Archives For Political Theology

If COVID-19 were a test for the Australian people, and their governments, many would have failed.

It is my working thesis that this failure is due to a conditioned contempt for, and a lack a basic knowledge about civics and biblical theology.

COVID-19 has exposed how much Australians don’t know, value, cherish or understand the liberties these fundamental foundations of a classical education not only provide, but also secure.

On the whole, responses and reactions to COVID-19 have exposed the jaw-dropping chasm between those who know the core tenets of civil liberties, constitutional rights and protections, and those who don’t.

The medical crisis, as much as the politically manufactured crisis has shown discerning voters the dire cost of ditching civics and biblical theology from educational curriculums.

What’s left is a people who prefer to be entertained, rather than educated. Many of these people have been conditioned (perhaps deceptively so) to prefer having their ears tickled, rather than taught.

When a real crisis hits, instead of the people first turning to God, the government, through a violation of vocation makes itself God, and the people turn to it.

This is why we have neighbour ready to betray neighbour at the drop of a hat, when and where big government, by way of big media, aligned with big business and big tech, tell them to do so.

Australian governments are, in general, rejecting Lex Rex.

Society is being regressed back into a system of governing where the law is an instrument of a king. His whim is law. This is moving Australians away from Magna Carta, where according to the medieval system a king – held accountable under the same laws – is an instrument of the law, not a law unto himself.

As a society we’re seeing parts of the roof cave-in. The sinister slow erasure of the foundations is the proverbial slow homicide of the frog in the pot.

COVID-19 has also been a test of Australia’s political system.

Observe how the management and mismanagement of COVID-19 has exposed areas where the Australian constitution fails to protect the governed from those in government.

Areas where the constitution failures to protect is not news to those in power. They know the gaps.

These are easy areas of manipulation via loose interpretation, and COVID-19, has evidenced that those doing the governing are not beyond exploiting it as a weapon against the governed.

Unchecked power is power corrupted.

It’s good news then that the ranks of Australian MPs and Senators taking a stand against government overreach isn’t as thin as we’ve been led to believe.

One of those is the straight talking LNP Senator for Queensland, Gerard Rennick.

In his 2019, maiden speech, Rennick called for constitutional reform stating,

‘Our constitution was designed to hold government to account by the people, yet 120 years of compromise has rendered it ineffective. It is time for COAG to hold a constitutional convention to clearly define and separate these responsibilities, with proposed changes put to a referendum. The blame game needs to end. Australians deserve accountability.’

Speaking with the Senator, he appears to share as much passion and awareness about the problems with Australia’s political system as Constitutional expert, Dr. Augusto Zimmermann.

Senator Rennick told Caldron Pool that he is “pro-quality assurance.” Constitutional reform is a pathway towards achieving better government, and a better way of governing.

However, he said, “reform wasn’t likely to happen under Scott Morrison, because the current Prime Minister isn’t interested.”

Like George Christensen, Craig Kelly, Tanya Davies, Malcom Roberts, and a growing list of others, Rennick is passionate about keeping Government in the realm of governing for the people, of the people, by the people.

Risking his political career, Rennick has proven himself to be a staunch advocate of those wounded by the COVID-19 “vaccines.”

When asked about his reasons for doing so, the Senator’s blunt reply was, “I can’t walk by the victims.”

He then discussed nonsense of State mandates, saying that “risk, when it comes to COVID-19 has never been properly defined, or debated.” Instead, we’re faced with gag orders for doctors, censorship of debate, and a one-eyed political narrative that cannot be questioned.

For an LNP party member, Rennick was refreshingly open about his views on Scott Morrison’s National Cabinet. He inferred agreement with the view that the NC was a usurpation of representative democracy. This is because decisions have been made, and are being made that exclude proper parliamentary processes.

No policy or procedure decided upon within the National Cabinet is passed onto federally elected representatives to be rigorously debated, or voted on.

With these examples in mind, COVID-19 as a test for the Australian people, and their governments, has exposed areas of significant weakness both in Australian society and politics.

