I realised something that changed how I see the entire financial system.

Banks create money from nothing. Then they charge interest on it.

It’s a legalised filthy trick.

When a bank issues a mortgage, they don’t lend out deposits from savers. They create new money through an accounting entry. The loan appears as an asset on their balance sheet. The deposit appears as a liability.

Both sides balance. Both are created simultaneously.

The bank’s cost? Essentially zero.

Your cost? Decades of real labour.

The Asymmetry That Nobody Talks About

Consider a typical Australian mortgage of $600,000 at 6.5% over 30 years.

The borrower repays approximately $1,367,000 total. The bank claims roughly $767,000 in profit for creating that money electronically.

The interest often equals the principal itself. Meanwhile, bank expenses have plummeted with digitalisation.

Everything runs on computers now. Very low overhead.

Yet interest payments have become one of the largest expenses in people’s lives. They keep increasing.

When newspapers lament that property prices haven’t doubled in a decade, they’re revealing who the housing market actually serves.

This Isn’t Capitalism

Capitalism should be value for value.

You produce something. Someone else produces something. You exchange.

Fractional banking violates this completely.

Banks produce nothing. They create credit through accounting entries. Then they demand repayment with money earned through actual work.

It’s money for nothing for the banks. Meanwhile, they share profits with politicians and media to keep them quiet.

The Government Can’t Print Money Because Inflation

Here’s where it gets interesting.

Governments can’t create money directly. That would cause inflation, they say. It would create instability.

So instead, governments sell bonds.

Who buys these bonds? The Reserve Bank of Australia holds about 33% of them. Commercial banks hold another substantial portion, probably another third.

Where does the Reserve Bank get money to buy government bonds?

They create it from nothing.

Where do commercial banks get money to buy government bonds?

They create it from nothing through credit creation.

So the government “can’t create money because that causes inflation”.

But the central bank can create money to lend to the government. And commercial banks can create money to lend to the government.

The government then pays interest on money that was created from nothing.

Taxpayers fund that interest.

The Historical Theft

Before 1959, Australia had the Commonwealth Bank.

It was government-owned. It functioned as both a commercial and central bank. When the government created money through the Commonwealth Bank, they weren’t paying interest to external private entities.

They were essentially paying interest to themselves.

Then Robert Menzies introduced the Reserve Bank Act of 1959. This separated central banking from government control.

Since then, house prices have exploded. In Sydney and Melbourne, median house prices now sit at 8-9 times the average annual wage, far beyond any reasonable affordability measure.

Taxpayers now pay interest on money created from nothing by private institutions.

This pattern happened everywhere. Not just Australia.

When The Data Suddenly Appears

Ask for historical house price data and you’ll hear excuses.

“Oh, nobody was counting back then, mate.”

“Data wasn’t collected systematically.”

“Records are fragmentary.”

Funny how the data gap exists exactly when you need it most.

But look at what data does exist:

1901: A standard house in Sydney cost around £1,000 (roughly $2,000)

1950s: Around $7,150 — prices remained relatively stable in real terms for half a century

1960: Around $12,700

1970: Around $18,700 in Sydney

1980: Around $76,500 — starting to accelerate

1990: Around $184,600 — more than doubled in a decade

2000: Around $312,000

2010: Around $575,900

2020s: Around $1.4 million in Sydney

Notice the pattern?

From 1901 to 1950 — fifty years — prices barely moved in real terms.

From 1950 to 1980 — another thirty years — modest, manageable growth.

Then suddenly, from 1980 onwards, prices go absolutely vertical.

What changed?

Financial deregulation in the 1980s removed the last constraints on private banks creating credit. The floodgates opened.

Before deregulation, banks faced lending limits and interest rate controls. After deregulation, they could create as much money as they wanted through mortgage lending.

And they did.

The explosion in house prices perfectly tracks the expansion of bank credit creation. It’s not supply and demand. It’s not population growth. It’s not a housing shortage.

It’s private banks creating money and funnelling it into property.

The “data gap” for the first half of the 20th century is convenient. It obscures the fact that for generations, house prices were stable and affordable.

Only when private banks gained unlimited power to create credit did prices become impossible for ordinary wage earners.

The Business Cycle Is A Feature

Fractional banking creates inflation through the money multiplier effect.

This inflation creates economic crises. They call it the business cycle.

