More on John 1:18 and the born god

The most recent recension of the Greek NT that I have is by Nestle. It adds an extensive critical apparatus to support its various readings.  So I got around to looking at the authorities given for "theos" in John 1:18. 

He gives only the available papyri plus the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.  He clearly regards any further readings  as superfluous.  And he is right.  Those two codices are generally regarded as the best authorities for the Greek NT that we have and the concurrence of the papyri is particularly impressive. They are the earliest texts we have.

So when the exegetes cavil about variant readings, they are not doing so on the best textual grounds but rather on  theological grounds.  There is no real doubt about what John actually wrote in verse 18: "Theos".

I should probably add here that I don't write to discourage Christian belief.  I write only to disparage acceptance of the absurd Trinity doctrine.  Up until the work of Athanasius in the 4th century, NO Christian believed in the Trinity doctrine.  It is a totally non-Biblical confection.  It was a useful theological compromise at the time it was adopted but it is nothing more


Does John 1:1 contradict John 1:18?

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

(In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. KJV)

Oh boy! When you get into a discussion of the Gospel of John, you dive into complexities. John was clearly influenced by the mysterious style of the gnostic writers but at the same time made sure that what he said would not mislead a careful reader. He wrote very carefully and precisely.

So after my comments about verse 18, we inevitably get back to verse 1 (above). Does it not say there that Jesus was with God in the beginning and does it not say he is God? So how does that jibe with verse 18 where Jesus is said to be a born God? He was certainly born as a man but he was also born as a god, according to verse 18.

Both those claims about verse 1 turn, once again, on what the Greek actually says rather than conventional translations of it. The issue is anarthrous predicates -- i.e. what does it mean when the definite article is omitted? It is omitted both before "theos" and before "arche".

Omitting a definite article before a Greek noun is equivalent to our usage of the indefinite article. Greek does not have an indefinite article to indicate a class of things so where that is intended, "ho" (the) is simply omitted. An omitted definite article is significant.

The implication of that is that verse 1 should be translated to read "a beginning", not "the beginning" and "was God" should be rendered as "was a god". So verse 1 is in fact entirely consistent with verse 18. John was not confused. He was very precise. Jesus was NOT there in the beginning and he was NOT God

The exegetes know all that and try to wriggle out of it by saying it was a Greek custom to omit the definite artice where the noun is part of a predicate. That may be true of some writers but it clearly was not John's usage. No sooner than verse 4 of chapter 1 do we find John using a definite article in a predicate: τὸ φῶς

ἐν αὐτῶ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

The light was THE light of men. So the anarthrous predicate argument just will not wash. John really did say that Jesus was a god and that he existed in a beginning, which is perfectly consistent with him being a "born god"

Chapter 14 is another occasion where John's style of writing could mislead. He speaks there of Jesus being united with God. But in verse 28 he makes sure that he is not misunderstood. He emphasizes there that he is NOT God: "My father is greater than I"

My apologies to any mainstream Christians reading this. What I have said is inconsistent with your theology. But it is not me speaking. It is the apostle John

Update note: All 3 predicates mentioned are after the verb to be (een) so are entirely comparable


Jesus was a born God (μονογενὴς θεὸς )

That's what it says in the original Greek of John 1:18.

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

(No man hath seen God at any time, the *only begotten Son*, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. KJV)

Mainstream Christianity embraces the Athanasian trinity doctrine that identifies Jesus as God. The doctrine is rather confusing but it clearly identifies Jesus as eternal. That has always seemed nuts to me. Jesus prayed to God he was not God himself.

So I have come across something that is great fun indeed: The usage of "monogenēs theos" in the original Greek of John 1:18. See above. A single-born god! Is that not clear enough that Jesus was created, despite having divine attributes?

The KJV (see above) translates "μονογενὴς θεὸς" as "only begotten son" in that passage. And the Griesbach recension of the Greek has that usage too "monogenes huios", begotten son. So I was unaware that both Westcott & Hort and Nestle recensions give "monogenēs theos". "theos" must be better attested than "huios" in the early MSS. Westcott & Hort above.

So in the light of the best modern recensions of the original Greek text, the translation "only begotten son" is absurd. The original text says "single-born GOD" -- μονογενὴς θεὸς. Jesus was a god but not THE god. That's what it says. He was in the bosom of THE god: In the bosom of τοῦ πατρὸς (THE father)

Huge fun however is the way most modern translations render "monogenēs theos". They either miss out "monogenes" entirely or say simply "only". And some stick with "son", despite that not being in the best renderings of the original Greek text. Though the NIV has the grace to put "son" in brackets! It is obviously a hugely embarrassing passage to them. Embarrassing enough for them to mistranslate it deliberately. They are just incapable of saying that Christ was both "genes", "born", "conceived" (perhaps "generated" in modern terms) but also a "theos", a god! "A born God". Let those words sink in.

I suppose trinitarians will waffle their way around that, as they usually do, but there is nothing unclear or mysterious in the original text. If the text had said a born son, it could have meant Christ's incarnation. But it does not. It was not a man that was born. It was a God.

Needless to say, the theologians and exegetes have gone wild trying to tell us that the text does not mean what it says. They say that μονογενὴς (monogenes) just refers to a particular person etc. And they then give a pile of excerpts from classical and Biblical Greek in support of that. They also quote Liddell & Scott's definitions in support of their claims. But all the examples they give are in fact of naturally born people and people identified by their particular birth. Putting it another way, Greeks would on occasions refer to people as "borns", for various reasons. But born still meant born.

But let's leave the μονο aside and just look at γενὴς. They won't like Liddell & Scott's first definition of "genea", which is "of the persons in a family". Not the mystical persons of the trinity but the individual persons of a normal family. And let us look at a word we all know: "Genesis". It's exactly the same word in Greek and English and it's a form of γενὴς. And we know what it refers to, don't we? A beginning. So Christ was a god who had a beginning, a birth.

I would have been burnt at the stake for saying that at times in the past. But it is not me speaking. It is John 1:18.


How old was Adam and when did he live?

Tom Croucher has done a very scholarly analysis of the numbers used in Genesis. It is long and complex so I make no attempt to reproduce it here. I reproduce below just the Abstract and conclusion.

I have myself come to a similar but much less complex conclusion when I argued that the ages of Methuselah & co were a simple decimal mistake. I argued that the scribes of the original and much older text had misunderstood the numbers they saw and assumed that they were decimal when they were not. Decimal numbering has been around as long as people have had ten fingers so it was an understandable mistake. So if we move the decimal point one place we get more believable numbers. Methuselah lived only into his 90s. My article on that is below

I am inclined to defer to Croucher on the matter but I note one difficulty in his account: He fails to consider the obvious different origins of Genesis chapter 1 and the rest of Genesis. Most of Genesis is consitent with the rest of the Torah in referring to God as Yahweh but Chapter 1 only refers to him as Elohim, a much later practice. So chapter 1 is an interpolation to the original text. Both chapter 1 and the other early chapters maybe of Sumerian origin but considering both as part of the same narrative is clearly fallacious. I do not doubt that chapter 1 is of Sumerian origin. Verses 6 and 7 clearly reflect Sumerian cosmology. I expand on that below:

I discuss WHY Chapter 1 was interpolated below:

Finally, I think Croucher should simply delete from his account all mention of Chapter 1. That would not greatly harm his narrative

In the first two papers of this series, I developed the following propositions: Adam was not the first human, and he lived in Sumer, Southern Mesopotamia, in the period 3200 – 3000 BC. In this paper I use those conclusions to place the early chapters of Genesis in their Sumerian context and I propose that the original
written record of Adam was a Sumerian document where the ages that appear in Genesis 5 were recorded in a numbering system of that time, and this led to translation errors that result in the problematic ages of the patriarchs. I then propose a means of reverse-engineering the ages to the correct numbers when these
events were first recorded in Sumer. The conclusion is that Adam was 81 years old when he died.

The pre-Flood portion of the SKL uses simple statements to present a list of kings. While the list of names and places may be believed the lengths of the reigns are not believable.

However, the fact that every reign is a combination of multiples of 3,600 and 600, makes it easy to demonstrate how the misinterpretation may have occurred. When reverse-engineered the resulting reigns return to numbers consistent with human

From beginning to the end of the whole SKL there are three sections: the pre-Flood with lengthy number, the middle section showing a reduction in the numbers, and the final section showing reigns consistent with human lifespans.