The implications are a warning, as much as a condemnation of those from the leftist dominated academy, bureaucracy, right up to the cosy cloistered existence of much of Australia’s leftist oriented clergy.

Many of those in the latter category are following COVID culture. Like Australians who have been all to nauseatingly keen to embrace medical apartheid, some clergy have chosen to self-promote instead of walk with the victims of the COVID-19 “vaccines”.

Senator Rennick’s unapologetic advocacy for the wounded, shames those who, so far, have refused to sigh, or even walk with the wounded.

The next step for Australians and the Australian governments elected to govern on their behalf should be a return to civics, and civility; a back to basics return to biblical theology.

The Prime Minister must begin by putting his alleged Christian faith into action.

End the mandates, end the National Cabinet’s rule by decree, get back to constitutional democracy, and reunite the nation.

First published on Caldron Pool, 29th November, 2021.

©Rod Lampard; Caldron Pool.

Douglas Wilson’s latest vlog entry criticises current and pending CCP-19 mandates from overreaching governments.

The author, Pastor and theologian, gives a four-point roadmap for response.

First, people must understand that “Ceasar is not in charge of what constitutes a valid religious exemption.”

Wilson stated, “We are being led around by the nose. We are being lied to all the time.”

Hypothetically, “if a think outside the box scientist working for the CDC discovered that COVID could be treated effectively by putting Mentholaid on your upper lip. Then ran down the hallways at the CDC yelling it was over…does anybody seriously think that the people managing this pandemic would let it end like that?”

Additionally, “the chances of you ever finding out about such a treatment would be very low.”

That’s because, Wilson asserts, “this isn’t about disease control, but rather people control.”

Secondly, “since it’s becoming apparent that our ruling elites are neither one; not know how to rule and not being at all elite – it’s time for us to acknowledge the obvious, fill up the streets and just say “no.”

He offers the Berlin Wall as an anecdotal example,

“The bad guys would build a bit and wait to see what happened. Nothing happened. So, a little more went up.”

Wilson’s father-in-law who served in Germany observed, “We could have saved ourselves a whole lot of grief if we’d have just sent bulldozers in at the very first sign of a wall.”

That didn’t happen. They waited and people paid the price for not acting when it counted.

“If you wait until the wall is built; with all the guards posted, then there is now way to send in the bulldozers without starting a war.”

Third, “make a scene.” Citing Hillel, Reagan and Kennedy, Wilson asks “if not us, who? If not now, when?”

Sending a shot across the bow of ridiculous levels of censorship, overtly secretive governments, and lack of governmental transparency on COVID, Wilson argues,

“If the Aussies are starting to kick [protest], it must be pretty bad…”

Wilson added, “How many times do they get to lie and still maintain credibility? The current health establishment is about as realistic as professional wrestling is.”

For example, PCR tests not being able to differentiate between COVID and the flu (which is unprecedently almost non-existent).

Fourth, understand that numbers are the bureaucrat’s love language.

Christians may seek an exemption appealing to religious alignment.

There may be strong arguments for this, but having a strong argument “isn’t the same thing as having an argument that can get through to a bureaucrat.”

What will win is “a sufficient amount of people making this kind of argument”: “!”

“We ought,” said Wilson, “resist” by proclaiming “the liberties that pertain to us as free men. In Christ, we are free men.”

“Jesus is Lord, not Ceasar.”

This means, Wilson declared, “Ceasar does not get to determine what Christ has decided to give us.”

 “Ceasar is not the source of our liberties, Christ is.”

Wilson concludes: “Today’s Ceasars don’t know what to do with a comprehensive faith like the Christian that shapes and moulds slaves into free men.”

It’s genuinely bewildering that the only time some individuals and community leaders have spoken up during a time of crushing, unprecedented government overreach, is to protest against those protesting crushing, unprecedented government overreach.

Their opportunism is see-through; their selective outrage is being noted.

They need to repent and sigh with the wounded – walk with the bruised worker with as much solidarity as they afford to those hospitalised.

