vakras foetus unbowed atheist head

reason the enemy of belief

Unbowed Atheist first appeared as a Demetrios Vakras blog when 10 articles were published on 15 June 2013. These articles can still be found at


(posted 10/7/2015)

vagina dieu droit na gig - new art

This page is a continuation of the notes appended to the page "vagina dieu droit na gig - new art"

It should not have been necessary to explain de Goya in the context of the sleep of reason

Francisco de Goya's The Sleep of Reason produces Monsters.

I expect that the reader of of what I write is erudite. I expect my reader to have heard of Franz Kafka and know what "Kafkaesque" means; and that they know of de Goya, surrealism - and even understand what "Object Permanence" means.

Erudition is an unnecessary extravagance for the legal industry - judges. It is an industry characterised by a staggering lack of erudition which makes necessary that I write on that which should be unnecessary. It is an industry that nevertheless makes enormous profit from its ignorance. If the legal industry exists to serve some purpose other than the self-aggrandisement of those who profit from it, I have yet to see it. This is an industry that engenders by its own actions contempt for itself but which is armed with weapons that allow it to prosecute those who hold it in contempt for what it does.

In 2008 the exhibition Humanist Transhumanist was pitched to several galleries. One of these was FortyFive Downstairs. Another was Cripps' GLG.

What the reader should know about FortyFive Downstairs, and why I reference it here. Listed on the FortyFive Downstairs website are "supporters". One "founding supporter" was the then QC, "John Digby": . When in 2008 Cripps' GLG accepted the proposal to exhibit Humanist Transhumanist, FortyFive Downstairs rejected it. In March 2015 the same John Digby, formerly QC, sat as one of the judges on the appeal over a matter concerning that same exhibition pitched to the gallery he was a supporter of which had rejected that very exhibition.

I cannot over emphasise the following: In March 2015 Digby asked whether Cripps, who as a gallery director had stridently proclaimed his utter ignorance of art while running an art gallery, had been made aware that a surrealist exhibition "was going to be contentious"! According to Digby, someone who, although being a gallery director and who should know about art, might be deficient in their field of business and not know. Welcome to Australia's legal industry where Kafkaesque is not an abstract term but the reality.

A Kafkaesque situation
Australia's reaction to Dalí in 1939 no different to Hitler's reaction to Dada and Surrealism
When Australia first encountered surrealism in the form of Dalí's La memoire de la femme-enfant (Memory of the child-woman), in the 1939 Herald Exhibition, the language used by Nazis was used to describe it. Notoriously, the art was deemed to be a "product of degenerates and perverts". "Dali’s work Memory of the Child-Woman … attracted the most attention. The painting caused great controversy, and the Freudian sexual imagery was deemed too risque for conservative Australia. The painting was temporarily removed from the walls of the exhibition’s Sydney showing." (

Australians reacted to surrealism with the natural characteristic of Nazis.

A book on this ignoble episode: It features Dalí's painting on its cover.

One judge, from the panel of judges hearing my appeal in 2015, asked in varying ways "does being ignorant of surrealism mean ignorance of art?" (or vice-versa).
The proposition posed was that:
a) although the exhibition Humanist Transhumanist of 2009 was pitched in 2008 to coincide with the 2009 exhibition of Dalí (which assumed knowledge of Dalí and surrealism); and

b) that despite media references being made (from 2008-2009) to Australia's notoriously disgraceful first encounter with Salvador Dalí (with regard to the at-that-time forthcoming 2009 Melbourne exhibition of Dalí); that this allowed for the following conclusion to be reached:

it may have been "reasonable" that Cripps was ignorant of surrealism and Dalí, or that Cripps might have known about art but that knowledge of surrealism or Dalí was far too specific, too esoteric, for Cripps to have possibly known. Deducing from a wealth of personal ignorance a judge can permit herself to extrapolate that since they have a limited idea about art or surrealism, that it is just as likely that Cripps, who is not a judge, suffered from a graver from of the very same deficiency suffered by the judge.

On Dichotomies
Ever since Descartes gave us his logically fallacious dichotomy dichotomies have been been all the rage for the unthinking (who therefore aren't - especially since they have no idea about Object Permanence).
As has already been referenced, the Victorian Court in 2006 declared that the holder of an abhorrent idea should not necessarily be abhorred - which means one can't be defined by the ideas they have, or the words that they speak.