The same thing happens in the Bible: the simple writing style of early Sumer in Genesis 1, 5, and 11; the pattern of reducing lifespans and longevity in Genesis 5 that can be reverse-engineered to produce normal human lifespans.

Therefore, I propose that Adam lived in the period 3200 – 3000 BC and that he probably lived to be 81 years old. This means that Adam lived at a time when the priests of Sumer were an elite class of people.Intelligent, well-educated, and highly trained, the priests developed both writing and mathematics — knowledge essential to manage their increasingly sophisticated society.

This knowledge helps establish the social, cultural and, most importantly, the religious context for Adam and leads to a different understanding of Genesis 1-5.

If this revised chronology does prove to be acceptable, then the propositions of the first two papers (that Adam was not the first human and that he lived 3200 – 3000 BC becomes a more certain proposition.

If the best explanation for the longevity in Genesis 5 is that they are the result of a misinterpretation of a numbering system from Shuruppak around 290 BC, then the record from Adam to Noah must be a Mesopotamian text written at that time. If that is the case, then the argument for the story being passed on as oral history is redundant. When a culture has a written record there is no need for oral history.


Australia Day is a true celebration of the positive

And attacks on it are just Leftist poison. What it celebrates is to the benefit of ALL Australians, including Aborigines. Sad that the Left have stirred up a few Aborigines to protest about it. Leftists have a yen for destruction and destroying a holiday that was widely enjoyed is a triumph to them

Far from the beginning of oppression and slavery on an idyllic continent, the first Australia Day marked the arrival of things previously unknown but devoutly to be wished: the rule of law, liberal institutions, science, markets, and the sacred notion of individual equality in rights and dignity.

This is what makes it truly a day to be celebrated by all Australians, regardless of whether their citizenship ceremony was last night or whether their ancestry in this country stretches back tens of thousands of years.

January 26 is not the anniversary of Britain’s claim of possession over Australia nor of the actual arrival of the First Fleet. But it does commemorate the first flag raising on Sydney Harbour and thus appropriately marks the birth of modern Australia.

To all those arguing for a different date or angsting over whether we should feel pride or shame every January 26, I say name a date that’s more suitable; or better yet study the real history of our country before falling for the cultural Marxist claptrap that British settlement was a disaster, especially for Indigenous people.

Our continent was never going to remain forever the preserve of a few hundred clans of hunter-gatherers. That’s not to disrespect the achievement of the Aboriginal people who had survived, ingeniously, for hundreds of generations in an often harsh environment. But the instant modernity erupted into an ancient land, life was going to change, in the short term, sometimes for the worse, with new diseases and new conflicts; but soon, for the better, with new learning, new opportunities and new protections especially for women and children.

The best Indigenous leaders, such as Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine, recognise this. Looking at the harshness of local life at the time, and at the competing colonial records of France, Spain, Holland, Portugal and Belgium, it’s hard not to conclude that British settlement, for all its occasional blemishes, was more of a deliverance than a curse.

The British government instructed governor Arthur Phillip to “live in amity” with the native people. Phillip himself, when speared at Manly Cove, put it down to a misunderstanding rather than launch a punitive expedition. Under governor Lachlan Macquarie, schools were opened for Aboriginal people and some received land grants. Early land grants often specified that the rights of local people to hunt, fish and camp should be respected. In 1838, after the notorious Myall Creek massacre, white men were hanged for the murder of blacks. When in 1894 in South Australia the right both to vote and to stand for parliament was finally given to women, in what was a world first, that included Aboriginal women too. Hence this notion that the lives of Indigenous people were uniquely or even especially harsh in early colonial Australia is simply not borne out by the facts.

That’s why, as a nation, regardless of our individual ancestry, we really do need to get over the epidemic of breast-beating that every year marks the lead-up to Australia Day. This year, it wasn’t just ultra-woke Tennis Australia that planned a pride day, a disabilities day, and a so-called First Nations day at the Australian Open, but nothing to mark Australia Day; Cricket Australia (before backflipping) announced it would not acknowledge Australia Day as such, rather it would ­acknowledge on the day that January 26 meant “different things to different people”; and Woolworths announced that it would no longer stock Australia Day merchandise, even though it’s only too happy to celebrate other dates such as Ramadan and Diwali. Worthies such as cricket captain Pat Cummins (no stranger to left-wing causes) weighed in and criticised the date, even though there’s no consensus on a suitable alternative, history cannot be rewritten, and most of the change-the-date brigade don’t actually want the date changed, they actually want Australia Day abolished because of their fundamental objection with any non-Aboriginal settlers on this continent.

Of course, Aboriginal people have sometimes been treated harshly in this country: subjected to “protection” regimes, for instance; and denied a clear federal right to vote until 1962; but contemporary Australia has never been less racist and more colourblind (as our immigration intake plus the slight over-representation of Aboriginal people in the current parliament attests) and is certainly far less race-conscious than countries such as China and Japan. That’s why, when it’s not a noxious mixture of ignorance and virtue-signalling, the current disdain for Australia Day manifests an ideological dislike of our country and its people that should not be pandered to if we are to avoid something akin to a collective ­national identity crisis. If last year’s resounding defeat of the voice referendum meant anything, it was that Australians dislike being guilted about our history and reject being divided on the basis of ancestry. Yet instead of accepting that they’d grievously misread the national mood, pro-voice entities (such as Woolies, which gave the Yes campaign $1.5m of shareholder money, and Cricket Australia, which publicly advocated for a Yes vote) have doubled down on their politically correct virtue-signalling.

There’s no sign that, post-voice, the educational institutions encouraging pupils to write letters of contrition for Aboriginal dispossession or to apologise for their white privilege are rethinking the damage they’re doing to youth mental health or to our long-term national unity. Although Anthony Albanese has said that he accepted the people’s vote, his government is still pursuing separatist local and regional voices, treaties, and so-called “truth telling” to rewrite our history from an activist perspective. He says he supports Australia Day and will personally participate in Australia Day events but his government removed the previous insistence that local councils hold citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day, which some 81 green-left ones have now duly cancelled. While maybe not personally opposing Australia Day, he’s certainly eroding it; and while claiming to support it, he’s green-lit all those who don’t.

As well, he’s enshrined the practice of never appearing before an Australian flag without the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags alongside it (as if the flags of some of us are coequal with the flag of all of us); and he’s entrenched the practice of never beginning an official event or official speech without an acknowledgment of country (as if particular parts of Australia belong to some of us rather than to all of us).

There’s a real opening here for a political leader to commit to ending the angst over our national day by enshrining it in legislation that’s harder-than-usual to change or even to put it in the Constitution. And to promise to have just one flag for one people. This wouldn’t be engaging in culture wars; rather it would be ending them in a way that polls show the vast majority of Australians want. If Peter Dutton were to announce this, building on his decision to oppose the voice while it was still apparently popular, he would cement his position as the national leader the quiet Australians have long been seeking. A country where an angry mob shouts “gas the Jews”, while ­important institutions snub the national day, really has let itself down.


Was Louis Scarcella a Robin Hood?

image from

There have always been cases where people see some good in criminal behavour, with the case of Robin Hood being the classic of that. In modern times Chicago cop Jon Burge is perhaps the best example of that. I have written at some length about him previously. Chicago whites were a lot safer when Jon Burge was around.

The case below could also be an example of that. These days I interest myself in police misbehavior only when it occurs in Australia. Example below:

But in the 80s and 90s I looked more widely. I followed crooked convictions in the USA and UK too. Being now aged 80, however, I have to limit my ambitions a bit these days

And NYPD detective Louis Scarcella was one whose name kept popping up in my reading. And as I recollect it, Scarcella nearly always targeted blacks who had "form": They had prior criminal convictions, were gang-bangers or were drug dealers. When however they came to attention for something serious Scarcella would spring into action. If there was insufficient evidence to convict the presumed offender, Scarcella would make sure that evidence was provided, often in the form of forced confessions. The result was that a lot of dubious citizens got a long holiday in a government building

So was that good or bad? Mostly bad it seems to me but taking a lot of hoodlums off the street was surely a silver lining. They might or might not have not been guilty of what sent them to jail but they were rarely innocents either

Australia had a notorious crooked cop too: Roger Rogerson, who has just died. He too put a lot of bad guys away but eventually went too far. There is a memoir of him here:

A Brooklyn man who served 14 years behind bars for a murder he didn’t commit – in a case investigated by disgraced ex-NYPD Det. Louis Scarcella – had his conviction overturned Thursday, prosecutors said.

