Skip to content

Ritual Abuse, Mind Control & DID: How to Integrate

Numerous people asked me to publish the content of my USA conference.  So, here it is in YouTube form.  Not as dynamic as a live presentation, and it was recorded New Years Day (sleepy) – but done.

Pete Melov’s Xmas Wish…

Pete Melov, son of one of my abusers, continues to bless me with a victim’s desire –  vindication plus an appropriate slamming of the Luciferian origins of Christmas…



Australia’s own Pizzagate

10-year-old Helen Karapidis was abducted 22 December 1988 from her Marrickville apartment complex grounds by members of the Wood Royal Commission pedophile network.

This child trafficking network including government social workers, Aunties and Uncles program staff, Hillsong architect Ian Longstaff who redesigned their Young St, Waterloo church building, David Young who, with Ian, collected kids for ‘Youngies’ church youth club, and convicted pedophile and Hillsong staff member John Baxter.

Helen attended Hillsong Kids’ Club. She knew her abductors, which explains why she disappeared so.

Hillsong founding pastor Frank Houston was a convicted pedophile who sought and trafficked children to the Sydney VIP pedophile ring based in Kings Cross boy brothels. Houston was named multiple times to the Wood Royal Commission. These children were sought by Hillsong from low socioeconomic families with single mothers, parents in trouble with the law, and who had been brought to the attention of the Department of Children’s Services.

Helen Karapidis was ritually murdered days following her abduction, during an evening church service, in a secret room that overlooked the congregation at Hillsong Church Young St, Waterloo.

Two children aged 6 and 8 witnessed Helen Karapidis’ ritual murder and reported this to police. The children later won a NSW Victim Compensation claim in court on the basis of witnessing Helen Karapidi’s murder in Hillsong Church. The children also witnessed several other children murdered during that same service.

Police did not investigate the child witnesses’ testimonies, did not conduct forensic investigations at Hillsong Church at Young St, Waterloo.  Instead, police targeted the child witnesses and their mother.  Case discussion notes from a meeting held regarding this case at the Children’s Hospital in Camperdown, Sydney, and attended by the Department of Children’s Services, stated: ‘Officer John Hesslop said we have concerns about containing the mother.’  Police also targeted Helen Karapidis’ father and tried to frame him for Helen’s abduction. This never stuck…because it was a lie.

60 Minutes reporter Mike Munroe left Channel 9 after the network failed to air this story. The 60 Minutes team recorded psychiatrist Dr Anne Schlebaum interviewing the 2 witnesses. Royal Commissioner James Wood then slammed Dr Schlebaum and dismissed her report which supported the child witnesses. Judge Particia ‘Patty’ Bergan was promoted to Supreme Court after tearing apart genuine victims, witnesses and their testimonial evidence at the Wood Royal Commission.

The mainstream media contributed to the cover up of Helen Karapidis’ murder at Hillsong Church by refusing to report the truth, and by lying in print about the case and reporting terrible untruths about Helen’s father.

One of the child witnesses to Helen’s ritual murder at Hillsong Church is spending this Christmas in prison. He was recently arrested immediately after his mother spoke with Helen Karapidis’ family and told them for the first time what became of their little girl. He was charged for defending himself after a gang of thugs attacked him. When the victim’s barrister phoned NSW Police for information pertaining to the charges, NSW police allegedly told the barrister to fuck off…

It is anniversary time for the greatest perversion of justice Australia has never seen or heard.



The best Pizzagate summary to date

Here’s a well researched and written article summarising Pizzagate:

Judging by the police identikit photos that were until recently on the official Madeleine McCann website (, Clinton’s Podesta brothers are dead ringers for Madeleine’s abductors:



Why have the Podesta brother lookalike images been removed?

Why is the BBC, who covered up the Jimmy Saville branch of this same international child trafficking network, calling this fake news?  This is far from ‘fake news’.  This is the story of the century.

Here the official Madeleine McCann Facebook page show the family’s negative reaction to the public making the obvious link between the Podesta brothers and the police ‘ekit’ suspect photos:


Madeleine’s parents visited with Clement Freud at the time of their daughter’s disappearance, at the very house that the Podesta brothers were staying in at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance, blocks away from the hotel Madeleine was take from.

And the official Madeleine McCann people label the link between the Podesta brothers and Madeleine’s abduction ‘conspiracy’ and ‘fake’ news?

Wow, perhaps my friend who worked with the McCann’s on the case was right when she concluded the parents were involved…

A little vindication goes a long way…


One year ago, ABC Media Watch vilified me for daring to publicly call for an investigation into multiple serious crimes that I witnessed VIP pedophiles engage in.  At the same time, I made witness statements to Sutherland detective Belinda Abdy who subsequently stonewalled me.

During the past 12 months, I have been inundated with contact from other victims and witnesses to similar crimes committed by the same pedophile network, in the same locations that I named to police.  Most recently, Pete Melov, the son of one of my Engadine perpetrators, Dr John Melov, publicly supported my testimony.  Here is Pete’s Facebook post:



Thanks Pete.