Banks make money on the way up. Then markets crash. Rates drop.

Institutional investors backed by cheap bank loans buy up housing on the cheap.

Over time, places like Australia transform. People who were free and built their own lives become nations of renters.

When banks risk going broke, politicians create central banks as backstops to bail them out. With money created from nothing by the banks.

Which taxpayers pay interest on.

The Coordinated Silence

Try finding a single headline from any major newspaper questioning whether central banks should exist.

Not whether they should adjust interest rates. Whether they should exist at all.

You won’t find one.

The media doesn’t discuss it. Politicians don’t debate it. Even AI systems are programmed to obfuscate it.

When you try to get straight answers about how this system works, you have to wring the truth out. Every institution deflects, minimises, and redirects.

The stats that really count don’t exist either.

Try finding decade-by-decade median house prices tied to median incomes from 1900 onwards. The data that would prove exactly when and how ordinary people lost their economic freedom.

It’s either missing, destroyed, or buried in fragmented records that make analysis nearly impossible.

The Dependency Trap

Here’s why the system persists.

Banks make sure to pay the institutions who might speak out about it.

In a world of rapidly rising prices, everyone needs the fake money from the banks to get by.

Politicians rely on banks. Media organisations rely on banks. Universities rely on banks. Think tanks rely on banks.

They keep quiet to be supported or paid in kind.

Even people who understand the system participate in it. Because what choice do they have?

The inflation banks create makes prices so high that borrowing becomes the only option. You need their created-from-nothing money just to afford basic housing.

Then you spend decades repaying it with real labour.

We pay interest to banks for currency they created from nothing to lend us. We pay taxes to governments to service bonds banks bought with money they created from nothing.

Supposedly this is good for society.

The entire financial system runs on a legalised trick that converts your labour into their profit.

And everyone who might expose it depends on it for survival.

Gay bashing is wrong. Straight bashing is also wrong.

For decades, gay bashing was rampant. Homosexuality was criminalised. The state followed grown people into their homes to inspect their private behaviour. Whether we like it or not, it’s nobody’s business what consenting adults do in private when there are no victims. That was wrong.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”
— Thomas Jefferson

The Brief Peace of the 1990s

Then it mostly stopped. Somewhere around the 1990s, society approached a centre point. People realised you have to be civil and respect difference. Live and let live. Don’t attack people for being different. Mind your own business.

For a brief moment, we had peace.

The peace didn’t last.

When the Pendulum Kept Swinging

Shortly afterwards, the counterattack started. Gay marriage. Gay adoption. Surrogacy. Forcing people to accept all of this. And now, forcing people to pretend they agree that a bearded man with chest hair is a lady.

It’s like two sides in a war. The attack from one side stopped—that was good. But the moment it stopped, the counterattack began. We’ve been in it for decades.

Now, people around the world are being persecuted merely for stating simple truths. The pendulum swung from persecution to protection, then kept swinging into compulsion.

The Law Has No Special Powers

“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose!”
— Frédéric Bastiat, The Law (1850)

Frederick Bastiat wrote something in 1850 that most people still don’t understand: the law is merely the collective power of individuals to protect themselves. Nothing more.

What the Law Can Do

The law only has the powers that any single person has. A person can stop someone from attacking them. They can defend themselves. They can stop someone from stealing their property.

The courts can catch a thief or attacker on behalf of the state. They can lock someone up as punishment. But they can’t go out and attack someone else or take something from someone else—any more than an individual person can.

No Special Rights

One person doesn’t have more rights than another person. One country doesn’t have more rights than another country. And the law does not have more powers than any individual people.

Bastiat’s framework is simple: you have the right to life, liberty, and property. The law exists only to protect those rights. The moment it goes beyond that, it becomes perverted.

Three Cases, One Principle

Case One: The Baker and Compelled Labour

Consider the baker who refused to design a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage.

He wasn’t refusing to sell them bread or everyday commerce. He wasn’t punishing them for their behaviour. They were trying to force him to perform a specialised service—to help them celebrate their relationship, to partake in an activity he didn’t agree with.

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
— George Washington

The law can’t force someone to do something. It’s only there to stop people from attacking other people or taking their property. That’s it.

It’s like paying an pacifist artist to paint you a picture of a bloody battle. The artist says, “I don’t want to draw that picture.” You respond, “No, you have to, or I’ll make the courts force you to pay me money.”