Steven Ruffin, 45, choked up in court as his 1996 manslaughter case was tossed by Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Matthew D’Emic following an investigation that found several serious errors — including that he was pressured into confessing to the crime after having denied it several times.

“I lost 14 years of my life for a crime I didn’t commit, and today will help me to move on from that chapter of my life, cleared of any wrongdoing,” Ruffin said in a statement.

In court, Ruffin thanked the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office and its Conviction Review Unit for the “incredible amount of work” it did in reviewing his decades-old case.

He paused to compose himself, overcome with emotion, as he thanked his parents, noting that his mother hadn’t lived to see her son’s exoneration.

Ruffin was just 18 when he was convicted of killing 16-year-old James Deligny, who was shot on Kingston Avenue in Crown Heights around 9:10 p.m. on Feb. 5, 1996 in a case of mistaken identity.

Deligny was apparently targeted after robbing Ruffin’s sister Diana, a college freshman, of her earrings, the DA’s Office said.

Ruffin’s sister told her family about the mugging and a manhunt was underway to find the robber. Several members of a group eventually encountered Deligny and his sister a few blocks from Ruffin’s home, where a fight ensued and Deligny was gunned down.

Scarcella interrogated Ruffin, then 17, twice where he denied being the shooter, prosecutors said.

Ruffin’s estranged dad, a cop, was brought to the precinct to convince his son to confess to the slaying, saying he shot Deligny four times, according to the Conviction Review Unit report.

He was released on parole in 2010.

It would take more than a decade after Ruffin was out of jail for prosecutors to reexamine the case and find several errors in the investigation.

“The fact that they actively looked into my case, took the application and the amount of resources that they put in to exonerate me, it, it—that is what staggers my mind,” Ruffin said. “If they would have never said a word about Scarcella, I would have never known because I live in Georgia.”

Deligny’s sister had testified that the shooter had a cracked tooth, like Ruffin.

According to the investigation, Ruffin’s defense attorney at the time, botched the case by failing to tell the jury that the boyfriend of Ruffin’s sister also had a cracked tooth.

The boyfriend confessed to multiple people that he was the one who killed Deligny, the investigation found.

“After a full investigation by my Conviction Review Unit, we can no longer stand by this old conviction and will move to give Mr. Ruffin his good name back,” Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said in a statement.

Ruffin’s exoneration marks the 18th case that has been overturned involving Scarcella, according to the Legal Aid Society.

“The fact that they actively looked into my case, took the application and the amount of resources that they put in to exonerate me, it, it—that is what staggers my mind,” Ruffin said. “If they would have never said a word about Scarcella, I would have never known because I live in Georgia.”

“We will continue to correct miscarriages of justice and to learn from the mistakes we uncover to ensure that they never happen again,” Gonzalez said.


The Greenland ice sheets are melting much, much more quickly than anticipated

Ho Hum!  As usual no mention of subsurface vulcanism. And the ice loss is mostly along the West coast, exactly where the subsurface  volcanoes are

To give them their due, the galoots below did NOT attribute the ice loss to global warming, which is rather heroic of them

New data suggests the extent of ice sheet loss since 1985 has been underestimated by as much as 20 per cent, scientists wrote in a new paper published in Nature.

More freshwater ice in the Atlantic could affect ocean circulation, disrupt fish ecosystems and accelerate the melting process, contributing to rising sea levels.

How the ice loss was missed

The paper, Ubiquitous acceleration in Greenland Ice Sheet calving from 1985 to 2022, describes how scientists have failed to consider the full impact of ice calving – when large chunks of ice break off from the edge of a glacier.

“The surprise was just the ubiquity of the signal,” said lead author Chad Greene, a glaciologist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. With the exception of “one minuscule little glacier” that grew modestly, Greene said, “there’s just been retreat everywhere we’ve looked. It’s on every corner of the island.”

NASA satellites tracked a rapid decline in the mass of the ice sheet between 2001 and 2021, when it shed 280 billion tonnes of ice a year on average. That marked a significant acceleration compared with the preceding decades and is equivalent to 767 million tonnes of ice lost every day.

The above animation, which is based on data from NASA satellites, appears darker where ice mass was lost between 2002 and 2022. The barely perceptible blue patches represent growth in ice mass, while white means little to no change.

Most of the loss was along Greenland’s west coast, while central high-altitude areas were relatively unchanged. Lower elevation and coastal areas lost five metres worth of water over the 19-year period.

Impact on rising sea levels
Much of the newly discovered lost ice shelf was already underwater, so while the additional mass identified by the team will have affected ocean circulation and temperatures, it will not have contributed to rising sea levels directly.

However, this loss means more of Greenland’s mainland will be exposed to warming waters which, in turn, lead to melting and rising seas.

“What we’re seeing is that the clog in this bottleneck has been removed, and as a result, the glaciers all around Greenland have been able to speed up the melting process,” Greene said. “You take the ice out of the fjord and glaciers speed up and start contributing to sea level rise.”

Disrupting ocean cycles
Large blocks of freshwater ice floating away into the ocean are problematic as they could disrupt the Atlantic Meridian Overturning Circulation, a crucial ocean circulation pattern.

A boat saild past icebergs off Greenland.
A boat saild past icebergs off Greenland.CREDIT:ISTOCK

Ice cannot hold salt, so when seawater freezes in the Arctic, the salt sinks to the bottom making the water denser. The denser water then moves south with cold currents, and the warm water rises to the surface and flows north in response. This cycle warms Europe and distributes crucial nutrients for ocean life.

It is not known how the large chunks of ice floating off into the sea will affect this cycle, but they have not been included in climate models. In the long term, it will depend on where the billions of tonnes of freshwater end up – and that is not easy to predict.

The SIT, a most remarkable institution

Would you believe a fully accredited college situated at the end of the world that charges no fees, offers degrees up to doctoral level and is headquartered in a town of only 54,000 people? And it even has a respectable score in the world university rankings

Such is the Southern Instiutute of Technology, headquarterd in Invercargill, New Zealand. Invercargill is about as close as you can get to Antarctica and still live a normal life. As Invercargill is close to the sea, its temperatures are moderated somewhat, nothing like low Canadian extremes

I have family in town at the moment who live in Invercagill so that has sparked my interest in the SIT

The SIT has a number of campuses in addition to the one at Invercargill, notably one at Queenstown and a small tentacle at Christhurch. And all of them are "free" to NZ citizens. They also have around 2,000 overseas students who pay, but mostly not very much -- around $US15,000 per year. The overseas students come mainly from Indonesia and the Philippines, which are warm countries. Invercargil must be a shock

And the SIT has a rank of 400+ in the world university rankings. Not bad when you know that is out of about 11,000 colleges worldwide. The major NZ universities score around 200+ but none are up to the standard of its big neighbour. There are two Australian universities in the top 50 worldwide. I went to one.

The courses listed on the Invercargill campus offer a wide range of technical subjects plus some degree courses. You can become a degree-level nurse, teacher or accountant, for instance

You could certainly do worse than to take courses from SIT. They are fully recognized by the NZ accreditation authorities


Muslim hate speech is ok

Under NSW hate speech law, Andrew Bolt was successfuly prosescuted for criticizing the claims of some people with white skin to be Aborigines. That was construed as "hate".

The speech below is virulent hate, not the simple comment that Bolt made. Yet it skates. How come? There appears to be special liberties for Muslims

NSW Police have dropped inquiries into a cleric who prayed to Allah to “kill them one by one” in reference to “Zionist Jews”, saying the comments did not breach state hate-speech protections.

On Tuesday, The Australian revealed that Sydney sheik Kamal Abu Mariam – who has ties with former All Black Sonny Bill Williams and former league star Anthony Mundine – gave a ­sermon at Roselands Mosque last year, in which he made the call during an Islamic prayer.

The Australian can also reveal, in that same sermon, the sheik described the virtues Allah would bestow on martyrs, and how those unable to fight in the Middle East could still “receive rewards”.

“Oh Allah … beat the (usurping) Zionist Jews,” the sheik said in Arabic, translated to English by The Australian.