I’m flabbergasted, that pastors are among those manipulating people into early adoption of a medical treatment, without question. Accompanied by peer pressure, emotional manipulation and a complete disregard for conscience, and informed consent.

If your loyalty to a leader is intact, and only intact because that leader claims to be a Christian, it’s time to rethink your Christianity.

Character and substance will forever trump appearances and reputation.

This isn’t smugness. It’s fair criticism. Not only of elected and unelected leaders abusing their office, but of banal believers who confuse loyalty to Christ, with loyalty to an ideology or Caesar. 

Augustine wrote,

‘If things which are of themselves good and right ‘lose lustre’ because of general disfavour, then the love of human praise itself should be ashamed, and yield place to the love of truth.’ (City of God 5:14)

And so, I say to Christian leaders denouncing the freedom protests:

Sigh with the wounded. Ditch the self-promotion.

Jesus’ ministry involved both exorcism and healing.

Walk with worker unable to pay their bills, as much as the COVID patient stuck on a ventilator.

To quote Wilson, “Jesus is Lord, not Ceasar.”


First published on Caldron Pool, 30th July, 2021.

©CaldronPool; Rod Lampard, 2021.

To paraphrase, Anti-Nazi Swiss theologian, and flawed father of five, Karl Barth,

‘Only weak men and rebellious women reject man’s God-given responsibility towards woman.’

He added,

‘‘Man can only be genuinely human with woman […]’ (CD. 3:4:166)

Refuting the radical feminism of his day, Barth painstakingly explained how the ‘strong man is not a tyrannical man’.

The ‘distinctive characteristic of the tyrannical as opposed to the strong man,’ Barth writes, ‘is that he does not serve the order of fellowship between man and woman, but makes the order serve himself.’

The tyrannical man is self-centred. He breaks with woman, betraying the order of this fellowship.

The strong man, on the other hand, is a servant-leader. He is strong because he understands his ‘masculine responsibility’ towards woman, and ‘is vigilant for the interests of both sexes.’

Man is to be a man in his relationship to woman; as woman is to be a woman in her relationship to man.

Woman is not expected ‘to make herself his slave or property.’

Albeit somewhat shaded, Barth says, this is the intent behind what was once known as chivalry.

He calls this other-centeredness the foundation of man’s life-partnership with woman. Man is for woman; woman is for man.

There should never be an exploitation of this relational order, where man is placed over against woman, or woman placed over against man.

Us with them, must never become Us vs. them.

Barth’s order of fellowship helps to explain the importance of this year’s theme for International Men’s Day.

On November 19 the world is encouraged to celebrate the beauty of man for woman and woman for man.

Recognising the importance of man’s responsibility towards woman, and woman’s responsibility towards man, sums up one of the six pillars of International Men’s Day. 

This year we focus on promoting “Better relations between men and women.” 

The goal is to ‘improve gender relations and promote gender equality not only for men but for women too.’

To paraphrase mother, and feminist Jean Bethke Elshtain’s assertion in her political tome criticising the militant mutations of feminist theory:

‘Family man and social man predates political man…the life-partnership of man for woman, woman for man, is essential in establishing the minimal foundation of human, social existence.’

The high rate of divorce illustrates how man and woman are far from perfect in resolving their differences.

This is not helped by systems that favour one over against the other.

In some cases, there is too little togetherness, and too much self-centredness.

The result is a shattered partnership where men and women become another dehumanised, cold statistic.

This goes against how man is to be for woman, woman is to be for man.

The order of fellowship frees them to be free of each other. Not free to hate each other. The richness of this fellowship liberates both man and woman.

Hence the importance of this year’s International Men’s Day theme celebrating the age-old life-giving potential of the man with woman life-partnership.

Us with them, must never become Us vs. them.

The order of fellowship, as viewed by Elshtain, and explained by Karl Barth, humanises humanity.

The strong man and reciprocating woman, as opposed to the overbearing tyrant, and his resentful victim.

Help us get the word out this coming week to support International Men’s Day!

Your donation will help us put years on a man’s life and build a better future for our children.