That’s the same as saying, “If you don’t do something for me that you don’t like, I’m going to punch you in the face.”

Violence by Any Other Name

Whether it’s you physically attacking someone or having the law attack them, the outcome is the same. At the end of the day, the law is always enforced by violence. Refuse the court order? You’ll be dragged off to jail.

If you’re trying to have laws violently applied to someone who hasn’t infringed on your right to life, liberty or property, you’re not the victim. You’re the aggressor.

The United States Supreme Court recognised this distinction. Refusing to design a special cake with celebratory words is different from refusing to sell any cake at all.

Case Two: Surrogacy and the Enslaved Child

Now consider surrogacy.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children observes that commercial surrogacy as currently practised usually constitutes sale of children under international human rights law.

This triggers legitimate use of law under Bastiat’s framework. A third party is being harmed: the child.

When Harm Justifies Intervention

The child has been kidnapped—purchased as a slave for personal gratification. Even if they’re not abusing the child, the mere fact of taking the child from its mother is kidnapping. The fact that they’ve paid a poor person in desperate circumstances makes no difference.

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”
— Abraham Lincoln

Surrogacy is kidnapping and slavery. It doesn’t matter who does it. Everything must be applied consistently. There is no such thing as special rights for special groups.

The Child’s Right to Know

A child has the right to grow up knowing who its people are. Its mum and dad, or adopted parents who should tell the child where it comes from from the very beginning—to avoid a culture of shame.

They should be open and let the child have the freedom to get to know who they want as they grow up. Everyone has that right.

The Surrogacy Deception

In surrogacy, people act selfishly, using others to get what they want.

If surrogacy was such a great thing, the people who say it’s good would encourage their twenty-year-old daughters to do it. Tell your eighteen-year-old to take two years off school and be a surrogate mother.

But they wouldn’t. Because they know it’s bad.

So they go to poor countries and call it a “free commercial arrangement.” They’re using economic power to get poor people to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do.

Packaging Doesn’t Change the Crime

It doesn’t matter where the child comes from or how the transaction is structured. No one has the right to deny someone knowledge of their background and origins. To do that is kidnapping.

If you kidnap someone as a slave, no money changes hands. You might say it’s not a commercial transaction. But it’s all the same whether you kidnap the person yourself or buy them from someone else who kidnapped them.

If someone shoots someone, painting the bullet pink and drawing a flower on it doesn’t make them any less dead. No matter what you call it—calling it surrogacy, calling it anything else—if you’ve intentionally taken a child away from its kin, that’s harm.

When Legitimate Adoption Occurs

Sometimes young parents or those facing difficulties freely choose to give a child up for adoption. They don’t believe they can raise the child, and they refuse that responsibility.

In that case, when someone else—a loving mother and father—steps in to take that responsibility, that’s a good thing.

Every child has the right to a mother and father. In some cases they don’t get one, but that should be the pinnacle of all laws related to adoption. That is what children should have, and what they must get in any adoption arrangement.

The Truth Sets Everyone Free

But regardless of the scenario, when a child is adopted, the child has the right to know the truth. Everyone has the right to know the truth about their background.

“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”
— George Washington

Smart adoptive parents tell the child the truth from the outset. They may even take the child to see the birth mother when possible, letting the child know their relatives and the true story.

There’s no hidden horror lurking in the background. By using the truth to inoculate against fear, they recognise the child ultimately has the right to choose their own destiny. They’re not parents by force—they’re parents whilst honouring that child’s autonomy.

Most Western states and countries increasingly recognise the right of the child to know who the birth parents are. But that’s not enough. The child must be told the truth.

Surrogacy: The Opposite of Legitimate Adoption

Surrogacy is the opposite. People custom-create a scenario that never had to happen—for their own gain. They want a child who’s not theirs. The mother agrees because she needs the money.

That’s a crime. Whether or not the law recognises it as a crime, they’ve infringed on someone else’s rights. In any situation where someone infringes on someone else’s rights, it doesn’t matter what the law says—crime has occurred. Nothing any fake law says can change that.

These days we’re seeing two men “adopting” a child from a surrogate mother. That’s an obvious and open crime where a child is being denied the right to its true parents.

If the child were told the truth—”we bought you from your parents, we paid them to have you and then took you away”—would the child not hate the fake so-called parents who did that?