Bravehearts Child Abuse Agency tries to erase their relations with Convicted Pedophile Bond University lecturer Paul Wilson

robyn lincoln

Paul Wilson & his wife Robyn Lincoln

On Wednesday 23 November 2016, my former Bond University forensic psychology lecturer Professor Paul Wilson, was convicted of 4 counts of child sexual abuse.  The following day, he was sentenced to 18 months prison.  I have it on good authority that such a long line of female victims are waiting to testify against Wilson regarding their own historical child abuse experiences, Wilson should spend the rest of his life in prison – or court.

The media refer to Wilson as a ‘now-retired’ academic, psychologist and criminologist.  This is misleading, since Wilson was head of Criminology at Bond University right up until police started investigating him.  People like Wilson simply don’t retire from academia.  Some of my Bond University lecturers are much older than Wilson who was Dean of Humanities at Bond for 10 years.

I got to know Paul Wilson while taking a forensic psychology class he shared with Katarina Fritzon in 2006.  That same year, I assisted Fritzon and Wilson with their textbook, ‘Forensic psychology and criminology: an Australasian perspective’ and was mentioned in that book.  At that time, I knew nothing about Paul Wilson’s pro-pedophilia articles and books, and blindly trusted that Bond University was an ethical institution.  As it turns out, Paul Wilson is not an exception, and Bond University is a pedophile haven.


Wilson is part of a Queensland based VIP child abuse network.  Back in the early 1980’s, when lecturing at the University of Queensland, Wilson organised a pro-pedophilia conference to be held at UQ until public outcry forced the university to cancel the event.  Also while a UQ lecturer, Wilson ‘accidentally’ showed a class of psychology students the end of a kiddie porn snuff film.  One student in that class was the daughter of a Queensland police commissioner; other student witnesses are now practising psychologists.

Until now, Paul Wilson has evaded arrest and conviction due to his VIP pedophile network connections which included Queensland Police Commissioner Terry Lewis who had a dirt file on Wilson which  featured in the Kimmin’s Report and found its way into the Fitzgerald Inquiry.  The existence of the snuff film that Wilson did indeed show at UQ was whitewashed by the Fitzgerald Inquiry.

This pedophile did not only commit numerous crimes against children, but he also brazenly promoted pro-pedophilia doctrine and anti-victim thinking within academia and the Australian media that he regularly addressed.

I personally experienced the pro-pedophilia / anti-victim stance taken by Paul Wilson and the other Bond University criminology, law and forensic psychology lecturers.  In fact, I was victimised, placed under excessive scrutiny, and finally subjected to a false and vexatious notification by Bond University staff to the psychology registration board because I adhered to mandatory reporting legislation and took a pro-victim / anti-pedophile stance in my classes.


Bond University lecturer Robyn Lincoln

Every connection with Paul Wilson must now be questioned.  This includes the fact that Paul Wilson’s wife Robyn Lincoln, who also lectures in criminology at Bond University, sat on Braveheart’s advisory board.


Robyn Lincoln conducted research for Bravehearts.  One such article was written by her in conjunction with Bravehearts researcher Carol Ronkin in 2008.  It was titled, ‘Two Strikes and They’re Out! Mandatory sentencing and child sex offenders.’



ABC 4 Corners document existence of Robyn Lincoln’s Bravehearts article

Robyn Lincoln resigned her position on the Bravehearts executive committee immediately following the arrest of her husband Paul Wilson in late 2012.  Bravehearts subsequently tried to erase record of their relationship with pedophile Paul Wilson’s wife, including in 2013 revising the Two Strikes article and replacing Robyn Lincoln’s name with Hetty Johnston’s.  This is fraudulent. Bravehearts should be open and transparent about their relationship with the woman who supported her pedophile husband throughout his multiple trials.

re-authored-bravehearts-robyn-lincoln-paper     re-authored-robyn-lincoln-breavehearts-article

After Paul Wilson was charged, Terry Goldsworthy replaced Wilson as Bond University’s head of Criminology, and he replaced Robyn Lincoln on Bravehearts’ advisory board.

I was targeted by Bond University after adhering to mandatory reporting laws in the Bond University psychology clinic.  I reported fresh allegations of child abuse by a Miami (Gold Coast) DOCS foster parent against a 10 yo child. In response, Bond University psychology lecturers made a false & vexatious notification to the Psychology Board about me.  Terry Goldsworthy – whom I have never met – removed my age at the time of my child abuse and reported me to police & AHPRA as an adult perpetrator instead of a child victim of my childhood abuse.  In support of this false & vexatious notification, Goldsworthy used his position as a Bond University lecturer & a Gold Coast police officer. Goldsworthy exchanged emails with authorities that referred to me as a criminal ‘suspect’.

terry goldsworthy

Terry Goldsworthy, Bond University lecturer / Bravehearts board member 

AHPRA refer to Bond University lecturer & Bravehearts advisory board member Terry Goldsworthy as ‘Inspector’ – proving he used his position as a police officer in his support of Bond University’s false & vexatious notification against me.  Goldsworthy called my child abuse experience “outlandish claims.”