First published on Caldron Pool,  17th November 2021. A subsequent version was also published on Dads 4 Kids, and The Canberra Declaration

©Dads4kids; Rod Lampard, 2021


South African cricketers have been told by Cricket South Africa to kneel before Black Lives Matter, or face being removed from any and all future games this season.

The Associated Press reported the “NO pledge, NO play” policy, stating, CSA had ‘ordered [players to] take a knee before matches in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.’

In an official media statement issued on the 26th October, CSA declared that board members had ‘unanimously agreed to issue a directive,’ adopting what is essentially a “NO pledge, No play” policy for their ‘remaining World Cup matches.’

CSA said the decision was made after ‘concerns were raised’ about players having different views (‘postures’) ‘in support of the BLM initiative.’

This ‘created,’ they said, ‘an unintended perception of disparity or lack of support for the initiative.’

Bizarrely, after giving these reasons CSA concluded the press-release with platitudes about ‘embracing the diversity with which SA has been blessed;’ adding, CSA ‘believes this will build a new innings based on the pillars of inclusivity, access and excellence.’

Sizing up their reasoning, CSA added,

“After considering all relevant issues, including the position of the players, the Board felt that it was imperative for the team to be seen taking a united and consistent stand against racism, especially given SA’s history.”

The International Cricket Council (ICC) supported the “NO pledge, NO play” policy, stating, ‘after some teams expressed the desire to make a gesture against racism, the ICC offered all teams the opportunity to do so if they wished.”

I acknowledge a need to address past injustices and remember past injuries through a Christ-centred forgiveness – especially in South Africa’s context – but it is naïve of institutions to accommodate, appease and adopt a one-eyed, human-centred response to the sin of racism.

The CSA’s “gesture against racism” should be read as demanding players (of all shades of melanin) fall in line with Black Lives Matter Incorporated’s Marxist groupthink.

CSA’s ‘directive’ requiring players to think the same, and fight racism in the same way, contradicts their assertions about being “for diversity.”

What’s further, “NO pledge, NO play,” is fascism and socialism proper.

There is no room for dissent, creative solutions, and informed consent – only total obedience to the cult and its narrative.

This was perfectly illustrated by the pressure put on former Captain, South African cricket star Quinton de Kock, who immediately refused to comply with the mandate.

CSA said in response,

“The Board’s view was that while diversity can and should find expression in many facets of daily lives, this did not apply when it came to taking a stand against racism.”

De Kock later back-peddled after the Cancel Culture brigade and left-wing global media coverage shamed the cricketer into capitulating.

Note the “NO jab, NO job” connection, “NO pledge, NO play” share.

CSA’s bizarre decision sits in the same sphere as Australia’s forced medical procedure mandates.

I’m referring here to Scott Morrison’s questionably unconstitutional, National Cabinets’ “NO jab, NO job,” obsession with – what can rightly be called – the virtue signal vax.

Regardless of how harmless the ‘gesture’ looks, CSA’s decision to force its players to genuflect to Black Lives Matter, whilst contextually understandable, is not anti-racism, it is straight-up idolatry.

“NO jab, NO job” is Cancel Culture on steroids, the same applies to “NO pledge, NO play.”

First published on Caldron Pool, 5th November 2021.

©Caldron Pool, Rod Lampard, 2021

Literal hat tip to Courage Culture, Dr. Stephen Chavura (whose surname I mispronounce on a regular basis.) and Renee. Grab yours from


Australian Academics Take Aim At Cancel Culture

Cancel Culture Can Only Be Stopped By Courage Culture

Karl Marx’s Promethean Monstrosity Is a Mass Murderer

There were encouraging signs from Europe last week when at least four Members of the European Parliament (MEP) went rogue and publicly rebuked the European Union’s COVID-19 passports.

Speaking for the group, at a news conference in Strasbourg, Romanian MEP Cristian Terheș said,

“We were elected by the people, but we should not forget that we are elected here for the people…”

Terhes, a member of European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECRG), admonished EU parliamentarians for claiming to be a beacon of the Democratic process and procedure, whilst it failed to uphold informed consent, be transparent about “vaccine” mandates, and reveal important information regarding “vaccine” deals made with big pharma.