During the 2014 trial the following dichotomy was applied by Kyrou. To quote Kyrou:

141 "Mr Cripps … denied that racism was mentioned on either 18 or 24 June 2009. He said that he did not at any time accuse the Artists of being racists".

146 (i) "Mr Cripps said that he was concerned that Mr Vakras' essays could be interpreted as being anti-Palestinian and racist."

Kyrou made a WTF distinction, claiming that something written which he declared "can be racist" does not mean calling the author of that which is claimed to be "racist", a racist. WTF? To remind the reader, this was a case where I had to prove that Cripps called me a racist (for being an atheist). Cripps had sued me over my writing that he called me racist which Cripps said was an "injurious" falsehood which defamed him, refer, The court's dichotomies are a cynical doublespeak that seek to serve an interest other than that which judges are intended to adjudicate on.

Let's apply Kyrou's cynical doublespeak
Hitler, according to the dichotomy of Kyrou's doublespeak, could not be a racist even though he expressed ideas in writing that are racist - which means there is no way that anyone can refer to Hitler as being racist, or hate Hitler for racism since his writing racist things cannot make him racist. And this means, to apply Kyrou's absurd doublespeak dichotomised illogic back onto the ruling he made against me: Hitler cannot therefore be a "racist", which means Kyrou's concomitant proclamation that an "association" with Hitler is "egregious" is impossible, because Kyrou has already proclaimed that other than writing things that are racist, Hitler was a good man. In the absence of reason we have Australian judges.

In the absence of reason we are merely left with law. In Australian law human rights are no more than privileges conferred arbitrarily on the unworthy as a magnanimous gesture of its judges. Human rights have to be pursued directly in the UN. God save the Queen!

This page is a continuation of the notes appended to the page "vagina dieu droit na gig - new art"

The exhibition Humanist Transhumanist

The apparently "transgressive" pages from Humanist Transhumanist

vagina dieu droit na gig © demetrios vakras
"Two fuck-guards protect the exit out of which will emerge the offspring of the sleep of reason."
Vagina dieu droit na gig belongs to a series of Sheela na-gigs.
A series of "Sheelas" is to appear on eventually.

If there is a point to make, it is this: if you are a mindless fuck, then you and Australia are a perfect fit. You could probably qualify to run an art gallery - no knowledge of art is required. And, as not having a mind means you have no ideas to impart, and have no capacity to criticise, dissect, or analyse ideas that are expressed by others, you have nothing to fear as there is nothing you are capable of doing that will get you prosecuted.  [edited 19/7/2015]


Surrealist Max Ernst's works were exhibited by the Nazis in the "Degenerate Art" exhibition of 1937. In 1939 a Nazi Australia exhibited its version of "degenerate art". Salvador Dalí's work was removed from exhibition on account of its "offensiveness".

The exhibition Humanist Transhumanist was promoted widely by us. Above is our press release as it appeared on the Melbourne City Council website in 2009. The press release was made by Lee-Anne Raymond. This exhibition was organised to occur during a major Dalí exhibition being held in Melbourne at the same time, as was stated in in the press-release.

The Dalí exhibition in Melbourne in 2009 at the NGV was celebrated as the return of Dalí's work to Melbourne, noting that Dalí's work had been "shunned" by the same gallery (art museum), the NGV, 70 years earlier. Above is a screenshot from June 2009 of an online news story on the Dalí exhibition. The press releases and media coverage from 2008 onward played on the scandal caused to Australia's (innate Nazi) sentiments by surrealism in 1939. Surrealist art has always been transgressive and therefore contentious. Australian art has always been characterised by the kind of nationalist ideals that would have made Australian art feel right at home in Nazi Germany - a point I made in Humanist Transhumanist in 2009 (my "manifesto" component).

The NGV still hosts a page on the 2009 Dalí exhibition, remarking how in 1939 Dalí's work "was met with great controversy."

