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 4/7/2015)

vagina dieu droit na gig - new art

The purpose of this page is to explain a new image, vagina dieu droit na gig. To explain it means that I will expose the Supreme Court of Victoria (and the entire Australian legal industry - being those who profit from the court) to the caustic light of reason. By exposing the court (and the law) to reason I will be exposing it for what it actually is, and therefore causing the law and its institutions to be exposed to ridicule, derision and contempt.

The sleep of reason breeds theism. And, in the absence of reason, we have law-courts that exist DIEU ET MON DROIT!

In the court's reasoning, anything that exposes it to ridicule or contempt is "defamatory". AND "DEFAMATION" INCLUDES INFORMATION - THE TRUTH. The court itself, in the English system of law, has a specific term for the "defamation" of itself, "scandalisation", which is punishable with imprisonment for contempt of court. Though the court by its own scandalous actions "scandalises", it is the critic who expresses their criticism of the court's scandalous actions who the court will find has caused the "scandalisation", not the scandalous act committed by the court itself.

Governed by an absence of reason (the irrational), the court shoots the messenger. The scandal must be suppressed (censored). In Australia truth (being that the court itself acted scandalously) is "not necessarily" a defence to "scandalise"; in which "scandalise" means to inform others. Apparently a scandalous act is not scandalous until it is made known and it is not the committer of scandal who is penalised.

And although the concept of "scandalsiation" breaches the International Covenants Australia is bound to observe, the court nevertheless reserves for itself the right to prosecute, because ultimately in Australia there are no human rights that can constrain the court from acting however it feels even if that means trampling on the human rights the government has sought to give us.

On exposing the court to the caustic light of reason thereby causing "scandal":


"scandalisation"; something "said [that] will undermine public confidence in the Courts"


Australia is bound by international Human Rights conventions:

"Article 14
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals... everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

However, the court invalidates this right because the court believes the right of others to believe they will receive a fair trial, regardless of whether they do or not, trumps the right to a trial that is actually fair, competent, or impartial. It would appear that the court uses the preceding get-out clause:

"Article 12
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order ..."


Though it is claimed that a citizen of the state has a right to a fair trial, that right is voided when the victim who has suffered an unfair trial is capable of showing that a fair trial was not had, because to show how a trial was not fair will lead to people to question whether or not a fair trial can be had. According to the court our greater "right" is to believe we will have a fair trial and that this trumps our right to actually have a fair trial. This is not a joke. It is a fundamental principle of english law. To explain this differently; we have, it is claimed, a right to a fair trial, which can only ever be fair, and can only be considered to be fair, since it is unlawful to show that a trail was not fair. The court supports itself with a vacuous tautology.

The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria (the court's current head), Marilyn Warren, declared in 2009 that anything that may suggest the court needs to be overseen basically "undermines the confidence of the community in the judiciary" the Age, ( ). Warren's reaction was to a proposal by the government to set up an independent body to oversee the court - something that the court sorely needs. However, such a body would likely confirm we don't always get fair trials, which would undermine our apparent right to believe we will get one which will "scandalise".

Though the court (in Australia) is duty-bound to not prohibit the imparting of information because it is bound by international covenants, the same court is also duty bound by the religious principles it is founded on, which means that its religious obligations override its human rights obligations when secular obligations adversely affect its obligation to the church on whose authority it exists.

And so the court acts as a de-facto state-censor, answerable only to an imaginary god, that exists above the law and is not answerable to the very laws it adjudicates on. Consequently, any reference I make to information (such as history) will expose the court, and the religion on which that court is founded, to ridicule and contempt. That is, information can "defame", and the court can insist on censoring anyone referring to that information (history), since truth can damage how the courts are perceived, and the Bible forbids this.

And it is immaterial to the court that this information exists, is known to exist, and that it can be found by anyone - because one must simply refrain from referencing it (self-censorship), or have censorship forcibly imposed by the court. The court could suffer an "egg-shell-skull" injury without their right censor.

The Supreme Court of Victoria coat of arms (or "crest"), as I discuss on the directory page, proclaims that its “right” is given it by an imaginary god. And so, for the law to function, bound as it is in an imaginary being's existence, reason must sleep otherwise the court will be exposed as having no authority at all. For the court the fable of its imaginary deity has to stand, or it falls.