The NSW and Queensland Police Commissioners denied in writing the content of the above email exchanges between AHPRA and Terry Goldsworthy:

Police minister NSW response

Police minister Qld response

Terry Goldsworthy’s research interests include the role of the Nazi Waffen SS… His first book Valhallah’s Warriors examined the genocidal actions of the German SS in Russia during WW2.

Is Terry Goldsworthy who labels a child abuse victim’s testimony ‘outlandish’ the sort of person suited to being on a child abuse organisation’s advisory board?

Since addressing the national press in Sydney a year ago, I have been inundated with contact and information from hundreds of victims of child abuse and VIP child sex trafficking rings around the globe.  I have been entrusted with names, times, places, and connections.  I now have a unique and thorough understanding of the nature of child sex trafficking and networks.  I know which police, judges, lawyers, universities, government agencies, politicians and child abuse support agencies are engaged in child sex trafficking and its cover-up.

Bravehearts is a fake advocacy agency funded by the government to gather information and silence victims of child trafficking.  Hence their close relationship with Bond University and their pedophile protector lecturers.


My experience of presenting at Colin Ross’ Seattle conference

Here is my experience of presenting at the trauma & dissociation conference at the Radisson hotel in Seattle that was sponsored by Colin Ross.

Firstly, a fund was established to raise money for my air ticket to attend the conference.  The person who set this up kept $518 US of the donations and verbally abused me when I questioned this.  The remaining funds were then transferred to a US account run by the conference organiser.  Accessing those funds, and purchasing a plane ticket with them, was a frustrating, time consuming experience which resulted in a substandard flight.

The organiser promised to cover my hotel accommodation.  Getting this done was like drawing blood from a stone.  At the last minute, it was indicated that this expense was not being covered.  My hotel booking was then cut short by one night.  I had to pay an additional two nights to cover the time I needed to be in Seattle for the conference.  Then the Radisson stuffed up my booking altogether – twice.

I was the only international speaker and so had different needs to the local speakers – needs that were not met.

Speakers who sponsored the conference (i.e., paid to attend and be heard) were rewarded with market stalls inside the hotel.  From these stalls, therapists peddled their wares to vulnerable victims.  There were cards, and stickers, and $45 books, and fridge magnets – all kinds of crap that helps no-one.

It’s normal for conference organisers to send speakers (especially international ones) a contract outlining what is required of the speaker and what is being provided to the speaker.  This was contract promised but never delivered.

Originally, I was told that my presentation was going to be professionally filmed.  This never occurred.

Originally, I was promised a plenary speaking session first thing Friday morning when the conference began.  Plenary means speaking in the main, large room with no other competing sessions.  This never occurred either.  Dana Ross (Colin Ross’ daughter) was given that speaking spot instead.

I was placed in a small room.  The schedule in the folders were set out so confusingly, it prevented people from finding me.  Some attendees couldn’t find me at all because my biography and presentation synopsis were missing from some attendees’ folders.  All folders were individually named; so, in theory, organisers could control who did and did not know I was speaking.  Even when the information was in the folder, it was well buried.

Technical set-up of the conference rooms occurred on the Thursday.  By Thursday evening my room was not set up.  It had no podium, no projector, no microphone, no computer, no cables, and no technical support.  I could not give my presentation without the expected and usual gear.  I approached the conference organiser and asked why my room was not set up.  She said she’d told the technician to do so, and to go phone him.  Being Australian and having just arrived in the USA, I had no phone.  I eventually found the technician who told me that conference organiser did not tell him to set up my room.

Meanwhile, the other speakers, aware of my plight, openly stated how glad they were that their rooms were set up for the next morning.  Then all the other speakers accompanied Colin Ross to a posh dinner down at the wharf.  I was not invited, and besides, I was too busy trying to remedy the deficiencies of the conference organiser.

I approached the Radisson hotel staff member assigned to the conference area and asked for a spare podium.  The man contemptuously told me they didn’t have another podium and pointed to a 50cm high coffee table and told me to use that.

So, I decided to get into the Australian spirit.  I stole the needed gear from another conference room (belonging to the speaker who boasted to me how pleased she was to be set up).  I had the conference organiser help me move the equipment into my room.  Then the hotel locked the speaking rooms for the night, and I went to my room and enjoyed some room service dinner alone.

The following morning, the conference room hall echoed with the angry cries of a podium-less speaker…  Funny enough, the Radisson hotel quickly found that speaker a spare podium.

I gave my talk to a keen audience which doubled in size once word got out about my talk.  At the end of my 2 hour presentation, I received some remarkable feedback.  One therapist approached me and said that her client, who was not suicidal, ‘committed suicide’ in Colin Ross’ Institute.  I later found out that there were 5 other deaths at that mental facility, when it should be impossible to commit suicide in such a place.  That is the point of such a hospital established for potentially suicidal DID clients.  I asked the therapist, ‘Do you trust Colin Ross?’  She responded through tears, ‘I don’t know…’

One victim came to me after my talk and said that she had run into her own experienced therapist in the hall.  The therapist told her client, “I am so angry at Fiona’s talk!  I am so angry that no one has ever told me that information before!’