We’ve even seen cases reported in Australian media where three men in a “throuple” relationship fought for all three to have parental rights to their children. In California, three dudes “adopted” a child, and are now “fighting for their regional government to recognise the parental rights of all three men.”

It doesn’t matter what gets allowed by the law. There’s always someone else claiming to be a victim, that the system isn’t fair to them. For these people, it’s all about them. They don’t really care about the child.

Anyone who really cares about children would say: children belong with their mothers and fathers. Anyone who wants to intentionally create a situation other than that is an abuser and a criminal, regardless of what the law says.

Case Three: Compelled Speech and Gender

Nobody has the right to force someone else to tell a lie. Full stop.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
— George Orwell

It doesn’t matter whether it’s legal penalties or social consequences. People have the right to free association. You can’t force people to hang out with people they don’t want to hang out with.

The Politeness Trap

People are constructing scenarios where they’re forcing others to agree with things that are not true. Disagree? You’ll be penalised because someone was offended, or a “protected class” was offended.

But there is no such thing as special rights for special people.

You might choose to use someone’s preferred pronouns out of politeness. In business, someone says they’re a lady but you don’t think they look like one. For polite reasons, you might assume they are what they say they are.

But if you don’t, and if they take offence, they don’t have to deal with you either. They can refuse. You are both free. You can’t force association. People must choose for themselves.

When the Mask Slips

These days, we know it’s a piss-take. We see men in dresses with beards and chest hair demanding that someone else say they’re a woman.

You cannot force someone else to lie.

There are no special rights for special groups. Everyone has exactly the same rights.

The Uncomfortable Middle

This position is one of non-aggression.

It’s not aggressive conservatism—it doesn’t want the state criminalising private behaviour between consenting adults.

It’s not aggressive progressivism—it won’t pretend that compelling speech or celebrating every lifestyle choice is somehow liberation.

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”
— Thomas Sowell

One Consistent Principle

You cannot attack someone who hasn’t attacked you first. You cannot take someone’s property. You cannot force someone’s labour or speech.

And when a genuinely vulnerable third party is being harmed—like a child denied knowledge of their origins—that’s when legitimate intervention begins.

Where We Are Now

The pendulum swung from persecution to protection. Then it kept swinging.

We’re now at a point where stating obvious truths can get you dragged before courts or human resources departments. Where refusing to participate in celebrations you disagree with makes you a bigot. Where economic power coerces poor women into bearing children for wealthy couples.

Rights are simpler than some would want you to believe. People don’t have the right to make other people do things. Only the right not to have things done to them.

The Control of Information

The Victorian government, for example, was happy for kids to watch all manner of social media when it was under heavy ideological censorship—Twitter and Facebook controlled by Biden Administration censorship directives, constantly pushing the woke agenda and the Gender Crap.

But now that X broke free of that control, and Facebook loosened its grip, suddenly there are simple memes floating around everywhere. Memes that show the truth in a simple way that can’t be denied, mocking the fakeness and lies.

That resonates with kids who know they’re being sold complex lies—lies that can be revealed by a simple meme. In 2024, papers were complaining that kids are becoming more “right-wing”—which really means they’re not extreme left. If you’re not extreme left, you’re extreme right in their minds.

The government wants schools to be the sole purveyors of information to children. They’re hoping kids watch all the woke content on Netflix and don’t hear too much from their parents.

But kids are mercilessly mocking the woke ideology and the Gender Crap that some teachers are trying to push.

The School Library Battle

They’re very happy to fill school libraries with books promoting their ideology. But when regular families stand up and say they don’t want their kids taught Gender Crap, suddenly the media claims schools are being “taken over by religious people.”

It’s not a religious takeover. It’s just regular people who’ve always been against this stuff. Most people are happy to respect the rights of others—they’re the ones who supported “live and let live” in the 1990s. They just don’t want their children indoctrinated with ideology that tells them to cut off body parts.

Being “Groomed in Ideology”

The Australian federal government’s Step Together website warns about “right-wing extremism” online, asking: “At what point do you think a young person starts to show the difference between being an avid gamer versus getting pulled down a rabbit hole of being groomed in ideology?”

They call it “being groomed in ideology” when kids question what they’re being taught in school.