Inspired by the coat of arms with its declaration of the court's right according to its fictional god, I commenced on designing a “vagina dieu droit na gig” image. It uses the court's own symbols to show it for what it is: a bunch of mindless (dumb) fucks. This image then integrates well with the body of art that I have spent my life creating; the series of fuckers, the medousa gammadion (part of my mytheic series), and my general antipathy to those stupid enough to proclaim the existence of imaginary friends.

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. These are explained later. Other "Sheelas", such as "Lizzard Lizzie's anus horribillis", births various persons via her anus (horribillis) - the series is to appear on eventually

Where oh where do I begin?
The Supreme Court poses a conundrum but cannot decide on it. And the conundrum posed by the court is whether it is the art that is offensive? or the essay that explains what the art means that is offensive? And, then there is the problem of whether my saying something the court considers offensive makes me offensive? or whether the statement (deemed) offensive can be considered offensive, but in which I, the maker of the (offensive) statement, remain un-offensive despite the offensiveness of what I say. For, according to the Supreme Court of Victoria, we can all love Adolf Hitler, adore and idolise him, because we should never link the ideas he held, with the individual (Hitler) who held them. In 2006 the Supreme Court of Victoria, appeal court (judges Ashley, Neave and Nettle), found that one may not hate the holder of the idea, even though one may hate the idea they hold. Yes, Supreme Court of Victoria, we all love Hitler… because though we might detest his ideas, we understand we cannot hate the individual who holds those ideas… which in this instance is Hitler(!)

So, I begin on the essay that explains the “vagina dieu droit na gig”, an essay which may be offensive, or might be an explanation which of itself is not offensive, but deals with offensive material, which makes the material offensive. The court apparently believes there exists such a dichotomy, and the judges presiding over an appeal I had before it in March 2015 sought to make this precise distinction.

Beginning with the symbology.

The coat of arms and heraldic lion.

I have written about this in the past (c. 2005 ). The concept behind the coat of arms is incontrovertibly greek, it is pagan, and the explanation here dissects that symbology.

The lion is Medousa herself as she is represented in Greek mythology with her tongue protruding. The belt, described as a "garter", is obviously Medousa's snake-belt, the belt-of-life (essentially, the zodiac). Referring to the Kerkyra (Corfu (sic)) Medousa, we see all the attributes that appear on the coat of arms which is used by the state court as the “Victorian Supreme Court crest”. These are, the belt, feline guards and and a (winged) horse guard (Pegasus). For whatever reason the english conflated the Medousa's face with the body of her all-beast guard.

Before moving on, "the crest" did not always feature a horse with a horn, which is really a rhinoceros, kinda like a hippo who is a river horse. Some renditions of the coat of arms, such as that of Henry vi, show a fanged goat instead of a horned-horse, which had once allowed for goat-herders to feel that their station in society was not nearly as lowly as they feared. Alas the goat was replaced.

This image is from

What of the vaginas?
To explain this, I take a risk that what I write might be construed to aid "Jewish interests" in "Palestine", because it will necessitate my use of "foreign words". Bizarre though this claim is, it is precisely what Emilios Kyrou, judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, found against me.

The word Medousa, is typical of many Greek words, a composite of two separate Greek words. I take my cue from the description of Aphrodite by Hesiod (Theogony) as "Philomedia, the source of life". Although usually translated as "laughter-loving", the translation of Hesiod by Athanassakis into English explains that Hesiod actually used a spelling of "media" that would make Philomedia mean phallus-loving (philo=love, media=phallus). Medousa, therefore appears to mean, "given for the phallus" (that the "dousa" element means, "given for" should not be in dispute). This concurs with the meaning of the Greek "gorgon", another composite which means speedy (gorgo/gorge) "birther" (gonia). Of course this etymology will be disputed. However, it is beyond the scope of this essay to buttress the etymology I am proffering, and I will therefore not provide it here. The reader should note that I have avoided using Greek script to render ζώνη, γοργό/γοργή, γονία and μέδουσα. Oops. Just did.