“Oh Allah, we hope you count them and kill them one by one, and don’t keep any (one) of them … shake the ground under their feet … make an example of them.”

The sheik’s comments appeared to be referring to “Zionist Jews” in Israel, as opposed to those in Australia – although a well-placed legal source said that distinction “should be irrelevant”.

On Wednesday, a NSW Police spokeswoman said the force could not pursue the matter further. “As a part of the investigation, the content of the (sermon) video was reviewed and it was ascertained that it did not meet the threshold of any criminal offence,” she said.

Section 93Z of the NSW criminal code, which outlaws incitements of violence on the basis of race or religion, was recently strengthened by the government, which removed the requirement for police to seek approval before laying charges.

Williams and Mundine have said they helped donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to help fund a new mosque “spearheaded” by the sheik and, in 2018, the ­former All Black called the ­religious leader his “spiritual ­guider” in a post to Twitter, now called X.

During the sermon, in English, Sheik Abu Mariam also cited the Hadith and referenced what Allah bestowed upon martyrs.

“He (a martyr) will be forgiven with the first drop of blood that comes (from) him,” he said. “He will see his place in paradise … given a crown upon his head.”

The sheik warned the audience there were “consequences for those who laze around”. “He who does not fight for the cause of Allah, nor speaks within himself about fighting the cause … he dies on a branch of hypocrisy,” he said, acknowledging that those he was preaching to would struggle to fight to become a martyr.

“We might not be able to do the first (fight for Allah), due to the ­circumstances and where we live,” he said.

The sheik said Muslims who boycotted Israeli-linked products would still receive “rewards”.

Federal opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said if the state government failed to act “it was time the federal government did”.

“There are anti-incitement provisions in the Commonwealth Criminal Code for this purpose,” the senator said, citing section 80.2A, which outlaws urging violence against a group on the basis of religion or race.

“If they are not used now it makes a mockery of the law and will only lead to more hateful ­conduct with devastating consequences.”

Visiting Australian National University constitutional law professor Matt Qvortrup, when provided with Sheik Abu Mariam’s comments, said that the rhetoric would be prosecuted in the UK. “I don’t see how it wouldn’t (breach British legislation),” he said. “Naming a group and (saying Allah) should kill them – that would have fallen foul of UK laws.”

Premier Chris Minns said he would change existing laws if they proved inoperable.

“We are not averse to changing the laws around hate speech if we don’t believe that they are capturing the kind of inflammatory and racist rhetoric that’s designed to pull people apart,” he said.


The collapse of conservatism

James Allan below writes well but takes insufficient notice of the fact that conservative policies have always undergone a lot of change. Consistency in answer to the question "What is a conservative?" will always be hard to find over the long run.  That is because ALL politicians have to react to changes in the world  about them and changes in reality will often require changing policies.

That is not to say that there is abolutely no consistency in what makes a conservative.  Consistecy CAN be found but it is at the pychological, not the policy level.  In a nutshell, 
the essence of conservatism is caution and the essence of Leftism is anger.  Whatever they do, conservatives will be cautious, as they see that, at the time

In the developed Anglosphere countries over the past couple of centuries, there has been a general understanding of what it means to be a conservative voter. In rough and ready terms, with plenty of arguments and differences at the periphery, conservatives wanted to keep in place the main tenets of the core institutions, practices, conventions, and principles that had worked up till then. They were for conserving. Not everything, always and forever. Not in aspic jelly with no changes or innovations ever allowed but rather with a prima facie weighting towards the status quo and with the burden on those proposing change and restructuring to make a clear case why the novel was preferable to what was already in place. Gradual reform over idealistic revolutionary aspirationalism. Clearly, as I said, there was plenty of room for intra-conservative fights and disagreements. But the general proclivity for the established and ‘what already was in place and seemed to work moderately well’ was plain.

Spelled out in those terms it is pretty obvious that the desire to conserve what happens to exist is contingent. It depends on where you happen to be and when. No sane person would want to be described as a ‘conservative’ in today’s North Korea, and only religious zealots in today’s Iran. Put bluntly, there is an element of luck as to whether it makes sense to be a Tory or conservative. It is time and place contingent, along with depending on the sort of instincts, preferences, and political taste buds the individual brings to the table.

I am a big fan of the Scottish sceptical philosopher David Hume, one of the all-time greats. In fact, I did my philosophy doctorate on his moral and legal thinking. But Samuel Johnson, London high Tory, wit, and author of the first real English dictionary, was rather scornful of Hume. His renowned biographer James Boswell reported Johnson as saying of Hume ‘that he’s just a Tory by chance; if anything he’s a Hobbesian’. I’ve always thought that Johnsonian description of Hume rather excellent. It’s just that Johnson meant it as a stinging criticism whereas I think it shows the genius of Hume.

In a way, it is just chance whether it is sensible for anyone to be a Tory or favour conservative political positions. And that brings us to the present day in countries such as the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia. Because what should those described as ‘conservatives’ want to conserve right now? You might think ‘the presumption of innocence’ would be a no-brainer. But vote for the Libs in 2019 and you got a prime minister, Scott Morrison, who wouldn’t grasp or adhere to this principle if it walked up and hit him in the head. Just ask Bruce Lehrmann. Or Christine Holgate. Or a fair few of his own cabinet ministers. And let’s be clear that today’s Australian legal fraternity hardly makes one confident it cares much, if at all, about this formerly core precept in the criminal justice system.

Or take the notions of free speech and an impartial and questioning media. No one with a functioning brain could have come through the pandemic years with any confidence our present institutions and establishment class uphold either of these. The same goes for upholding our core civil liberties. I don’t mean rushing off to bring picayune standards against the government when those seeking to come to this country illegally are involved. Our judges can be counted on to do that. I mean that over the two and half years of the pandemic, we saw the ‘greatest inroads on our civil liberties in two hundred years’ (the words of former UK Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption, and they’re correct), and yet not a single country in the Anglosphere saw judges do anything. And I mean countries with potent bills of rights included. The judges pushed back against government Covid brutality not one whit. The legal establishment was all in on the fear-mongering and enforcement of what a moment’s thought would have told you were nonsensical rules dreamt up by puffed-up bureaucrats. (Did you see Mr Fauci in the US last week concede that the six-foot separation rule was just made up out of thin air and had no scientific basis?) Put it this way, those of us known as ‘conservatives’ have very little reason to want to conserve the ABC, do we? And given its profligacy, making up out of thin air the ‘National Cabinet’, and willingness to facilitate state premiers’ thuggery, tell me what there is to want to conserve about today’s Liberal party? (I avoided mentioning the state Liberal iteration in Victoria because, well, it is so pathetic it doesn’t really feel fair picking on people who take sides against those who simply believe that those with XX chromosomes will always be different than those with XY chromosomes, and that public policies will sometimes have to reflect that core fact about the external, causal world however much it might hurt some people’s feelings.)

I could keep going for some time. Treasury and the RBA seem to be completely in thrall to Keynesianism. They just whitter on about GDP and never mention Australia’s pretty ordinary to awful recent record as regards GDP per person. A side effect is that our political class is addicted to big immigration to keep GDP looking okay even as it makes individuals poorer, traffic far worse, and house prices more astronomical. (And yes we should all feel sorry for today’s younger generation because it is way, way harder to buy a house today than when we were all younger – look at average wage to average house price – and no amount of shunning a daily flat white will fix that.) Put bluntly again, I don’t see much reason to conserve the economic thinking that prevails at present. Heck, the entire political caste, with only a few exceptions here and there, seem to be out of sync with the average voter. The Voice referendum sure showed that while exposing the faultlines in the Liberal party. Then there’s the universities, (not what they were I can assure you all), the corporate boardrooms, the list goes on.

So what do we voters formerly known as ‘conservatives’ do when much of what was worth conserving has been jettisoned? Tough question. But I think I’ve gone a long way in explaining the appeal of Mr Trump, the so-called populist parties in Europe, and the current Tory leader in Canada, Mr. Poilievre, who is up 10-15 points in the polls. He’s promised all sorts of ‘radical’ policies such as halving the CBC’s budget. And we ‘conservatives’ love it.

Bruce Lehrman was not guilty but the Federal government was?