But they didn’t call it grooming when schools were telling young kids to take hormones and have irreversible hormone treatment. They didn’t call it grooming when every school in Victoria had documents stating the school could facilitate a child’s gender transition without the parents’ knowledge.

They’re lying to these kids. Making them think it’s a solution that will actually work—when doctors can hardly reattach a severed finger successfully, let alone create complex body parts from nothing. Body parts that naturally have systems to maintain cleanliness and prevent infection. The fake man-made constructions don’t have any of that, leading to serious infection problems that are indeed documented.

The government thinks that’s completely acceptable.

But the moment children start to read information questioning unlimited immigration, or banks creating money out of nothing, or foreign countries—especially strategic threats—buying up all our land? Suddenly they imagine kids marching around wearing swastikas.

The Real Reason for the Social Media Ban

In 2024, papers were complaining that kids are becoming more “right-wing.” In 2025, as the government’s own Step Together website shows, they’re scared that young people are being “groomed” by ideology—meaning anything that questions their narrative.

And now, in 2025, Australia passed the world’s strictest social media ban—prohibiting anyone under 16 from accessing platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Snapchat and Reddit.

For all this time, the government didn’t care about kids on social media. They were very happy for kids to be on it when they thought it was going their way—when they thought kids were being swamped with woke content and Gender Crap.

But then the censorship dropped. What they thought was a good tool to push their ideology started allowing kids to get a free flow of truth. That wasn’t convenient for them.

So now they want to ban it.

But it’s not really about protecting children. They don’t like anyone being able to talk freely on social media. The ban requires connecting every account to government ID. That’s the real goal—so they can use force to stop people expressing themselves freely.

They can’t do that if they don’t know who’s talking online.

Rights Are Simple

Rights are simpler than some would have you believe.

“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”
— John F. Kennedy

What Rights Really Mean

To have a right to do something means that when you do it, you are not in the wrong. You’re not harming anyone else. Therefore it is not wrong to do it, therefore you have the right to do it.

It’s not right to take a child away from its parents needlessly. If you do something that’s not right, then you’re in the wrong. Nobody has the right to do something that is wrong.

People don’t have the right to make other people do things. Only the right not to have things done to them.

Victoria’s voluntary assisted dying law just changed in a way most people missed.

Health Minister Mary-Anne Thomas has pushed through amendments that allow doctors to tell desperate, dying patients they can provide poison to kill them. They couldn’t before. The original 2017 legislation explicitly prohibited it.

That prohibition wasn’t accidental. It was one of 68 so-called “safeguards” that we were told would protect vulnerable people from coercion.

Now it’s gone.

Mary-Anne Thomas and the Erosion of Safeguards

Mary-Anne Thomas has been the architect behind these changes. While she posts on Facebook about how tragic it is when young depressed people commit suicide, she’s simultaneously dismantling the protections that prevented doctors from suggesting death to vulnerable patients.

Mary-Anne Thomas has made medical misogyny a signature issue. She launched a Victorian government inquiry into women’s pain. In November 2024, she told The Age she was “shocked” that more than 13,000 women and girls shared stories of having serious pain dismissed or being gaslit by doctors who told them they had mental health issues.

She warned the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners to “brace yourself” for the inquiry’s findings about women’s experiences with doctors. She said women were treated as drug addicts when they asked for pain relief. She blamed Medicare rebates, medical training, and “conscious and unconscious bias” in the health profession.

Thomas said it revealed “a misogynist view that pain is part of women’s burden.”

But then she thinks it’s perfectly fine for those very same doctors, the ones she says dismiss and gaslight women, to tell vulnerable women at their darkest hour that they can kill them.

These women went to hospital for help. If they wanted to kill themselves, they could have. But they didn’t. They went looking for hope, for treatment, for care.

And Mary-Anne Thomas wants to force doctors to hand them a pamphlet about death.

The hypocrisy is staggering. The fakeness is hard to comprehend.

The amendments don’t just allow doctors to provide information. Mary-Anne Thomas wanted to make it mandatory. Doctors must tell patients they can kill them with poison, even patients who never asked, never considered it.

This is the same pattern we’ve seen elsewhere. First it’s terminal illness. Then it’s depression. Then it’s poverty. Mary-Anne Thomas is following the playbook.

The Psychological Blow

Think about what happens in that hospital room.

You’re sick. You’re in pain. You’ve spent your life caring for others. Now it’s your turn to be cared for.