“Have you told these people in the parliament when you decided to strip their fundamental rights why you have done it? You see we have all this treaty – as my colleague said – no medical treatment should be imposed on you, unless you decide about it, freely, and under informed consent.”

He called the “vaccine” passports (known as Green Certificates) “a violation of freedom.”

The people, Terhes argued, have no informed consent, they don’t get to choose “what they want to be vaccinated with or tested with.”

“There’s another aspect to this,” he continued. “The question that is addressed not only to you in the parliament, but to every European citizen. Ask your own government, were you properly informed about what is going on?”

The rebel MEP Romanian said,

“We had a lot of debates at the beginning of this year in the parliament where we demanded full access to the contracts signed between these companies that produce the vaccines and the European union.”

What they got in return, Terhes explained, was “redacted format, after the [pharma] company agreed to open the contract to scrutiny.” (According to Terhes this was only after the company was pressed hard on the matter.)

Terhes then applied the heat to the puzzling Big Pharma response.

“So, you’re imposing a medical product on the European citizens without them knowing what’s in this contract? Not only them knowing, but we don’t know [either].”

Holding up the redacted report, which had sentences, and some pages completed blacked-out, he said,

“You tell me if this is okay for the European citizens to be exposed to? This situation, where they cannot come to work. They cannot enter a store. They cannot go with their kids to schools; where they cannot freely move from one country to another [un]less [someone] is vaccinated with one of these products.” 

He added, “You call this transparency? […] Why aren’t they open with the people and full transparent, so we all know what is going on?”

It’s pertinent that a Romanian representative is one of the few speaking out against the infringement on human rights.

Romanians, like all Eastern European countries, who lived like slaves under the Marxist heel of the Soviet Socialist Empire, have first-hand experience with organised state thuggery, and its inhumane, elitist despotism.

Speaking from this context, Terhes stated, 

“The difference between tyranny and democracy is very simple. When the government knows everything about you, that’s tyranny. When you know everything about your government that’s democracy. I know how it is to live in tyranny.”

On behalf of the breakaway dissenters opposing “vaccine” passports, and “vaccine” mandates, he asserted,

“We are here for you and we will fight for you. I know many of you are struggling all across Europe, and many of you working for the European institutions are struggling right now, but look, as a former U.S. president said, ‘freedom liberty is one generation away from extinction.’ We live that type of time right now. It’s our duty, and our call to fight for liberty.”

The press conference was downplayed by Reuters in a Fact Check.

They took more effort in telling the world that only a “small” number of MEPs voiced opposition to “Green certificates” (a digital COVID certificate), than reporting on what was actually said, and why the members said it.

It’s of little wonder legacy media press, seemed unimpressed.

Loud and proud, VICE has labelled Cristian Terhes a “homophobic conspiracy theorist.”

In 2019, the leftist rag called him ‘one of the most dangerous new MEPs in the European parliament’, after his election in 2019.

VICE’s big problem with Terhes is that he’s a Christian, a politically conservative social reformist, and a (‘non-leftist’) Social Democrat, who openly opposed to the 2SLGBTQAAI+ ideology, particularly same-sex “marriage.”

Terhes is also a member of the centre-right, Christian Democratic National Peasants’ Party, re-founded after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989.

Marking the event, he posted on Twitter, “EU citizens’ rights are severely violated by the Digital Certificate. We will fight for your right to freedom, which has to be restored in the EU!”

In an October 22nd press release, Terhes called on Europeans to stand up to “any government trying to take away freedom, civil rights and liberties!”

He condemned the misuse of “vaccine” passports, stating,

“What we have seen in this crisis is that civil rights and liberties have been transformed from fundamental rights to privileges that governments grant or revoke as they see fit.”

Terhes, and those who stand with him, understand that civil liberties are being replaced with “prisoner privileges.”

The government is using the threat of losing those privileges to force compliance with a “fall-in, line-up, goose-step in unison and salute, or else,” Globalist prison.