The litigation stemming from the accusation of rape levelled at Bruce Lehrman by Brittany Higgins is still very much ongoing  but I think a major anomaly in the matter needs to be highlighted

Allegations of rape do not normally go to trial unless the  police foresee a substantial probability of a conviction resulting.  The police did not see sufficient grounds to proceed  in the case of the Higgins allegations.  But as a result of political pressure, an attempt was made to prosecute Lehrman.  So the evidence for the allegation was weak from the beginning. The prosecution failed without a verdict being rendered so Lehrman continued to benefit from an assumption of innocence.

In the absence of a guilty verdict in the matter, one would have thought that all possibilty of a damages claim would be lost.  There is nothing that you could sue Bruce Lehrman for.  So how could Higgins get a payout for her allegations?  How could she get a payout for something that did not happen?

She did get a payout and she did so by suing the government.  Apparently, the government could be guilty even if the respondent in the rape claim was not.  

That is a very strange set of circumstances.    How could the government be guilty when the alleged rape at the centre of the matter had not been proven to take place?  

But the government was simply a much softer touch.  They did not ask for evidence of anything.  An accusation alone was enough for them to throw taxpayer money at Ms Higgins without further enquiry.

And note that the payout was broken down so that only a small amount was for legal expenses.  Most of the payment was for  losses and damages alleged suffered by Higgins, something for which we have her word only.

So the payout was clearly an abuse of justice.  If a mere accusation is enough to inspire a government payout, why do we have courts at all?

The Albanese government paid Brittany Higgins more than $2.4m compensation in a settlement that relied entirely upon the ­former Liberal staffer’s version of events, despite contrary versions from key witnesses who were excluded from a single-day mediation of her claim.

Lawyers described both the amount and the speed of the settlement – finalised just days after Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial was abandoned in the ACT ­Supreme Court – as “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”.

The deed of settlement ­between Ms Higgins and the ­commonwealth was released on Thursday in the defamation trial brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson over Ms Higgins’ ­allegation on The Project that she was raped by him in Parliament House in 2019, after her lawyers successfully asked that personal medical information be excluded.

Justice Michael Lee, presiding over the trial, had earlier stated there was “a disparity between the evidence (Ms Higgins) gave in these proceedings and the truth of the matter”, which made the settlement deed “substantially ­relevant”.

The document shows that the commonwealth did not admit it had breached its duty of care to Ms Higgins when it paid her the multimillion-dollar settlement, contrary to claims she made to the court earlier this week.

The document reveals that the federal government ensured it was released from any future claims by Ms Higgins but left former Liberal ministers Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash open to further legal action by the former staffer, a carve-out clause that was not fully communicated to either of the two senators.

Ms Higgins testified on Tuesday that “the commonwealth ­admitted that they breached their duty of care and that they didn’t go through proper processes, so that’s actually why they ­settled with me”.

However, the deed of settlement – dated December 13, 2022 – expressly states that the parties have agreed to resolve all claims between them “without any ­admissions of liability”.

The one-day mediation took place 10 days after ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane ­Drumgold announced he would not be proceeding with a retrial of rape charges against Mr Lehrmann due to Ms Higgins’ fragile mental health.

The deed shows that the total amount paid to Ms Higgins was $2.445m, not $2.3m as the former staffer stated in the Federal Court on Tuesday.

Ms Higgins received $1.48m for loss of earning capacity for 40 years; $400,000 for hurt, distress and humiliation; $220,000 for medical expenses; $100,000 for “past and future domestic assistance”; and $245,000 for legal costs.


In defence of racial discrimination?

By Roy Swan, the head of mission investments at the Ford Foundation. He defends "affirmative action" and criticizes opponents of it. He defends his wishes by cataloguing a long list of ways in which blacks are disadvantaged, principally economicaly.

His arguments are a triumph of seeing only what you want to see. He thinks black disadvantage is solely the product of white discrimination against blacks. He ignores the fact that all other minorities in America -- Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Indians -- in fact do better on average than mainstream whites economically. And they suffer from REAL disadvantages -- poor English language skills, religious differences etc.

So why do blacks not follow that pattern? Why are they a different minority? It has to be something in blacks (e.g. high impulsiveness, low IQ, psychopathy) that makes the difference, not what they experience at the hands of white society. Swan is a pathetic appartchik to be so defiant of reality. Only the deliberately blind would agree with him

There is actually something wrong with his head. He criticizes "Race-based discrimination" at the same time as arguing in favour of it

Recently, the activist whose efforts overturned affirmative action [racial preferences at Harvard] eliminating yet another vehicle for marginalized populations’ educational and economic success, filed a lawsuit against a small, Black-owned American venture capital firm over its efforts to support Black women entrepreneurs. Never mind that they receive just 0.06% of all venture capital–less than 1/1000th of their percentage of the American population—or that white men under 35 have 224 times the wealth of Black women under 35.

To this litigant and his ilk, any attempt to acknowledge the roots of this gross inequity, much less adopt a targeted approach to remedy it, is a threat. They so aggressively defend the unequal status quo because they cannot bear the alternative: facing the abominable discrimination and oppression under de facto affirmative action for white people that has created the conditions for Black women’s inability to attract venture capital. Instead, they attack, deflect, deny, and hide historical truth and consequences.

This willful ignorance is geopolitically self-destructive and irresponsible, as today’s world order is determined by the productive and innovative power of a nation’s human capital, which drives national wealth. Keeping players off the field for ideological and racist reasons will only hold America back, while other countries steamroll ahead by tapping the full potential of all the talent at their disposal.

Our allies across the Atlantic have taken an approach worthy of emulation. In acknowledgment of its historical investment in the transatlantic chattel slave trade, the Church of England recently announced a £100 million program of impact investing, grant-making, and research with the target of alleviating the ongoing consequences of its past actions. As a member of the fund’s Oversight Group, I am heartened by the symbolic financial investment but even more moved by the Church Commissioners’ commitment to truth and reconciliation. England has taken a step in the right direction, but America’s inaction and retrenchment is a catapult backward–and a costly one.

Race-based discrimination is estimated to have set America back over $50 trillion since 1990 alone. Other estimates forecast that eliminating race-based discrimination would generate 6 million jobs and $5 trillion in American economic power in just five years.

If Americans care about global economic power, moral authority, and reputation, we must explore the nation’s ugly history of targeted Black oppression, calculate the wealth transferred through exploitation and extraction, and invest in a plan for a better future in the spirit of patriotic capitalism.

It’s time to stop using bad faith claims of reverse discrimination as a polarizing wedge and give everyone opportunities and resources to unleash their potential for the sake of the nation. And everyone has a role to play. In addition to more equitable laws and policies, we need investors to become patriotic capitalists and put market rate-seeking impact investments to work to erase the compounding economic and social damage inflicted on Black people and others oppressed because of their race.

Contrary to the zero-sum claims of history-denying capital hoarders, a more just country is a more prosperous country, too. And we all win when we all win.


Man acquitted of murder seeks $5.5 million from police

The fragrant Queensland cops again. I can never get over the Barry Mannix case, where the Queensland cops pressured a kid to confess that he had killed his father. See here:

and more details here

My own experience with them was also not impressive. When my car was stolen I gave them a piece of evidence that identified one of the thieves. They "lost" that piece of evidence and made no further enquiries. The officer who "lost" the evidence, Constable Turgeon, appeared to suffer no consequences for her "negligence". I wrote to the police minster, Rob Schwarten, about the matter at the time but the response was effectively, "So sad, too bad". More details here:

A man who was jailed for six-and-a-half years and later acquitted of murder is suing two police detectives for $5.5 million, claiming he was subject to malicious prosecution.

Steven Mark John Fennell, 64, filed a statement of claim in Brisbane Supreme Court in late December alleging the two detectives who arrested him engaged in misconduct during the investigation.

Liselotte Watson, 85, was found dead on November 13, 2012 in her home on Macleay Island about 30km southeast of Brisbane.

Mr Fennell then aged 56, was convicted in the Supreme Court in March 2016 of murdering defenceless grandmother Ms Watson by using a hammer to inflict horrific head injuries.

"(The detectives) took steps to embellish, manipulate, misrepresent or deliberately conceal aspects of the evidence," the lawsuit claims.

Mr Fennell's lawsuit also alleges the detectives engaged in misfeasance in public office by using the Crime and Misconduct Commission to force him to answer questions.

