does this stop? And as I said, the sales pitch will be this is kindness, this is compassion. But once they get that foot in the door, what happens then? Just to go on a quick tangent, when closed circuit television was brought in, when CCTV cameras were first brought in, that would have been sold as will keep you safe. That would have been sold as will help prevent crime. People would have seen that as the state giving them security, giving them comfort, giving them some safety net that if something happens, it'll be recorded and it was a deterrent and it's this and it's that. Who thinks that about CCTV now? Now they're talking about facial recognition technology, number plate recognition technology in cities like London with Ulez. Everywhere you go, there's cameras. So the sales pitch was we're going to help you out. And people probably bought here once upon a time. If they came out today and said CCTV is there for your benefit, it's not there for control, it's not there for any of that, how many people would actually believe them? I'd say very few, based on what we see happening in this world today. Foot in the door, look where it's led. If we allow the foot in the door with this in any shape or form that gives the system even a smidge of power, where does that look in a decade? Where does that look in 20 years? It looks like Richard Day's demise pill, in my opinion. And that's something that once we open that can of worms, it's not going back, is it? Right, thank you for tuning in with me. If you're watching with us on Twitter or YouTube, head over to iconic.com. We're gonna talk about the uh breaking news from the Middle East yesterday. We're gonna talk about Starmer's latest flip-flop on uh social media bans for under 16s, which is another one that just seems to be happening all over the world organically all at the same time. And we're gonna talk about fuel rates and VAT on fuel rates that is targeting older cars based on the fact that they emit more CO2, which causes climate change, which is about as real. I should have thought of a better analogy. It's about as real as a contestant on Love Island. Pretty fake. So head over to iconic.com and we'll go through those stories there. See you soon.

SPEAKER_01 14:08

Even less is said about the grey pope, which some believe to be the true ruling power in the Vatican. All of them have little sickness. I've never seen it before. This is the ultimate suicide. The symbols are every day on each of us on a mental.