Another victim who had missed the first half of my talk approached me in the foyer in tears and begged me to repeat my entire presentation.  She waved her hand at the side show alley of merchandise, and exclaimed, ‘This is all shit! All this is shit! YOU have the real stuff!’  I tried to book a second 2 hour session but no room was available.  I had a 1 hour spot booked for a question and answer session on the second day.  That day too, the necessary equipment was missing from my room when it had been there for the morning sessions.

After my second session, one therapist pulled me to the conference organiser in the foyer and raised her voice, saying, ‘Why wasn’t Fiona in the main room?! She should have been a main speaker!  She’s amazing!  What she said was amazing!’

At least six people asked me to write the content of my presentation down, asked for my book, asked me to write a book, asked me when my book was being released.  I had no book, nor any intention to write one.

Hardly any of the other speakers introduced themselves or talked to me over the entire four days.  Most glared at me, or stared oddly at me, as victims flocked to speak with me.  I had no free time unless I left the hotel, due to the constant flow of people asking questions.

I later chatted with Alison Miller who had presented at Colin Ross’ conference the previous year.  She told me a similar thing happened to her.  She was assigned to a too small room in an obscure location, which had to be opened up to accommodate the large number of people attending her presentation.  Unlike the other speakers, Alison was not filmed.  Also, she was the only professional speaker not part of the panel on the last day.

I suggested to Alison that she, like me, had been used.  My attendance was used to market the conference and draw victims from all over, such as my new friends from Vegas.  Many came specifically to see me and not to attend the conference.  But once there, Alison and I were shut down so that the conference could focus on its main objective – serving as an advertisement for Colin Ross’ institute in which clients entered non-suicidal and left in a box.

Directly after the conference, I flew to Alaska where I delivered the same presentation to a group of therapists.  Their reception and hospitality was in stark contrast to my fellow speakers at Colin Ross’ conference.  Nicky Davis and I were showered in gifts of salmon, crocheted beanies and thank you cards.  ‘How long have you been speaking at conferences?’ they asked.  ‘This is my first time,’ they were surprised to hear.  ‘Don’t tell people that,’ they suggested, ‘Tell them five years.’

Back in Seattle, I presented to a group of men who work with ritual abuse victims.  Some of them were retired police officers.  One was a detective who specialised in ritual abuse crime for 47 years, and worked on most of America’s major cases.  ‘How long have you been gathering this information to share with people?’ he asked.  I didn’t gather anything – I lived it.  Apart from some relevant study in psychology, everything else was my personal experience.  He then said that so much of what I said was going over his head and he couldn’t keep up me, even with his vast experience.

So, what was so unique about my presentation content?  Dunno.  To me, everything I said seemed like common sense that I thought everyone would know.  But it turns out it wasn’t.  After spending time with the victims and answering their questions, it became clear that the truth of genuine American therapists, the vocal victims, and their knowledge of what actually works, was buried 20 years ago under the false memory foundation pedophile rhetoric.

Modern therapists are busy inventing catchy 20-step programs and gimmicks, flogging their ideas in $45 books to poor victims, playing the guru to cult-like followings, and talking about useless techniques like mindfulness and suicide contracts that are as effective for treating ritual abuse and mind control based DID as a cap gun is against a warship.

A key problem I noticed is that modern therapists commonly spend their time getting to know ‘alters’, and encouraging clients to talk in terms ‘we’ instead of ‘I’, thereby fostering a lifetime of illness.  Victims become forced into the role of professional survivor, showing off alters to titillated therapists.  Most of them want to heal – they just don’t know how to locate the path hidden beneath all that crap. Instead, some victims at the conference had been stuck in stagnant therapy for 20 to 40 years.

If a client has 1000 alters, how many years do you think it will take for a therapist to entertain them all?  Instead, therapists should be focusing on the traumatic incidents that created the alters in the first place, encouraging the client to sufficiently remember the trauma and abreact the feelings.  Done properly, that trauma memory will never affect the client again, and the numerous alters that may have been created via a single trauma incident will automatically integrate.

The difference between me and the other speakers was – I am a victim who actually managed to integrate.  I have no agenda, no vested interest in being a successful author or speaker, nothing to sell.  Wouldn’t you think that all those speakers who specialise in treating what I managed to escape, would be interested in meeting someone who actually found the way out of the DID maze?  Nuh.  Not one of them approached me and asked how I did it.  Not a single one…

The most approachable and teachable therapists at the conference were those who openly admitted to their own abuse backgrounds.  The therapists who didn’t admit to their abuse backgrounds were the ones parading around in a stench of superiority.

My trip to the USA has given me the courage to be very blunt about one issue: most importantly, there is a spiritual dimension to ritual abuse and military grade mind control that cannot be treated via any other means than a Biblical Christian approach.  If a victim claims they were healed without the help of Jesus Christ – they were not fully healed.  If a therapist claims to have helped clients achieved full integration without taking a Christian approach – their clients did not integrate.  It’s as simple as that.

So, that was my Seattle experience… I do not recommend victims attend the next Colin Ross marketing fair.  I certainly won’t.