The two detectives and the Queensland government, which was also named in the lawsuit, are yet to respond to the claims.

The prosecution in 2016 told court that Mr Fennell, who delivered junk mail at the time, murdered Ms Watson in order to steal her money and offset his gambling losses.

The jury rejected Mr Fennell's denials and reached a guilty verdict after deliberating for almost two days.

The High Court of Australia unanimously ruled in September 2019 that Mr Fennell's convictions be quashed and he be acquitted.

Mr Fennell spent 2373 days in pre-trial custody and prison and has claimed damages for "false imprisonment" and loss of income.

He claimed the two detectives did not give him the required warning before interviewing him in the days after Ms Watson's death and recorded his answers without telling him.

The lawsuit also claimed the case was taken to trial without any direct or forensic evidence connecting him to Ms Watson's death or the alleged murder weapon and relied on flawed accounting to determine he could not afford his gambling.


Antisemitism From the Left

Betsy has had a distinguished career but she seems unaware that antisemitism has always had its principal home on the Left. Karl Marx himself despised Jews even though he was one.  And Hitler was a socialist.  

By comparison, antisemitism among conservatives was always a   token thing, a hangover from Christian enmity towards the people who had slain the Christians' God.  So the British Conservative party made a Jew their Prime Minister in the late 19th century and Neville Chamberlain had some antisemitic views but he was the British Prime Minister who declared war on Hitler

Betsy McCaughey
Jews are feeling increasingly afraid and unwelcome. Last week, girls on the basketball team of a Jewish private school in suburban Hartsdale, New York, were jabbed and hit with antisemitic slurs by players from Yonkers' Roosevelt High School. "I support Hamas, you f---ing Jew," a Roosevelt player snarled. The game had to be called off in the third quarter, and the Jewish girls needed school security to help them leave.

Antisemitic incidents were already on the rise in 2021 and 2022. Now they are up nearly 400% year over year since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack against Israel, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt explains, "I am not talking about, you know, stores producing IDF T-shirts. I'm talking about a coffee shop on Long Island, an ice cream parlor in the Bay Area, a restaurant in Chicago." It reminds him of his grandparents' barbershop, which was vandalized by the Nazis in Germany. "I can't believe this is happening in our country today."

Believe it.

The mainstream media choose to downplay it and the Democratic Party is, at best, divided. Antisemitism has often come from the Right, but it appears now to be coming from the Left.

When the presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and the University of Pennsylvania caused outrage by saying at a congressional hearing in December that calls for Jewish genocide don't necessarily violate campus policy -- "it depends on the context" -- Democrats' reactions were mixed.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) had no problem with moral clarity. "There is no 'both sides-ism' and it isn't 'free speech,' it's simply hate speech," Fetterman said. It should be "reflexive" to "condemn antisemitism."

But former President Barack Obama, the titular head of the party, had a different response. He reached out to Harvard and made a behind-the-scenes effort to save President Claudine Gay's job.

On Dec. 13, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution to condemn antisemitism on campuses and demand the resignations of the presidents of Harvard and MIT for tolerating it. Democrats split, with 84 supporting the resolution and 125 opposing. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) called it a "gross overreach" to tell colleges whom they should hire.

Sorry. If the discrimination had been against black students, the vote would have been unanimous, and Democrats would have clamored to pull federal funding from the colleges. But Jewish students can pound salt.

Jewish hostages, too. The public's indifference to the eight American Jews captive in Gaza, the media's silence and President Joe Biden's tepid efforts to get them released, are telling.

Recall that during Jimmy Carter's presidency, 52 American diplomats and citizens were taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and endured 444 days of captivity.

During that ordeal, Americans tied yellow ribbons around trees and Walter Cronkite announced on the nightly CBS news how many days the hostages had been captive. Carter's failure to get them out contributed to his landslide loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

That's unlikely to be a factor this November because this time, so few Americans care.

Granted, there are only eight hostages, and they were not serving the U.S. in an official capacity when they were taken. Even so, the silence is troubling.

In 2014, First Lady Michelle Obama made it a cause celebre when 200 Nigerian school girls were abducted. They weren't Americans, but she said, "In these girls, Barack and I see our own daughters."

Prominent Democrats today are not holding signs saying "Bring Back Our Hostages." Families of the American hostages released an ongoing TV ad on Jan. 7 to fill the void and build awareness.

Over the centuries, hatred of Jews has come from many directions. The latest wave appears linked to progressive opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestinians, according to a study done by Arie Perliger, director of security studies at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. All Jews must bear the guilt, the thinking goes.

By failing to condemn antisemitism, politicians, academics and their media allies are doing our enemies' bidding. One week ago, ISIS released a 67-minute diatribe calling for the destruction of Jews worldwide to avenge Israeli strikes against Gaza. The message was "kill them wherever you find them."

Meanwhile, Jewish families privately talk at the dinner table about Anne Frank, hiding in attics, and where this new wave of antisemitism could lead.

It's time for all Americans to denounce it.


The Covid vaccine gave me side effects that ruined my life, but Facebook keeps censoring me from telling my friends about what happened

Caroline Pover

There has been a LOT of censorship of what you can say about Covid and the government response to it.  And that is still ongoing.  My post yesterday about the words of an eminent medical man is part what was censored.  One has to wonder what is being hidden.  Is it the reality that the vaccines and lockdowns did more harm than good overall?

So I am inclined to think that it is time I started noting some of the censorship episodes here.  See below:

A woman who says she suffered chronic health complications after taking the AstraZeneca vaccine claims to have been censored from sharing her story on Facebook.

Caroline Pover, 52, received the jab in March 2021 and within nine hours, experienced convulsions, shivering, breathing difficulties and low blood pressure.

Ms Pover, of Cirencester, Gloucestershire, says she was hospitalised when her condition escalated to 'stroke-like' symptoms, in addition to exhaustion, breathing difficulties, a racing heart and migraines.

Her story was shared in a national newspaper in March last year as she and 800 other victims struggled to claim the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS).

But after sharing the link on her Facebook feed at the start of this year, Ms Pover says the website put a warning notice on her account.

Ms Pover, herself a freelance journalist and entrepreneur, said: 'My posts about what was happening to me started having FB “notes” appearing underneath them about vaccination.

'A group page I was an admin on was shut down completely by Facebook in the summer of 2021.

'When I posted the Daily Express article, which did an excellent job of not discussing anything pro or anti... I received a warning and the post was hidden.

'It's a ridiculous situation for vaccine-injured people, who have a right to information.

'If this was an online support group relating to cancer or another type of serious condition, we'd be outraged at the thought of it being censored and we'd be very sensitive to people having to navigate a very complicated health situation.'

Ms Pover said she made her first post about vaccine side effects on March 3, 2021, shortly after receiving a Covid jab.

She said: 'In the week that followed I was posting about my health and I always thought I'd be fine the next day.

'After a few weeks, I noticed that little notes from Facebook were appearing whenever I posted anything relating to the vaccine.'

Ms Pover claims she was subsequently 'shadow banned' on Facebook and that often, her posts failed to appear in the timelines of her friends and family.

She said: 'People would tag me in posts and complain that they weren't getting any traction. I'd say to them, "don't tag me, it will just disappear if you do."'

Ms Pover says that over time, the censorship led her to develop a specific writing style that would help prevent posts from being flagged up.

She has also written a book about people receiving adverse reactions from Covid jabs, which was picked up by a publisher last year.

And she says her experiences with censorship have only made her even more determined to share her message.

Ms Pover said: 'The physical health struggles we face aren't just what happens in the minutes, hours or days immediately after injection; it's what we are still dealing with years later, as well as the impact of being censored.'

Facebook has been approached for comment.

Elsewhere on the platform, UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her sports therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.  

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.

AstraZeneca said in a statement: 'Patient safety is our highest priority and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines.

'Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health problems.

'From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, Vaxzevria has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.

'The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) has granted full marketing approval for Vaxzevria for the UK based on the safety profile and efficacy of the vaccine.



Google has deleted the post that I put up on on 9th. It reported a very skeptical article about the Pfizer Covid vaccine.

 Never mind, however as the post is still available on my backup site:

Just scroll down tothe post of 9th.  