The Medousa is therefore something sexual, essentially, she is a vulva, taker of the phallus, a life-creator of sorts, whose death is necessary for new life to come about. In Greek mythology Medousa's death resulted in the Pegasus and his brother, Chrysaor, (whose father was Poseidon), neither of whom could exist so-long as the Medousa lived. Medousa's life-belt encircles her waist as does the earth-encircling ocean which is the domain of Poseidon, the zodiac, the zone (ζώνη, belt) at which that without life gains life (is animated). The ocean was for the Greeks a serpent, the hydra; hydra is both a snake and the Greek word for water.

(It should be noted that the association of an earth-encircling serpent with water is made in northern European religion, in which the “Midgard Worm” dwells in the “earth-encircling” ocean.)

The Hydra, water-snake. I have written on this in the past, . The above image is from the Wikipedia: Though the information from the Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of (sea) salt.

The Sheela-na-gig

UK Sheela, above. (The wikipedia link is for the reader to reference - it is not the source of my information)
A few other websites dedicated to Sheelas: ; )

France Sheela, above.

If my etymology on the Medousa is right (and I maintain that it is) then the northern Sheelas are Medousa, anthropomorphisations of the vulva.

For modern Greeks a gorgon is a mermaid - an acknowledgment that the Medousa was always understood as a sea-entity (Γοργόνες_(λαογραφία) ). (To find a reference to gorgons proper in Greek, one must consider gorgons as "mythological"Γοργόνες_(μυθολογία) )

That gorgons were from the outset sea-entities is already something manifested by Medousa's attributes, namely her snake-belt, and her union with Poseidon. This association with the sea was also made in ancient representations of gorgons which depict a fish-tailed winged Medousa.

Medousa as a sea-entity shown with fish–tail–cum–pillar. (She seems to have the forequarters of a leaping lion?)
Illus., p. 107, Σοφία Σούλη, Ελληνική Μυθολογία.

Sheelas are found in both the UK and France. That the Sheelas are the Medousa, is immediately evident when considering some of the representations such as the "Rochester Figure", in which the Sheela with her legs customarily spread apart by her arms, protrudes her tongue - while pointing two fish at her head.


"The Rochester Figure". The image is from
( )which provides additional information. Other info: )

And in another (not-quite) “Sheela”, a mermaid (gorgon to modern Greeks) is depicted at St Helen’s, Bilton in Ainsty.

Thus it is, as a giant Sheela, the Sheela's exposed vulva, that I represent the coat of arms along with a phallus, ready to be taken by the vulva that is ready to accept it, encircled by a two-headed ζώνη, life-belt snake. I am rendering the coat of arms as just another mindless fucker, of the kind exhibited in 2009, (the exhibition which was found by Emilios Kyrou to be helpful to the Jewish cause in Palestine, on the grounds that it included "words written in another script" - even though I have yet to have it explained to me how this has any logic).

Robert Cripps, at whose gallery the works were exhibited, believed he could identify whether prospective viewers of the works posed for the works. To do so meant he imagined them naked.

An example from the fucker series:

The fucker series depicts the mindless fucker. These fuckers with genitals to fuck, a heart with which to pump blood, a mouth by which to nourish themselves, are mindless mechanical entities. There is no representation of a brain because there is no need for the fucker to analyse ideas or to have any reason for its existence other than to fuck mechanically and multiply. The fucker acts on the impulse to fuck without questioning why it is it should fuck. It is the blind following of orders (in this instance, impulses to procreate) without thought, without question, and it therefore acts with a clear conscience. I am representing the court as a self-fucking delusion, a grand tautology in which a circular argument is all it has to explain the laws and its god-given right to adjudicate on them. The sleep of reason breeds. Two fuck-guards protect the exit out of which will emerge the offspring of the sleep of reason.

The court, just another mindless fucker

The court does not bother to question the imaginary being it acts for because it accepts a priori that its rights conferred by this imaginary being are beyond analysis or question. The court admonishes the prospective critic with a demand that they feel shame for thinking evil of it … HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE! And the same court is armed to protect itself against criticism. What could be so wrong with the court's divine right, justification and guidance?

A lot actually. The same god guided Hitler and was used to justify what he did.