Pedos Down Under Radio #6 Dean Henry

Why Australians Can’t Attain Justice

By Fiona Barnett

An Introduction to the Concept of Justice

The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary[1] defined justice as principles of morality, equity, righteousness, truth, integrity, and restitution.  By contrast, our prescribed legal dictionary considers justice ‘a concept defined according to the particular philosophical school of the inquirer.’[2]

Western concepts of justice combine Greco-Roman philosophical traditions with Scripture.[3]  From Plato to postmodernists, philosophers have debated the existence of a relationship between law and justice.  The resultant theories are generally divided into two camps.[4]  One camp associate justice with Biblical principles and absolute moral standards, emphasise individualism and equality, and produced classic common law under which Western society had a moral obligation to uphold clear rules of conduct.[5]

The second camp considers justice to be human-made and evolving with society’s changing mores.[6]  These theories are soaked in Darwinism, relativism, secular humanism, and collectivism.  They successively distorted the interpretation of the word justice until it lost its original meaning.  Justice went from a tangible principle to a subjective concept shaped by political agenda, religious affiliation, and previous experience of the legal system.

Australia has traditionally been dominated by positivist and liberalist theories.[7]  Feminism, post-structuralism, and ecological approaches have subsequently been influential.[8]  Traditional liberalist concepts of individuality, formal equality, and property ownership have been devalued.  Fluctuating cultural conventions determine what values inform our legal system in our increasingly permissive society.

Research indicates six-month-old babies possess an innate sense of justice.[9]  While the average citizen might hope and trust that our legal system is synonymous with what they innately sense justice to be – it is not.  The key principles of justice (equality, uniformity and certainty)[10] are being increasingly ignored.  Practical examples of this confront us daily, from anti-terror laws that breach international human rights standards,[11] to unfathomably lenient sentencing for men who rape young children.[12]

Experience drives home the reality that the concept of justice has evolved into the excrement of Orwellian newspeak, a mythical abstract ideal which law students write essays about, and promise to preserve in the forefront of their minds while earning $1000 per hour in their inner city law firms.  Only those who have yet to experience injustice can afford to pontificate about an actual relationship between law and a concept that can no longer even be defined, let alone exacted.

Ancient Concepts of Justice

Plato (428-348 BC) believed justice stems from social order.[13]  He proposed private citizens forgo individuality and personal rights for a state controlled by a gifted minority who regulate everything from sex to moral thinking.[14]  Plato’s ideal society was modeled on Sparta,[15] matches totalitarianism, and inspired Hitler.[16]

By contrast, Aristotle (384-322 BC) believed in natural justice.[17]  He saw justice as: transcending local customs and conventions, determined by divine reason, and inherently connected to law.[18]  Unlike Plato, Aristotle considered property redistribution unjust.[19]  He believed a just society allows citizens to enjoy the private property they worked for.  Aristotle differentiated between communicative and distributive justice, concepts roughly comparable to substantive and procedural justice.[20]

Yet the Greeks generally ignored Aristotle’s notion of natural rights for citizens.[21]  Women, children, slaves, and non-citizens had no rights at all.[22]  The Romans similarly viewed justice as protecting citizen rights only.[23]  They adopted Aristotle’s concept of commutative justice to maintain equality of rights between citizens.[24]

Christian Concept of Justice

Siedentop[25] argues that a moral revolution occurred in the 1st Century after the Scriptures introduced the notion that everyone has God-given rights.  This revolution inspired Medieval Christian philosophers and canon lawyers to promote individual freedom and moral equality.  These men, and not the secular humanist philosophers of the Renaissance or Enlightenment, formed the foundations of Western liberal democracy.[26]

Biblical Christianity considers justice, freedom and law inseparable.  Hayes[27] observed: ‘Wherever Christian ideals have been generally accepted and their practice sincerely attempted, there is a dynamic liberty; and wherever Christianity has been ignored or rejected, persecuted or chained to the state, there is tyranny.’

This statement makes no sense if 1st Century Christianity, an individual belief system with no formal organization, is equated with tyrannical collectivist religious organizations like the Roman Catholic Church.  Roman Catholicism stems from the pagan cult of Mithraism – not orthodox Christianity.[28]  Emperor Constantine I (306-337) changed his title to Pope, and renamed paganism ‘Christianity’.[29]  The same organization that fed Christians to lions continued persecuting Christians via a series of Crusades and Inquisitions.[30]  This created the premise for the Protestant Reformation.

Because organizations like the Catholic Church have committed heinous acts of injustice, this does not justify condemning the orthodox Christian values that informed our Western legal system.

Medieval Concepts of Justice

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an Italian priest and apologist for the Roman Catholic Church.  Accordingly, the Pope was the supreme law giver, and Aquinas considered laws inconsistent with Catholic doctrine invalid.  Aquinas replaced Augustine’s (354-430) idea that unjust laws were not laws, with the notion that unjust laws should be tolerated for practical reasons[31] – that is, submission to the Pope.