You go to the doctor looking for help. For treatment. For hope.

Instead, the doctor hands you a pamphlet. “We can kill you if you’d like. It’s legal now.”

You never thought about it. But now someone in authority, someone you trust, is suggesting maybe your life isn’t worth continuing.

That’s not offering choice. That’s planting a seed.

Strong people might push back. But we’re not talking about strong people. We’re talking about vulnerable people at the worst moment of their lives.

Think about women especially. Women who’ve spent their lives caring for others, always willing to sacrifice, always putting others first. When they get sick and seek medical help, they’re now told by authority figures that maybe their life isn’t worth living.

That’s what Mary-Anne Thomas has enabled.

The Waiting Period That Matters

The amendments also cut the waiting period from nine days to five.

Four days. That’s the difference between a patient having time to reconsider and a quick spiral after receiving that psychological blow.

Research shows these timeframes matter. When California shortened its waiting period to 48 hours, prescriptions for lethal medication jumped 47% in one year.

Older people in hospitals often don’t get visitors. They’re isolated. They’re depressed about that isolation. They’re feeling like a burden.

Then the doctor suggests death as an option. In five days, that suggestion can become reality.

Mary-Anne Thomas claims she’s helping vulnerable people. But these amendments do the opposite.

Who Benefits

Follow the incentives.

The medical industry benefits. Doctors get paid for the service. It’s faster and cheaper than ongoing palliative care.

Nursing homes benefit. They have financial arrangements that activate upon death.

And the system rewards those who don’t want to take care of people who’ve cared for them their whole lives. Lazy people who can’t be bothered doing the hard work of caring for someone in their time of need get an out. The doctor does the dirty work for them.

The law says two “independent” doctors must assess the patient. But independent from what, exactly?

Can both doctors work for the same clinic? Can one be employed by the nursing home where the patient lives? Can they have ongoing business relationships with institutions that benefit financially from the patient’s death?

These aren’t hypothetical concerns. Victorian clinicians surveyed before the original law expressed significant worry that vulnerable patients would be coerced to lessen the burden on families or the health system.

The Canadian Precedent

I keep mentioning Canada because they’re a few steps ahead of us. This is where Mary-Anne Thomas is leading Victoria.

First, it was terminal illness. Then mental illness. Then poverty.

Sean Tagert had Lou Gehrig’s disease. He needed 24-hour care but the government only funded 16 hours. The remaining eight hours cost him $263.50 per day.

He chose medically assisted death at 41, leaving behind an 11-year-old son. He called the alternative, institutionalisation, a “death sentence.”

Two women in Ontario with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities applied for assisted death after failing to find accessible housing. One said explicitly she applied “because of abject poverty.”

The UN Special Rapporteur visited Canada and expressed extreme concern. People with disabilities were requesting death not because they wanted to die, but because community support didn’t exist.

This is the trajectory under Mary-Anne Thomas’s leadership.

What Actually Changes

People already have the freedom to end their own lives. That’s always been true.

What changes when the state institutionalises it?

The difference is suggestion. Marketing. Authority figures telling vulnerable people that death is a dignified option.

The government is selling death. They’re making it sound painless, dignified, easy. They’re creating a sales pitch and requiring doctors to deliver it.

That’s not respecting autonomy. That’s disrespecting vulnerable people at their most desperate moment.

True dignity means knowing people want to care for you. That your life has value. That the medical system exists to help you live, not to kill you.

When a doctor suggests you might be better off dead, that’s the opposite of dignity.

The media barely covered these amendments. I searched. A handful of articles. Three pages of Google results for legislation that fundamentally changes the doctor-patient relationship.

The safeguards are disappearing one by one under Mary-Anne Thomas’s watch. The pattern is predictable. First they promise strong protections to get the bill passed. Then they water them down. Then they expand eligibility.

Mary-Anne Thomas has form. She’s been pushing this agenda since 2020, right beside Dan Andrews through it all. Every time there’s an opportunity to legislate more killing, she’s behind it.

But the media keeps her out of the spotlight. They talk about Jacinta Allen. They ignore the fact that Mary-Anne Thomas has been there the whole time, driving these policies.

It’s hard to imagine how people can vote for her when they don’t even know what she’s doing. While she pretends to care about vulnerable people, her actions tell a different story.

We’ve seen this movie before. We know how it ends.