The article is also still available on the site from which I took it:

The originating story is here:

There were actually two articles in my post yesterday.  The second was a  perfectly rigorous statistical analysis of seasonal influences on Covid incidence.  I can't see that Google would object to it so I have reprinted it under 9th. It is also still available on the site from which I took it:


Pope Francis Is Right. The World Should Ban Surrogacy (?)

Oh boy!  Another diffcult issue to navigate.  AUBREY GULICK (below) is a young conservative but she is also a devout Catholic and that has clearly influenced her views.

I think she is wrong.  As I see it, surrogacy brings human beings into the world who otherwise would not exist so it is to be praised.

Her big objection is that not all fertilized eggs during a surrogacy process will result in a pregnancy.  Fertilized eggs are real human  beings and their death is akin to murder.  

I do agree that all fertilized eggs are full human beings but it is myopic to say that their loss is akin to murder.  Fertilized eggs are routinely lost during menstruation.  That only some fertilized eggs  survive is nature's way and surrogacy in fact REDUCES those losses.  And the products of surrogacy are clearly very much wanted so should normally be treated well

Catholicism can be very dogmatic but I hope it releases its grip on Aubrey in this matter

Blue eyes. Blond hair. Somewhere between 5’9 and 6’3. Does that sound like the ideal baby boy? Or maybe you wanted a girl with brown hair and green eyes who would grow to be 5’3. Until very recently, that wasn’t a choice anyone got to make. Now, with surrogacy, almost anyone can.

Of course, that doesn’t mean surrogacy is moral, and the Catholic Church has been consistent in its opposition to the practice because it amounts to trafficking unborn children. On Monday, Pope Francis called for a global ban on surrogacy during an address to diplomats gathered in Vatican City in which he discussed a wide range of global issues, including the wars in Ukraine and Israel and the persecution of Christians in Nigeria. (READ MORE: Kellyanne Conway’s Contraception Gambit)

“The path to peace calls for respect for life, for every human life, starting with the life of the unborn child in the mother’s womb, which cannot be suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking,” Francis said. “In this regard, I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs. A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract.”

Surrogacy Grows in Popularity

But Francis didn’t just speak out against surrogacy, which he has done before; he called on the world to ban the practice altogether — and he did so in the face of an industry that is growing exponentially. Global Market Insights estimates that by 2032, the surrogate market will have grown ninefold compared to 2022 data, becoming an industry worth $129 billion. Surrogacy isn’t exactly new (“Baby M,” the subject of a contentious case that went to the New Jersey Supreme Court, was born in the 1980s), but its popularity has skyrocketed over the last few years.

There are several reasons for that. As homosexuality becomes more widely acceptable, those practicing the lifestyle want to have biological children, and that requires using a surrogate. Celebrities who want children often turn to surrogacy for health reasons or convenience. Couples who were married late in life or who struggle with fertility will sometimes do the same. Of course, surrogacy doesn’t work as an industry unless women are willing to carry someone else’s child for nine months — and those living in war-torn countries like Ukraine, countries with third-world economies (some of which have wisely banned the practice), or situations with low incomes and few career opportunities, usually are.

As the practice has become more popular, stories like that of Shane Dawson and Ryland Adams have received a lot of attention in the media. Despite Dawson’s demonstrable pedophilic tendencies, the popular YouTubers were recently able to take home twin boys conceived via an egg donor and birthed by another woman. An estimated 10 children were discarded in the process after Dawson and Adams decided which babies they wanted. (RELATED: Shane Dawson and Ryland Adams’ Use of Surrogacy Showcases the Practice’s Grotesqueness)

Product of the Culture of Death

While Dawson and Adams’ case is particularly horrific, the problem with surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization isn’t only that the gay couple deprives a child of his or her mother but that the process itself is immoral. Millions of tiny, unborn babies are frozen or killed, and the miraculous process of bringing life into the world is reduced to a contractual relationship in which thousands of dollars pass hands.

The same is true when a heterosexual couple struggling with infertility or sexual trauma turns to surrogacy to build a family. The ends don’t justify the means, and the process should be illegal. Fortunately, in some places like Italy, Spain, and India, it is. Unfortunately, in the United States, surrogacy is governed by a patchwork of laws across the states, and only three ban it outright.

As Francis pointed out in Monday’s address, surrogacy and its popularity are a product of the culture of death in which we live. “At every moment of its existence, human life must be preserved and defended; yet I note with regret, especially in the West, the continued spread of a culture of death, which in the name of a false compassion discards children, the elderly, and the sick,” the pope said.

The pontiff is, of course, quite right. Children ought to be the natural product of the love between a man and a woman — a wonderful, miraculous outflowing of their relationship. They should never be a commodity, ordered out of a catalog in a desire to satisfy the egos of the people who claim to be their parents.

How to Get Better Teachers in America’s Schools

Yes. I too think subject expertise is a better criterion for hiring teachers. Teaching certificates have always been of little use. Now that teaching cetificates mostly come from woke universities, that is even more so. I taught high school economics and geography for two years running without any teaching certificate and my students all did well in their final exams

One rather overlooked reason why subject expertise is desirable is that the person who specializes in a particular subject often does so because he/she is enthusiastic about that subject. And teacher enthusiasm tends to rub off on the students and make them more involved. So they learn nore.

Twenty years ago, when I was hiring teachers for the private K-12 school I founded, I knew better than to recruit certified teachers.

From my previous work as a college history professor, I know that the people least prepared to teach a subject are education majors. Requiring an embarrassingly low minimum of credit hours to be certified to teach a subject—just four courses in some states—education majors encounter the least substance and rigor, but the maximum of racialist theory and left-wing ideology in their program.

If my new school was going to succeed in teaching at the highest levels, then I would have to find subject-matter experts with a heart for teaching. That’s what we did—and what thousands of schools across this country do, because of the humiliating, yet expensive, reality of teacher licensure.

But don’t just take my word for it; the evidence is unequivocal: Traditional public schools have an abysmal education record. Not only are scores as low as ever on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, but internationally, our math scores remain poor and uncompetitive.

Much of the blame lies with teacher education programs and state certification mandates that bolster education schools’ enrollment and subject teachers to radical activist ideology.

Education schools are besieged by critical race theory and identity politics, stereotyping everyone as part of oppressor groups or oppressed groups. They prefer ethnic studies and historical studies that denigrate America or anything patriotic.

And while states have been offering alternative routes to teacher certification, the vast majority of teachers are educated and certified through university-based colleges of education. This ought to stop.

States should end requirements for prospective teachers to be certified, and instead empower schools to hire based on subject-matter expertise. At the same time, on the national level, we can take the Trump administration’s reform of college accreditation as a model.

In higher education, accreditation is a de facto federal system of regulating the quality of colleges. And it has a poor track record of quality assurance, a problem exacerbated by a cartel-like group of regional accreditors that split the country into regions and conspired not to encroach on each other’s territory. There was no competition, so accreditors began abusing their power, which included requiring leftist ideology in their standards.

The Trump administration changed all that. Suddenly, any college could choose any accreditor, and states began introducing market competition into accreditation.

The next administration could follow this model for teacher certification.

Congress should also rescind the federal charter of the National Education Association. It’s a teachers union that voted to promote critical race theory nationwide and advocated to keep schools closed during the pandemic.

The organization’s charter should be reviewed and revoked. In its place, Congress could shift that charter to one of the many private, parent-focused groups fighting to right the ship in K-12 education.

Meanwhile, in states that lack the political support to eliminate teacher certification altogether, states should recognize or charter additional private organizations to certify which teachers are ready to teach, outside of the broken system of college of education certification.

Introducing market competition in the validation of teachers will have untold benefits. Some certifiers may focus on patriotism, while others may focus on classical education or the ability to train students for the workforce, science careers, music careers, or a variety of life pursuits.

American teachers are almost as vital as parents in educating the next generation. Let’s stop facilitating anti-American activism and instead ensure we recognize the teachers who are best for America.


Free Health Insurance for Migrants Is Lunacy

If they can do harm while appearing to do good, Leftists will leap at it.  And spreading the available funds more widely will harm native-born Americans who might otherwise benefit.  And many Americans are already dealing with inadequate and very expensive care.  How about helping them instead?  As it is, almost everyone is going to be getting inferior health support in "caring" states

Across the globe, millions of people are on the move, defying borders and violating laws to escape poor countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and break into rich countries. The United States is their No. 1 destination.