Common Law Concept of Justice

The common law system is based on Judeo-Christian principles.[32]  Edward Coke (1552–1634) believed God gave humans an innate understanding of the law.  Therefore justice manifested in a judge’s ability to correctly discover and apply Biblical law.  Just laws were based on, and did not contradict, individual rights and free choice.  Coke declared, ‘The King himself should be under no man, but under God and the Law.’[33]  He referred to the rule of law, where everyone is bound by fixed and predictable rules.  Common law offers protective measures including the right to silence, and the presumption of innocence.  Without objective law, individuals are at the government’s mercy.  The alternative is the rule of man, which results in tyranny.[34]

William Blackstone’s (1723-1780) Commentary on the Laws of England influenced common law adoption by English speaking countries, plus the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence.[35]  Blackstone traced English common law to King Alfred’s Scripture-based legal system.[36]  While the 10 Commandments formed a moral premise that was easy for the public to know, Blackstone made the common law further accessible to lay people.[37]  Blackstone also promoted inalienable rights.[38]  He said England’s Bill of Rights declared three immunities: private property, personal security and individual freedom.[39]  The importance of equality and freedom are reflected in Blackstone’s assertion that common law: ‘…gives liberty, rightly understood, that is protection to a Jew, a Turk, or a heathen, as well as those that profess the true religion of Christ’.[40]

Atheistic Concept of Justice

Atheism undermines the notion of a higher moral law.  It encourages relativism – the denial of absolute truth and moral code.  Without absolutes, morality is determined by social norms and individual discretion, and people have no sense of moral obligation.

Atheist Claude Helvetius (1715-1771) heavily influenced Bentham and Marx.[41]  He believed humans are a product of their environment and culture.  He said the meaning of life is attaining earthly happiness for the greatest number, not salvation.  Helvetius advocated self-love, and valued actions by their public utilitarian use.[42]

Darwinian Concept of Justice

The notion of a higher moral law dominated Western society until Charles Darwin (1809–1882) introduced, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859).  Darwinism was a pro-eugenics political movement that denied God’s existence, assumed humans are evolving animals, and considered law and justice the product of man’s will that evolves over time with changing social values and conventions.[43]  Darwinism influenced Maxism and Nazism.[44]  It also influenced secular humanism which similarly assumes only nature and the material world exist, and humans are evolving toward perfection.  These theories dismiss natural law and an absolute moral code.  They base morality on the nature of human interaction.

Positivist Concept of Justice

Darwinism influenced positivism.  In Pure Theory of Law Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) said, ‘The changeover of legal science from natural law to positivism went hand in hand with the progress of empirical natural sciences and with a critical analysis of religious ideology’.[45] Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) rejected God and natural law, and declared law a product of human will and reason, force and social struggle.[46]  John Austin (1790-1859) asserted law is the command of a sovereign who requires full obedience.[47]  Hart (1907-1992) concluded that Austin’s theory posed a sovereign threat.[48]

These theorists believed laws are logically formulated by the state to suit society’s evolving needs.  They support laws that benefit the majority, causing justice to fluctuate with political whim.[49]  The idea that law is human-made separates it from morality.[50]

Positivism makes our courts more concerned with rules and exacting procedural justice, rather than the law’s ethical implications.[51] It ignores individual rights, natural justice, and outcome fairness.[52]  Its arbitrary nature makes our legal system susceptible to tyranny.  For example, the proposed NSW crime prevention orders ignore rules of evidence, allow hearsay police evidence, and depend on the balance of probabilities (instead of beyond reasonable doubt) as the standard of proof.[53]

Another recent example is the Batterham case [54] which demonstrates how positivism ignores the common law distinction between natural wrongs (like murder) that everyone wants criminalised, and behaviours that the government prohibits but which the public generally accept – like defending one’s baby against a violent intruder.  This case also contradicts the common law allowance of proportionate use of force against a perpetrator.

Social Contract Concept of Justice

Social contract theorists tried to reconcile Christianity with Darwinism.  A social contract is an agreement people made in the state of nature, before society existed,[55] where the public sacrifice freedom for social order and state-administered justice.  Philosophers have different ideas about the state’s role in this social contract.

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) advocated absolutism – the absolute right of the state to control the individual.[56]  Hobbes’ collectivism was a precursor of modern totalitarianism.[57]  He diverted focus from natural law which encouraged altruism, to a sense of entitlement.  Unlike Blackstone and Locke, Hobbes was not considered influential, and he made no significant contribution to the legal system; he was rejected by both major parties of his day[58] and Oxford University burnt his writings.[59]

 Liberalist Concept of Justice

As a social contract theorist, John Locke (1632–1704) considered the consequences of when a government fails to uphold their contractual obligation.[60]  He believed people had rights to life, health, liberty, and property in the state of nature.[61]  Locke believed these rights stemmed from God-given natural laws that people could recognise with God-given reason.

As the father of liberalism, Locke’s support for inalienable, individual rights inspired the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, 1789 Bill of Rights, and 1793 French Declaration on Human and Citizens’ Rights.[62]  Locke’s ideals are reflected in the legal system via notions of presumption of innocence, procedural fairness, a fair trial, and non-discrimination.[63]

Enlightenment’s Influence on Justice

Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Jean Rousseau (1712-1778) claimed life in the state of nature was good.[64]  He inspired Romanticism, an emotive philosophy that promoted a return to the bliss of a pre-civil society.  Leftist collectivist ideology originated with Rousseau who claimed rights which existed in the state of nature are relinquished to the state-created general will.[65]  Rousseau damned civil society for permitting private interest, claiming this exploits others and detracts from the general will.