Like Communist China, privileges will be issued on the basis of someone’s social credit score. Rights will be rationed out by degrees of loyalty to the regime, and its ideology.  

One recent example of this is a push from The Greens in Australia to replace free speech, with what they call “fair speech.”

This all sounds “nice,” until you read the fine print. They get to decide what’s fair and what’s not.

Governed by the fickle whim of the ruler, not the rule of common law, compliance will win the public lesser restrictions, not more freedoms.

Cristian Terhes speaks for a growing number of people who see how important it is to distinguish between doing the “right thing” and doing what’s “nice.”

Popularity, as AW Tozer once wrote, does not always equate with excellence. Being good is often not the same as being nice.

If honest, common-sense politicians, along with a strong majority fail to seize the day and oppose these mandates, the propaganda, and the nonsense Public Health Orders, history, when it recalls this era, will tremble at the sound of that silence.

Just as we do, when we recall Winston Churchill’s reprimand of those, who with blind obedience, assisted in the rise of stoppable tyranny.

In his “Iron Curtain Speech” Churchill stated, there never was a war easier to prevent than World War Two,

“I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention […] no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again.”

Once this corrupt political hegemony is through with those of us standing against the gathering storm, they’ll come for the cosy, middle class privileged lifestyle that the silence of many is trying to protect.

To repurpose Churchill’s words,

“Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement.”


First published on Caldron Pool, 2nd November 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

In the strong chance you’re not keeping up to date with mad Leftists and their steady game of pin the tail on the oppressor, there’s a new kid on the chopping block.

As trendy as “right-wing extremism” or “white supremacism” was, threats to national security now include anyone who chooses to question, think through the science, practice informed consent, and make their own health decisions.

The vaccine hesitant are inching closer and closer to the cancel culture guillotine.

Both groups, Hamilton explained, are “science deniers.”

Cheering on the deaths of COVID-19 victims who weren’t vaccinated, Hamilton pins his hopes on the vaccinated politicising the suffering of others as examples that would force “COVID and Climate change science deniers wake-up.”

Hamilton repeatedly labels the vaccine hesitant as “anti-vaxxers”, writing,

“Climate change deniers make comparable claims to “anti-vaxxers.” Prone to “conspiracist ideation”, many anti-vaccination activists appear to believe Covid-19 is a hoax.”

A bizarre claim considering that many of those who are vaccine hesitant, are not traditional “anti-vaxxers.”

(Many of them, much like myself and my family are all up to date with tried, tested and common-sense vaccines.)

The vaccine hesitant simply choose to practice more discernment in their decision making.

They also see-through government sanctioned propaganda, and as such, are less likely to respond to any conditioned reflexes built into subsequent groupthink.

They see a growing chasm between fact and fiction, due in large part to the inconsistency, conflict, and censorship, all of which hinders an honest presentation, and reading of the scientific data.

Rather than winning out against the vaccine hesitant, Hamilton reinforces reasons for being so.

For example, if his use of logical fallacies weren’t enough, falsely accusing ‘COVID and Climate deniers’ of evasion tipped the bucket.

He argued that they resort to saying they’re only asking questions when they’re ‘cornered.’

The prized insight within Hamilton’s piece is found in what it reveals.

When we’re told to “shut-up” and “follow the science,” what we’re really being told is, “fall in line with ideological propaganda, or else!”

Asking questions is a crucial part of applying the scientific method.

What Hamilton does is inadvertently admit there is no room for dissent.

He appears to be guilty of denying the science, while accusing others of doing the same.

For instance, on the basis of risk, he conflates women taking the “pill” with the COVID vaccines.

This is without concern for qualifying how the two are vastly different.

Which is tantamount to saying that humans are related to Chimpanzees by a 98.6% correlation, without stating that the 1.4% differences in the hit into the double-digit millions.

Here are five observable reasons why Hamilton’s “pill”/COVID vax equivalence is misleading:

First, informed consent. No woman is forced to take the pill, on threat of losing their job.

Second, the long-term data is in on the “pill.” Assessing long term data on the global COVID ‘vaccine trial’ is still a work-in-progress.

Third, there are confirmed deaths, unconfirmed deaths, and a consistent pattern of health problems associated with the vaccines. Such as heart inflammation, balls palsy, and blood clotting.

Fourth, if women were having the same reactions to the pill, as some people are experiencing with the vaccines, the pill would have been pulled from the market.

Fifth, the pill is specific, targeted and measured out proportionally. A stark contrast to the ham-fisted, arrogant rush associated with the COVID vaccines.

Forcing a vaccine onto healthy people, many of whom have a 0.003% chance risk of dying from COVID-19 is non compos mentis.

Lastly, Astra Zeneca admits the potential for long-term negative health problems, and has sort to indemnify their company against long term adverse effects.

In July, Reuters reported that ‘AstraZeneca had been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine’ by countries AZ has signed distribution deals with.

Almirall board member, and Astra Zeneca EVP Ruud Dobber, was quoted as saying,

 “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects.” 

Add onto this the Australian National Cabinet (as opposed to the suspended elected representative parliament) implementing a “no-fault indemnity scheme for GPs to administer AZ.

It doesn’t take a genius to quickly identify Hamilton’s bias and reveal the poor quality of Hamilton’s argument.

After taking shots at Tony Abott, and Craig Kelly, he then refers to freedom rally demonstrators as ‘far-right anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown’ protesters; and caps this with a clear contempt for The Australian and ‘Murdoch Media.’

Hamilton’s hysterics taint his attempt to criticise vaccine hesitancy.

What we’re left with is a rant, not a reasoned argument.

For all the vitriolic claims about ‘anti-vaxxer and climate change deniers’ all being nut-cases and conspiracy theorists, Hamilton is guilty of his own tin-foil hat nonsense.

His theory – which isn’t backed by anything other than ‘it’s been widely documented’ – claims that Republicans, and fossil fuel industries have been working together to undermine ‘climate science since the 1990s.’

Hamilton states, ‘operatives developed arguments and political strategies,’ so as to ‘cast doubt on climate science.’

This, he asserted, created a culture of doubt, which has, ‘since 2010, taken root in right-wing political culture.’

Hamilton’s “hate speech” doesn’t serve science, it’s typical cancel culture, agitprop nonsense.

One would think that a Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University would carry himself, and his argument a whole lot better.

I suspect Hamilton would fully embrace both Joe Biden, and Daniel Andrews’ “pandemic of the unvaccinated” propaganda, welcoming it as an excuse is to paint people as the virus, advocating for their eradication.

Based on his reckless use of the word “denier,” that’s a fair assessment.

Hamilton demonises an entire group of people, in order to defend his belief in the COVID and Climate Catastrophising cultism.

The bitter irony of his callous Holocaust reference appears to go over his head.

Hamilton and others would do well to heed recent comments made ‘Outsiders’ host Rowan Dean,

“Once the authorities have decreed that there are two classes of people in Australia, the good, and the bad; that one class is superior to another and gets special privileges while the other class is shunned, locked out, vilified and loses their employment you have, by definition created an inferior class.”

“For which the Germans,” Dean adds, “once coined as Untermensch (under/inferior person). If that word brings a chill of horror to your hearts, so it should!”

One of the great benefits of the internet age is that any halfwit with access to the internet, and reliable sources can see straight through the delusion tacked onto COVIDism.

I have to back-handily thank Clive Hamilton and the Guardian for doing a great job of reminding me, why myself, and many others, will continue to resist the vitriolic COVID cultism of climate change catastrophisers.

It would seem that now New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian has stopped her COVID crisis press conferences, legacy media are back to their regular programming.

The political narrative appears to matter more to them than the science.

All vaccines should be chosen by individuals on merit, not the power of their apparent virtue, threats or coercion.

Substance will always, ALWAYS trump appearances.

It’s not “anti-vaxx,” Clive. It’s common sense.

In case you missed it, “Anti-vaxxer” is the new “that’s racist.

First published on Caldron Pool, 15th September, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.