When an imaginary god - who does not exist - guides

An essay by Emilios Kyrou, of the Supreme Court of Victoria appears on a fundamentalist Greek Orthodox Christian website. This fundamentalist website exists, on its own say-so, as a bulwark against secularism and apostasy. A Greek Orthodox Archdiocese newsletter explains the "doxology" given to the Supreme Court of Victoria, the subject of which Kyrou writes about in ModeOfLife. The legitimacy of the court is assured by the doxology. Those who are to appear before the court can be assured that the court will act consistent with the teachings and principles of the church, otherwise the church would never have given the court its blessing. There is, to use Kyrou's own words, a "QUID PRO QUO" requirement that the court is bound by the church to act consistent with its teachings, and not act contrary to them.

It is no coincidence therefore that Emilios Kyrou found, in a court case against me, that the most "egregious defamation” that can be made is an association with Hitler, in which the only association that was made with Hitler was Hitler's Christian basis for his racist genocide; and Kyrou himself, as well as the Supreme Court of Victoria, are beholden to the same imaginary god on whose behalf Hitler committed his genocide. (Oops, egregious!).

In an art exhibition in which Christianity was excoriated because Hitler's intolerance and racism were based on the Bible, Kyrou made the following QUID PRO QUO finding against me:
“Hitler is universally regarded as one of the most abhorrent individuals of all time” (308) EMILIOS KYROU
"The Hitler Imputation unarguably defames... To associate anyone with the views of Hitler is to profoundly damage their reputation..." (307) EMILIOS KYROU

Added 18 July 2015 - Zeig Heil Lizzie! God save the Queen! "To associate anyone with the views of Hitler is to profoundly damage their reputation..." Emilios Kyrou
Lizzie "associated" with Hitler, DW
Lizzie "associated" with Hitler, SBS
Lizzie "associated" with Hitler, "The Sun" (UK)

Defamation law and blasphemy - a Christian obligation

The court's legitimacy is not limited to declaring god - Christ - as its guarantor. The court adjudicates on laws that are fundamentally Christian.

Defamation law is a very Christian law.

The Defamation laws observed in Australia are defined by the New Testament; in Titus (3:1-2) and Romans (1:30, 3:8).

The Court exists to enforce mindlessly its obligation to the god who gives it its right to adjudicate on questions of law that are directly derived from the Bible:

Ὑπομίμνῃσκε αὐτοὺς ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι, πειθαρχεῖν, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι, 2 μηδένα βλασφημεῖν, ἀμάχους εἶναι, ἐπιεικεῖς, πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. Προς Τιτον 3:1-2.

Titus, 3:1-2 “Remind the people to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no-one…”

(The New Testament is written entirely in Greek. The word translated as "slander" in english is actually "blaspheme", βλασφημεῖν.)

The law is unconcerned by truth and unencumbered by logic (reason). The court's concern is for the PROHIBITION of imparting information because information will cause injury and the court ensures that we obey the rules of our rulers without question, which the court is charged to enforce. Knowledge might cause us to question. The court makes sure we do not question.

The court believing its own propaganda

The court does not exist to defend our human rights.

Such a role is in clear contradiction to the historic role played by the court which was always to limit our rights according to whatever principles of an imaginary god were deemed necessary to be enforced that limited our rights.

What rights we do have were gained not from the court, but by those refusing to remain submissive, who agitated against the rulers and authorities represented by the court in order that they force change in law. Rights are gained by force, by revolution.

However, the court, insists on self-serving propaganda, proclaiming itself to be the protector of that which it never has been and which it is still not. The Victorian Supreme Court seems to believe it is part of a continuum of rights established by the Magna Carta. It is not.

The courts are not and have never been guarantors of rights of any sort.

Adolf Hitler’s crimes were committed according to rule-of-law in Germany. Germans were bound by law to do what was law. Law was enforced and enforceable by the courts. This was the court's Christian obligation.

The Nazis who were later convicted of war-crimes in the post-war trials had been following orders which, had they disregarded, would have led to the German court imposing a penalty. The courts of Nazi Germany imposed penalties that demonstrated that they, like any other court, took their role to not deny "justice" to those who came before it, very seriously.

Just as it was a requirement in the Magna Carta to not deny justice, the German courts of the Nazi era did not deny justice either. The Supreme Court of Victoria peddles mindless propaganda.

We should be subject to rule-of-reason, NEVER rule-of-law.

Though it should not be necessary: below, Francisco de Goya's The Sleep of Reason produces Monsters.

Received wisdom has it that:
Honi soit qui mal y pense, pertains to a "garter" that resulted in the "Order of the Garter". These arguments are neither convincing or compelling.

It should be noted that a multiplicity of ideas that had not previously been in evidence, appeared in northern europe at around the time of Norman rule especially after the Norman-led sack of Christian-Byzantium in 1204 by "Crusaders". As I have already written, the lion, which came to appear in the heraldry of that time, arose during this same period.

It is evident that ideas that were not Christian, but where from polytheistic greece (not Rome), entered into the northern mind-set. What is described as a "garter" worn by the warrior-caste (knights) seems more like the warrior belt worn by Hippolyta, the AmaZON queen. This belt is otherwise referred to as a "girdle"; ζωστὴρ Ἱππολύτης, which was given to her by her father the god of war, Ares.

Australian law protects "the dignity" of its heraldic crests from injury to its "fame" (protection against blasphemy). Its ANZAC crests, the word "ANZAC" itself, the coat of arms of the commonwealth as well as the various coats of arms used by the states are all in some way protected. In Australia Americans are mocked over laws that protect the American flag - ignoring Australian laws equally worthy of mockery that protect its various crests and heraldry.

Regarding defamation law. The argument made is that defamation law is law made to protect against injury to fame, that saves us from shooting one-another dead by dueling, and it is claimed that its precedent lies in Roman law - even though English Common Law is not derived from Roman Law. How curious. However defamation laws, such as those of Australia that derive from English law, arose in Christian societies directly out of the Bible. The Bible (New Testament) refers to defamation/slander as blasphemy; injury to fame. In addition the etymology of the word "fame" proffered by Anglophones is wrong. The claim made is that "fame" ultimately derives from the Latin "fama". It does not. The "pheme" part of blaspheme is Greek (φήμη), and "pheme" predates the Latin fama by a half millennium. Most famously, φήμη was a component in the name of the "much famed" Cyclops, Polyphemos, who appears in Homer's Odyssey.

The word blaspheme, βλασφημεῖν, and its use in the New Testament; It should be known that the New Testament was written exclusively in Greek. Surprisingly, this, it turns out, is not widely known at all. There are hypotheses on the number of Greek source texts for the original New Testament and speculation is that there was once a primary "Q source": . Therefore, that blaspheme, written in Greek βλασφημεῖν, was used in the New Testament, is relevant to understanding the origin and meaning of the word "defamation" and accounts for the Biblical basis of laws of defamation and the mindless zeal shown by some judges in enforcing this religious principle which is founded purely in the absence of reason.

The malevolent Supreme Court of Victoria penalises those who know history, as it did me, because apparently knowledge of history exposes the court to ridicule and contempt. The malevolent Supreme Court of Victoria has caused myself and partner Lee-Anne Raymond to be stripped of nearly everything we have ever worked for in our life because of the offence taken by Emilios Kyrou, a judge of that court, to the presentation of historical material  (quoting Kyrou: "who's heard of the mufti?").

Though the UK momentarily considered bringing the court to account, it was decided to not do so. Apparently it is better to allow the plebs the belief that they will receive a fair trial - because that trumps the right to actually have a fair trial. So much for human rights and the court's claims it exists to defend them. Some links (some of which appear earlier) on "scandalisation" and efforts to hold the court to account, which can "lead" to the "suggestion" of "scandal":

5 July 2015 addenda

I wrongly gave a date of 2006 when it should have been 2009. That has now been corrected.

On re-reading, it seems I inadvertently create the impression that judges are beyond answerability. The constitution of Victoria, s 77, allows for judges to be sacked. However, politics being what it is, means that the party/parties sitting in opposition who (usually) control the house of review (“Upper House” in Victoria) might block such a move in order to embarrass the sitting government.

The theme of the Medousa is one that I have been working on since 2008, .

“Murray” from the Museum of Victoria is the snake who has (unbeknownst to him) “modeled” for my pieces. In this photograph Murray is seen coiled around a hapless lab-rat. Prey is not provided live because sometimes live prey, seeking to save themselves from death, react with such ferocity that they inflict wounds that can kill the snake. Without options, litigants, like the "live prey", might be similarly ferocious in defence of themselves and their honour after the court has caused for them to be stripped of (nearly) all they have ever worked for.

Melbourne newspaper the Herald Sun reported precisely in the manner Kyrou intended they report. This was a Supreme Court of Victoria-sanctioned defamation of us.

Cripps, who in 2009 believed he could identify who modeled for the paintings on exhibition by imagining viewers of the work naked, also declared that “Palestinians are oppressed by Jews”, which had nothing to do with our 2009 art exhibition. The Supreme Court of Victoria actioned a deliberate and malicious defamation of us both. The Muslim cause in Palestine began during WW2. Adolf Hitler supported the Muslim cause in Palestine, as did Cripps. The hadith proclaims it is the duty of Muslims to commit the genocide of Jews. History is not a rant. However, for the purpose of defaming us the Supreme Court of Victoria declared the historical record presented to have “no basis in fact”, meaning the reference to history could justifiably be ridiculed as being no more than "a rant". It is not as if the court did not know what it was doing. "Judges" in 2009 proclaimed; "Once it is lost... a reputation cannot be clawed back" ( Oh, I should mention, the damage referred to by those judges was to a judge’s reputation…The court is unconcerned by damage it does to litigants.

Finally, my Firefox browser. On updating it suggested a unicorn theme… appropriate, one would say, for the Victoria Supreme Court. Firefox suggest it is for “daydreamers”. I would suggest it better suits the delusional court who include it on their crests and heraldry.

6 July 2015 addenda

In writing what I did on 5/7/2015 I believe I inadvertently create the impression that the Australian courts might not be without some limitation to their powers. If that is the impression I have created, it is a misnomer. The United Nations Human Rights Commission is scathing of the kind of "justice" available in this country. In a scandalous case, police acting as police-officers did acts that were illegal. In order to absolve the police-force from responsibility and liability for the wrong-doing done by police-officers, the court ruled that the vicious police bashing of the woman in question was illegal. The police-force was found not liable for what police-officers did while acting as police-officers for the police-force because (essentially) their action was criminal [sentence in bold corrected 8/7/2015]. The UN Human Rights Commission has seen this for what it is; a human rights violation - one that the court has sanctioned. In my personal situation, I take it to mean that it is unlikely that the court would make a finding against itself, that it will likely shift the blame in some unforeseeable way. Disingenuous? Sure. But no less disingenuous than the court already is. It shows emphatically how vacuous and hollow the rhetoric of the court is when it takes credit for the Magna Carta even though to get justice one must appeal to the UN, not the Australian court.

(note: The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled the state "was not vicariously liable for officers who acted outside the realm of their duties" - apparently because the state introduced a  new "Victoria Police Act 2013" which absolved the state and the police of liability if police action gives rise to a tort that involves “serious and willful misconduct” even if that conduct occurred prior to the 2013 Act.)

The criticism of the religiosity of the court was "blocked in" a long time ago. However, that was criticism of the USA and its motto "In God We Trust". The criticism of the religiosity in law was the subject of my 2010 drawing The instance of grievance: not enough died on 9/11? which is one of the 13 works that were prepared to be painted in 2011. A detail from that work, below, shows a coin from the USA with the face of George Washington chiselled out with the writing altered to "In Allah We Trust".
the entire drawing is posted here and includes an explanatory essay.

7 July 2015 addenda

The pose of the english heraldic lion matches the pose of pantheria (all-beast) "guards" seen in ancient greece. Below a pantherion guard on an ivory unearthed at Delphi in 1939. An alternate explanation for the pose is that northern europeans in france and england tapped into the (fictional) Jungian ether drawing out of it an "archetype". And it must therefore be this same "archetype" that people of antiquity also drew their imagery from, hence their obvious sameness.

9 July 2015 addenda

The addenda for 9/7/2015 will form a new page CONTINUED HERE


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.