Darwin’s theory was previously suggested by others including Immanuel Kant (1724–1804).[66]  Kant agreed with Hobbes and Rousseau that humans chose to surrender their rights to the state when they created the state.[67]  He said a government has no duty to its citizens, but: ‘It is the duty of the people to bear any abuse of the supreme power, even though it should be considered unbearable.’ [68] Kant based his deontological (duty-based) approach to morality on human reason.[69]  While he claimed humans are intrinsically altruistic,[70] a society containing no moral absolutes produces people motivated by selfishness, not altruism.

Marxist Concept of Justice

Darwin, Rousseau and Kant inspired Carl Marx (1818-1883).[71]  Marx rejected Christianity, natural law, private property, individual rights, separation of powers, and the rule of law.[72]  He viewed law as a tool for political power and based it on the working class’ collective will.  Marxism promotes lawlessness via contempt for existing social order and encouraging the working class to violently revolt against government.[73]  Marx believed the need for law dissolves once communism is established.

Marx was anti-Semitic.[74]  Every application of Marxism has resulted in totalitarianism, deification of a dictator, human rights violations, inequality before the law, and the equal distribution of poverty.[75]  This is reflected in mass killings of over 100 million people by Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Stalin.  Thus Marxist law has proven to be the antithesis of justice.

Radical Multicultural Concept of Justice

Marxism influenced contemporary theories including radical feminism, critical legal studies, and race legal theory.  These theories agree that reality is socially constructed to create and maintain power.[76]  They consider talk of justice, universal truth, or objective knowledge, as white patriarchal attempts to gain political power over minority groups.[77]  They view law as a socially constructed tool for political gain.[78]  They are pro-social justice for leftist political purposes.  Their goal is not creating an overall fair legal system or an efficient government, but encouraging minority groups to pursue radical political change.[79]  Ironically, these theories promote anti-Semitism.[80]

Collectivist Concept of Justice

Feminism, race legal theory, dialectical materialism, fascism, critical legal studies, socialism, deconstruction, post-modernism, ecological jurisprudence – and any theory that advocates government ownership and asset distribution – are all forms of collectivist ideology.  Collectivism purports that individuality is a socially constructed phenomenon, since individuals did not exist in the state of nature.[81]  Collectivism is a political-economic movement that subjugates individuals to a group, and forces interdependence.[82]  People are grouped by gender, race, class, etc, and this group identity determines whether individual behaviour is right or wrong.  Consequently, morality is determined by our common humanity.[83]

Individual Rights Erosion

The meaning of rights has changed to suit collectivist bias.[84]  Inalienable, individual rights have been reinterpreted as minority group rights.[85]  Because individual rights are devalued, and law is not fixed, individual rights are being overridden by an arbitrary government equally capable of violating, as implementing, rights.[86]  An example is the anti-terror laws introduced since 2002.  Most were expedited without the usual parliamentary and civil considerations.[87]  This undermined the democratic values and rights found in our Constitution, common law, and other legislation.  Australia has no federal human rights legislation to ensure anti-terrorism laws comply with international standards.[88]  Consequently, anti-terror legislation infringes upon basic rights including non-discrimination, privacy, recognition under law, fair trial, freedom of association, and protection against retrospective law, arbitrary arrest and detention.  Historically, such denial of individual rights preceded totalitarianism.[89]


Legal system change starts with the education of student lawyers.[90]  Our law texts cherry pick history to support leftist bias; they highlight Marxism but omit its link to holocaust;[91] elevate fascist Hobbes above the father of common law;[92] [93] [94] criticise liberalist notions of individualism, formal equality, and property ownership;[95] favour the abandonment of objective truth, moral absolutism, and a universally accepted standard of justice in preference for moral relativism;[96] and encourage students to care more for the rights of trees than individuals.[97]  These authors undermine the foundations of our Western legal system while simultaneously enjoying the freedom and rights this same system affords.[98]  Not surprisingly, there is no longer an identifiable relationship between justice and the law.


[1] Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1928).

[2] Ray Finkelstein and David Hamer (eds), Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (LexisNexis Butterworths 5th ed, 2015).

[3] Alvin Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Zondervan, 2004)

[4] Ray Finkelstein and David Hamer, above n 2.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Anne Schillmoller, The Philosophy of Law Study Guide (Southern Cross University, 5th ed, 2014).

[8] Legal Process Study Guide.

[9] Paulo Bloom, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil (Crown, 2013).

[10] Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice, (Oxford University Press, 4th ed, 2010).

[11] George Williams, ‘A Decade of Australian Anti-terror Laws’ (2011) Melbourne University Law Review 35.

[12] AAP, ‘Racing legend Sir Jack Brabham’s son jailed for child rape’, Brisbane Times (online), April 15 2016 <;.

[13] Cecil Bowra, Classical Greece (Time, 1965).

[14] William McGovern, From Luther to Hitler; The History of Fascist-Nazi Political Philosophy. (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1941).

[15] Will Durrant, The Story of Civilization, Part II: The Life of Greece (Simon & Schuster, 1966)

[16] Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels (Plume, 1983).