In 2008 FortyFive Downstairs, as well as Cripps' GLG were pitched the idea of Humanist Transhumanist. FortyFive Downstairs rejected the proposal. The exhibition itself caused a stir due to gallery director/owner Robert Cripps' severe ignorance of art, who sued for defamation on it being written that he knew nothing about art and should not have been running a gallery. John Digby, whose name is circled, turned out to be one of the judges on the 2015 appeal who asked whether Cripps knew our surrealist exhibition was going to be "contentious". Seriously.

Cripps ran GLG, had no idea about art, was adamant in his proclamations that he had no idea about art, but still sued on him being exposed as an art ignoramus.

Kyrou, a judge of the Victorian Supreme Court ruled that Cripps' strident declarations of his ignorance of art were not sufficient for us to prove Cripps knew nothing about art. IN THE ABSENCE OF REASON...... "law gives you power"

16 July 2015 [edited 18/7/2015]
The law, with its right by god, is empowered with magical abilities that transmogrify that which already is, into being; which also allows for it to transmogrify that which already is, into not being; in which all that exists can only exist when it is transmogrified out of "non-existence" by a judge. Only by the powers vested by a non-existent god on the court and its judges can anything exist or not exist. Nothing, including the historical record, exists until a judge deems it does. "Who's heard of the Mufti?" Object Permanence dictates that an object exists independent of its observer, and that it will continue to exist regardless of the observer. "Law" though, allows for Objects to be deemed not to exist at all, regardless of whether Objects are observed or capable of being observed until a judge transmogrifies Objects out of non-existence (because until a judge does this Objects do not exist - even though they do). Knowing history, an Object, is punishable. When law gives power, reality can be transmogrified into whatever.

19 July 2015
The problem of "sanctity" of judicial independence. 

(In a discussion paper by the ACT Bar Council and Law Society ( a discussion for setting up a judicial complaints body considers that such a body be required to include an "educational" component. It goes on to comment (18)); "The importance of the latter should not be overlooked. Responsiveness, in the form of education and assistance to judicial officers, is aided by the complaints process while maintaining the sanctity of judicial independence."
What does "sanctity" have to do with anything?
If judicial independence is sacred, its sanctity is conferred upon it by the same make-believe god who guided Adolf Hitler. It is the same "sanctity" that guides all of jurisprudence. Anyone who might complain of judicial bias can be declared to be committing an act of sacrilege, a blasphemy, a "sin", which means the "sin" should be punished because the god who gives the court sanctity also demands that any breach (sin) be penalised. The court/judges have a fundamental problem with "sanctity" and their oaths: Do its officers (judges) swear an oath to their make-believe god to do their duty to fairly adjudicate? or are judges really pledging an oath to their make-believe god to perform their role consistent with the values of their god as is demanded of them in their holy book(s) and not commit a transgression (sin), by making judgements that would be in conflict with their holy book(s)? For, this latter point would demand that an "egregious blasphemy" be found to have been done by someone who has accused their make-believe god, who guides them, as having been the god who guided Adolf Hitler.

22 July 2015

Transmogrifications with "the right by god"

"Who's ever heard of the Mufti?"

The Nazi government film of the meeting of "the Mufti", al Husseini, and Adolf Hitler can be seen on Youtube. Stills from below:

Islam inspired Adolf Hitler to seek the genocide of the Jews. The genocide of the Jews is called for by the hadith. Christianity motivated Hitler to hate the Jews. Australia's Supreme Court can make this vanish with the "right by god".

The No Symbol can be transmogrified by the court to instead be a "cancel sign". According to Australian defamation law, there is a "sting" which allows for claims to be made that are worse than what is actually written. The court allows for a substantial transmogrification that will allow it to penalise transgressors. The court, with the powers vested in it by god, made as substantial and deliberate transmogrification in our case. The court deliberately facilitated the claim that the No Symbol was instead a "cancel sign"; meaning that its use was intended to express an intention to destroy the object over which it was placed. In the context of defamation law this transmogrification allowed for the court to claim that use of the No Symbol was proof of its use being "actuated by malice" with the intent of doing deliberate damage and injury. Malice is indefensible in defamation law.


A belief is not the equivalent to a logical corollary. And, a logical corollary is not "an opinion". Australia's judiciary conflate these concepts and deem them to be of the same meaning.