The U.S. needs a strategy to limit the burden on Americans and protect our quality of life. Instead, the Democratic Party merely virtue signals, saying, “Welcome, take whatever we have.”

As of Jan. 1, California is offering Medi-Cal to approximately 760,000 undocumented migrants of all ages.

California’s health care system is already strained, with long emergency room wait times and a dire nurse shortage. A shortage of beds and mental health facilities prevents municipalities from moving the thousands of drug-addicted homeless people off the streets and into treatment. The state faces a staggering $68 billion deficit.

Yet the Left opts to spend money on migrants instead of on California’s own, showing utter disregard for the health care of local residents.

The California Republican Party warns that adding 760,000 undocumented people to the state’s health insurance rolls will exacerbate “access problems.” In short, Californians will wait longer and settle for less care.

Don’t think this lunacy is limited to one state. Oregon, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, Illinois, Washington state and Massachusetts already cover migrants in specific age categories, and left-wing lawmakers are pushing to expand the coverage to all ages. New York lawmakers came close in June, but ended the legislative term without passing it.

In blue state after blue state, Democrats are pushing to give migrants taxpayer-funded health coverage. It’s a knife in the back of hardworking Americans who struggle to pay medical bills. It will also doom this nation to a never-ending flood of strangers seeking government handouts.

Connecticut’s Democratic-controlled legislature has gone off the deep end, offering “Baby Bonds,” or taxpayer-funded savings accounts, for every child — including children of migrants in the country illegally — whose birth is covered by the state’s HUSKY public insurance program, even if their migrant parents arrived just days before the birth. Nest eggs courtesy of the taxpayer, for the express purpose of “closing the wealth gap.”

The Democratic Party’s zeal to provide migrants with free health insurance is extreme, compared with what is occurring around the globe, even in socialist-leaning countries.

In June, the Biden administration made the U.S. one of only a few first-world countries to sign on to the Rabat Declaration, sponsored by the United Nations, which declares that all migrants should have access to a country’s national health insurance programs. Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Sweden and several other European countries that receive large numbers of migrants did not sign.

Even socialist countries like Norway are strictly limiting migrants to emergency care only, no comprehensive health insurance. French President Emmanuel Macron’s government is reassessing whether it can provide health benefits to migrants.

These countries see what the Democratic Party in the U.S. refuses to admit: that free health care is a magnet.

Contrary to Vice President Kamala Harris’ blather, the flood of migrants across the southern border is not due to “root causes” the United States can ameliorate with diplomacy and foreign aid. It’s a worldwide phenomenon. Many European and Scandinavian countries are adjusting their policies to protect their own residents from undue burdens. The U.S. is simply surrendering.

Offering health insurance also invites an influx of sick people from countries that cannot provide care. Venezuela’s health care system has collapsed. Hospitals there lack 80% to 90% of essential medicines, a situation that is pushing the sick and their families to flee. Neighboring Brazil is reporting the reappearance of communicable infections such as tuberculosis, hepatitis A, whooping cough, diphtheria and measles because of the influx of Venezuelans needing care. Expect similar problems in the U.S.

Open borders, free meals and hotel rooms, and promises of free health coverage produce predictable results. Migration across the U.S. southern border set yet another record in December.

As Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) commented on Newsom’s health policy, “Nothing is free, the California taxpayers have to pay for it.” She added, “It’s treason. No other way to say it.”

At the least, it’s a betrayal.


‘What are they trying to achieve?’ Liberal MPs urge caution on religious discrimination

Should religious schools be allowed to reject homosexuals as students and as staff? The basic clash here is between the Biblical view of homosexuality and the current secular view.  The two are probably irreconcilable.  They certainly have been so far.   Putting it crudely, are homosexuals admirable or an abomination?  The Bible view is very clear, in both the Old and New Testaments. 

 Real Christians endeavour to live as the Bible commands.  Is it the word of God or is it not?  If you think it is, your course is clear.  Christians have died for their faith so a "worldly" law is not likely to move them.  They would be quite likely to defy it

The issue is likely  to be decided by the need to placate Muslims.  Prosecuting Muslim school leaders for practicing Islam will just stick in all throats.  In the Hadiths, Mohammed  tells his followers that homosexuals should be thrown from the top of tall buildings.  That is pretty clear disapproval

Two federal Liberal Party MPs are warning that a debate over religious discrimination laws must not again descend into a culture war that captures LGBTQ Australians in its crosshairs, as faith leaders and equality advocates urged the Albanese government not to delay legislating.

Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer and NSW senator Andrew Bragg were among a small bloc of moderate Liberal MPs who broke ranks with their party room in favour of stronger protections for LGBTQ students during the former Morrison government’s failed attempt to pass religious discrimination laws on the cusp of the 2022 federal election.

A renewed debate on the issue is expected to kick off when federal parliament returns in February and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus releases the findings of a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The review is designed to inform the government’s plans to legislate a religious discrimination framework while also bolstering protections for LGBTQ students and staff at religious schools.

Archer and Bragg said their positions remained unchanged on the issue and that any reform must simultaneously protect people of faith while also repealing laws that provided a legal basis for discrimination against LGBTQ teachers and students.

Archer, who went a step further than the other moderate Liberals and crossed the floor to vote against the Morrison government’s proposed religious discrimination act, said while she supported protections for people of faith from discrimination, she remained concerned the issue would again be caught in a fight over “identity politics, culture wars and moral panics that never really ends well”.

“The Albanese government needs to be very clear from the outset if they are introducing this legislation, what are they trying to achieve? What’s the problem we’re seeking to solve? This would be worthwhile to justify what I would guarantee will be the damage to people on the way through,” she said.

Archer said a clear lesson from the last parliament was that vulnerable Australians, in particular LGBTQ students, were exposed to a protracted, divisive debate.

The debate devolved into a political fight over whether faith schools should retain legal exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act to discriminate against gay and transgender students and staff, including in employment and enrolment practices. The Morrison government’s proposal to couple its religious protections with a ban on schools expelling gay students, but not trans students, inflamed the debate.

Of the six Liberals who split from the party room in 2022, only Archer, Bragg and MP-turned-NSW senator Dave Sharma remain in parliament after the others lost their seats at the election. Sharma declined to comment.

Bragg said he had written to Dreyfus in 2022 urging Labor to deal with the issue early in their term. “I agree with the religious leaders that the government shouldn’t leave this to the last minute – that’s a recipe for disaster. I do believe there is a strong case for federal protections for people of faith,” Bragg said.

“I don’t want to see any minority group, whether it’s LGBTQ groups or it’s a religious group, damaged as part of this debate. I think that’s very achievable, but Labor has to deliver a constructive, collaborative process.”

After the Coalition’s aborted attempt in 2022, Labor went to the election promising its own religious discrimination and anti-vilification laws to close a gap in the federal law – which already has anti-discrimination acts covering age, race, sex and disability – while also outlawing discrimination at faith-based schools against staff and students based on their gender status and sexual orientation.

Dreyfus received the report from the law reform commission in December and is expected to release it in February, with religious leaders and equality groups hopeful laws will be introduced into parliament before July.

What’s the proposed religious discrimination law about?
Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli said he was eager for an exposure draft of Labor’s legislation to be made available in the first half of the year.

“The further delay in the release of the [Australian Law Reform Commission] report until February pushes out the timeline for the government in dealing with the Religious Discrimination Bill. This raises the risk of pushing the bill into the election cycle, which would be most unfortunate, and should be actively avoided,” Comensoli said.

Anglican bishop of South Sydney Michael Stead insisted that no Anglican schools wanted the right to discriminate against LGBTQ students – a view echoed by other faith groups – and said he expected the sticking point this time around for religious institutions would be securing their rights to preference staff who reflected the school’s religious ethos in hiring practices.

“The last thing that any of the communities want is for this to still be an election issue next time around. I’m really hopeful that it can be done in this calendar year,” Stead said.

Equality Australia chief executive Anna Brown said after years of failed attempts to change the law it was vital the Albanese government did not delay these reforms any longer.

“Students should be able to go to school and be supported to learn and grow as who they are, and teachers should not fear losing their jobs because their sexuality or gender, or because they support a student who is gay or trans,” Brown said.

“We urge all MPs to deal with this issue in a measured and respectful way to spare LGBTIQ+ communities, particularly young people, the distressful and hurtful debate that took place when this issue was last before federal parliament.”