[17] Michelle Sanson and Thalia Antony, Connecting With Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2014).

[18] Raymond Wacks, Understanding Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012).

[19] James Gordley, The Jurists: A Critical History (Oxford, 2013).

[20] Raymond Wacks, Understanding Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012).

[21] William McGovern, ‘Collectivism and Individualism,’ in Felix Morley (ed), Essays on Individuality, (Stratford Press, 1958) 339.

[22] Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (Belknap Press, 2014).

[23] Will Durrant, The Story of Civilization, Part III: Caesar and Christ (Simon & Schuster, 2011).

[24] James Gordley, above n17.

[25] Larry Siedentop, above n19.

[26] Ibid.

[27]  Carlton Hayes, Christianity and Western Civilization (Stanford University Press, 1954) 21.

[28] Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons; Or, the Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Scholars Choice, 2015) <;.

[29] Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons; Or, the Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (Scholars Choice, 2015) <;.

[30] Edward Clarke, Commentary on the Bible (1831)

<; (Clarke, 1831)

[31] Michelle Sanson and Thalia Antony, Connecting With Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2014).

[32] Robert Stacey, Sir William Blackstone and the Common Law: Blackstone’s Legacy to America (American Vision, 2008).

[33] N. D. Arora, Political Science (McGraw-Hills, 2011) 6.2.

[34] Robert Stacey, Sir William Blackstone and the Common Law: Blackstone’s Legacy to America (American Vision, 2008).

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Philosophy of Law Study Guide.

[40] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: In Four Books; with an Analysis of the Work, Volume 1 (S. Sweet, 1829)


[41] David Smith, Helvetius: A Study in Persecution (Clarendon Press, 1965).

[42] Ibid.

[43] Augusto Zimmermann, ‘Evolutionary Legal Theories: The Impact of Darwinism on Western Conceptions of Law’ (2010) 24(2) Journal of Creation 103.

[44] Conway Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Sciences (University of Pennsylvania, 1959).

[45] Augusto Zimmermann, above n 43.

[46] Philosophy of Law Study Guide.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Legal Process Study Guide.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Richard Ackland, ‘We have an Orwellian ‘shadow government’ and your liberty is at risk,’ The Guardian (online), 6 May 2016 <;.

[54] Belinda Geary and Brianne Tolj, ‘Father is charged with murder after a man who he caught ‘rummaging through his daughter’s bedroom’ dies during attempted citizen’s arrest,’ Daily Mail (online), 28 March 2016


[55] Philosophy of Law Study Guide.

[56] William McGovern, From Luther to Hitler; The History of Fascist-Nazi Political Philosophy. (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1941).

[57] William McGovern, above n44.

[58] Lee Ward, The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America, (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

[59] Raymond Wacks, Understanding Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012).

[60] Philosophy of Law Study Guide.

[61] Lee Ward, The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America, (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

[62] Ibid.

[63] Michelle Sanson and Thalia Antony, Connecting With Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2014).

[64] N. D. Arora, Political Science (McGraw-Hills, 2011).

[65] William McGovern, ‘Collectivism and Individualism,’ in Felix Morley (ed), Essays on Individuality, (Stratford Press, 1958) 339.

[66] Abram L. Sachar, A History of the Jews (McGraw-Hill, 5th ed, 1964).

[67] William McGovern, From Luther to Hitler; The History of Fascist-Nazi Political Philosophy (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1941).

[68] Emmanuel Kant, The Philosophy of Law: An Exposition of the Fundamental Principles of Jurisprudence as the Science of Right (T & T Clarke, 1887).

[69] Philosophy of Law Study Guide.

[70] Ibid.

[71] George Knupffer, The Struggle for World Power (Noontide, 4th Ed, 1986).

[72] Karl Marx, Early Writings (Penguin, 2005)

[73] Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law (Oxford University Press, 1997).

[74] Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question (1844) <;.

[75] David Koyzis, Political Visions & Illusions (InterVarsity Press, 2009).

[76] Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, above n 69.

[77] Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law (Oxford University Press, 1997).

[78] Ibid.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Ibid.

[81] William McGovern, ‘Collectivism and Individualism’, in Felix Morley (ed), Essays on Individuality (Stratford Press, 1958) 339.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Philosophy of Law Study Guide.

[84] Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, above n 73.

[85] Ibid.

[86] Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law (Thomson Reuters Australia, 3rd ed, 2010).

[87] George Williams, ‘A Decade of Australian Anti-terror Laws’ (2011) Melbourne University Law Review 35.

[88] Australian Human Rights Commission, How are Human Rights Protected in Australian Law? (2006) <;.

[89] Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels (Plume, 1983).

[90] Ibid.

[91] Michelle Sanson and Thalia Antony, Connecting With Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2014).

[92] Ibid.

[93] Raymond Wacks, Understanding Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012).

[94] Margaret Davies, Asking the Law Question (Thomas Lawbook, 3rd ed, 2008).

[95] Legal Process Study Guide.

[96] Ibid.

[97] Ibid.

[98] Alvin Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Zondervan, 2004).

Pedos Down Under #4 with Laurence – Malcolm Turnbull orders Sallie-Anne Huckstepp murder?

%d bloggers like this: