How desperate are open-borders secular leftists to conceal evidence of the harms caused by soft-on-crime policies? Well, in Australia, a country ruled by fascists, they are threatening fines of $825,000 (AUD) to anyone who posts the video of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska. They don’t want voters to see the result of coddling criminals and banning self-defense.
Australia’s controversial eSafety Commissioner has threatened social media giant X with daily fines of up to $825,000 for refusing to take down or block posts containing CCTV footage of the fatal attack on Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in the U.S.
The footage shows Zarutska being killed by Decarlos Brown, a man with a long record of violent crime who had been released just weeks earlier under North Carolina’s bail laws.
I blogged about the story previously, and noted that the accused killer was a 14-time repeat offender. Leftists like Julie Inman Grant don’t believe in opposing real evil or punishing real evil. They get extremely upset when their “don’t judge” policies are exposed as failed policy to voters. So what to do? Well, they just use political power to suppress anyone who shows the evidence of their failed “don’t judge” policies. After all, if people complain about being murdered, then that spoils the virtue signaling of the leftists.
This isn’t the first time they’ve tried to cover up crimes against law-abiding victims:
Inman Grant’s previous attempt to compel X to censor footage of a church stabbing in Sydney ended in failure after the platform argued Australia had no authority to impose global content restrictions. X later hailed that case as a victory for free speech.
Is Julie Inman Grant an exception, or does she represent the way that most white progressive women see the issues of crime and self-defense? Well, we know from recent surveys that leftism has surged among young women. Not just in America, but worldwide.
More than 100 women’s rights groups have warned “racist” attempts to link sexual violence with immigration are putting victims at increased risk.
Rape Crisis England and Wales, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Refuge are among the organisations warning anti-migrant groups and politicans are “hijacking” survivors’ trauma.
[…]In their statement, co-ordinated by End Violence Against Women Coalition, Women for Refugee Women, Hibiscus and Southall Black Sisters, the groups said linking sex offences with migration is a “racist diversion”.
Lately, I have been seeing many posts from conservative Christian women demanding that men protect and provide for women. However, none of these conservative Christian women have said anything about the voting patterns of young women. How are men supposed to protect women, when women keep voting for more dangerous criminals, and against police and self-defense? We can’t. And we know that if we try, we’ll end up just like Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Perry.
Conservative, Christian women need to think more carefully about how to solve problems. They have an addiction to their knee-jerk reaction of “men, fix it!” and “men, serve us!” But that ship has sailed. Now, the best policy of conservative, Christian women is to turn to young women, and warn them that no one is coming to save them from the consequences of their own choices. Young women need to stop voting on feelings and the desire to virtue signal.
Finally, can you imagine being married to Julie Inman Grant? That’s what parents and pastors are producing for good men these days, but what good man would be stupid enough to marry a leftist fascist like her? Men are coming to their senses, and judging women correctly. The new “10” is the stay-at-home mother who will respect her husband and homeschool the kids. Nobody wants a Karen.
The big political news on the weekend was about the elections for statewide offices in Virginia. Right after the politically-motivated assassination of a leading Christian speaker, Charlie Kirk, we’re hearing about text messages from the Democrat candidate for attorney general. What does he say? Oh, just that he thinks that a Republican he doesn’t like should be shot in the head.
Less than a month after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Virginia Democrats are carrying water for a candidate who wished death on his political opponent, hoped his opponent’s wife would watch as her children died, and said he would urinate on his opponent’s grave.
Jay Jones, the Democrat nominee for attorney general in the Old Dominion, has not denied the report of these horrifying comments, though he said he regrets them and has apologized to Todd Gilbert, the Republican former speaker of the House of Delegates about whom he made the remarks.
Now, you would think that in a purple state like Virginia, Democrats would be anxious to withdraw this man as a candidate. But as of October 6, 2025, no prominent Democrats—including Abigail Spanberger, Ghazala Hashmi, Mark Warner, or the Virginia Democratic Party—have demanded Jones step down. It’s just not a big enough deal that Jones should have to resign for saying these things. Maybe this is the mainstream Democrat view?
The article explains the context of the text messages, and the content as well:
Jones texted the death wish to Republican House Delegate Carrie Coyner on Aug. 8, 2022, after Republicans had eulogized Joe Johnson Jr., a moderate Democrat. Gilbert had honored Johnson’s memory, though he had disagreed with Johnson on many issues.
Jones reportedly condemned Johnson’s political centrism and attacked Republicans for paying him tribute. After suggesting the texts were meant for someone else, he continued to comment to Coyner. He reportedly joked about what “that POS” Gilbert “would say about me if I died.”
“If those guys die before me,” Jones wrote, “I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves.”
He then suggested that, in a hypothetical situation in which he had two bullets and had the choice of shooting Gilbert, Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, or Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, he would save the bullets for his Republican former colleague “every time.”
“Three people, two bullets,” Jones wrote. “Gilbert, hitler, and pol pot.”
“Gilbert gets two bullets to the head,” he added. “Spoiler: put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time.”
I’m not surprised by Jones leaving Hitler and Pol Pot alone, because Hitler and Pol Pot were leftists. They believed in banning guns, banning homeschooling, banning free enterprise, etc. Big government and high taxes all the way for left. So, of course Jones would let the two leftists live, and shoot the conservative. This shooting of conservatives actually happened a lot in history in countries that were run by people on the left. 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Of course, not all of that was shooting. There was some stabbing, some starving, some working people to death in cocentration camps.
And:
Jones called Coyner to explain himself. On the call, he reportedly wished Gilbert’s wife could watch her own child die in her arms so that Gilbert might reconsider his political views.
Look, all we have to do to find out what mainstream Democrats think about domestic terrorism against their political opponents is see what they do with Jones. If Jones represents their views, and they keep him as a candidate, then we know that they don’t think that political violence against Republicans is wrong at all. You have to disregard the words, and look at the actions. The actions show you what they really believe about murdering their opponents.
It’s very funny to me that young Democrat women are complaining that no one wants to approach them, date them or marry them. Do you think that marriage-minded men are anxious to get into a legal contract with someone who supports violence? Men don’t want to get married to people who vote for violence. We don’t want to get married to people who cheer for violence either. Men already know that Democrat women support violence against unborn babies. And lesbian relationships have the highest rates of domestic violence. Why would marriage-minded men want to share a home with someone who takes this lenient attitude towards violence?
This is an accurate protrayal of what went down in this debate
I was very excited to see a recent debate by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig against atheist astronomer Jeff Hester. When I summarize a debate, I do a fair, objective summary if the atheist is intelligent and informed, as with Peter Millican, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong or Austin Dacey. But the following summary is rated VS for Very Snarky, and you’ll soon see why.
The debate itself starts at 29 minutes:
Thanks to Enrique for the link to a version with better audio.
Dr. Craig’s opening speech
Dr. Craig went first, and he presented 4 arguments, as well as the ontological argument which I won’t summarize or discuss. He later added another argument for theism from the existence of the universe that does not require an origin of the universe.
A1. Counter-examples
Theists who are elite scientists cannot be “irrational”, for example: Allan Sandage, Gustav Tammann, George Ellis, Don Page, Christopher Isham
A2. Kalam cosmological argument
Whatever begins to exist requires a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe requires a cause.
A3. Fine-tuning of the universe to permit complex intelligent life
The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore it is due to design.
A4. Moral argument
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Dr. Hester’s opening speech
Dr. Hester went second and presented two arguments which both committed the genetic fallacy, a logical fallacy that makes the arguments have no force.
Hester starts his opening speech by asserting that Albert Einstein was irrational, because he denied quantum mechanics.
Hester explains that he became an atheist at 15. This would have been before the evidence for the origin of the universe became widespread, before we had very many examples of fine-tuning, before the discovery that the origin of life problem is a problem of the origin of complex, specifed information, etc. What kind of reasons can a 15-year-old child have for becoming an atheist? It’s hard to say, but I would suspect that they were psychological. Children often desire autonomy from moral authorities. They want to be free to pursue pleasure. They don’t want to be thought of as superstitious and morally straight by their non-religious peers.
Later on in the debate, Hester volunteers that he hated his father because his father professed to be a Christian, but he was focused on his career and making money. In the absence of any arguments for atheism, it’s reasonable to speculate that Hester became an atheist for psychological reasons. And as we’ll see, just like the typical 15-year-old child, he has no rational basis for atheism. What’s astonishing is how he continues to hold to the atheism of his teens when it has been falsified over and over by scientific discoveries in the years since.
He says that Dr. Craig’s deductive arguments do not have premises that reach a conclusion through the laws of logic. On the contrary, he just asserts that God exists as his conclusion, and then says that this assertion is the best explanation of a gap in our scientific knowledge. Some of the gaps in our scientific knowledge he uses in his arguments are: 1) he doesn’t understand why the Sun moves through the sky, so God exists, 2) he doesn’t understand why the wind blows, so God exists.
What counts as “rational” are things that have not been disproved. The progress of science has shown that the universe did not need a casuse in order to begin to exist, and also there is no cosmic fine-tuning.
A1. The success of evolution in the software industry proves that there is no God
All hardware and software is developed using genetic algorithms that exactly match Darwinian processes. All the major computer companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, etc. are just generating products using mutation and selection to evolve products over long periods of time. If you look over a typical software engineering degree, it’s all about Darwinian evolution, and nothing about design patterns, object-oriented design, etc.
This widespread use of evolution in the software industry undermines all of the arguments for God’s existence. Evolution caused the origin of the universe. Evolution explains why the universe is fine-tuned for life. Evolution, which requires replication already be in place in order to work, explains the origin of the first self-replicating organism.
A2. Theist’s view of the world is just a result of peer pressure from their tribes
All of Dr. Craig’s logical arguments supported by scientific evidence don’t matter, because he got them from a primitive tribe of Christians that existed 2000 years ago. Everyone gets their view of origins, morality, meaning in life, death, etc. from their tribes. Except me, I’m getting my beliefs from reason and evidence because I’m a smart atheist. I don’t have an atheist tribe in the university that would sanction me if I disagreed with nonsense like homosexuality is 100% genetic, transgenderism, man-made catastrophic global warming, fully naturalistic evolution, aliens seeded the Earth with life, infanticide is moral, socialism works, overpopulation will cause mass starvation, nuclear winter, etc. Also, my argument isn’t the genetic fallacy at all, because smart atheists don’t commit elementary logical fallacies that even a first-year philosophy student would know.
A3. Our brains evolved so our rational faculties are unreliable, so God does not exist
The logical reasoning that Dr. Craig uses to argue for theism are all nonsense, because human minds just have an illusion of consciousness, an illusion of rationality, and an illusion of free will. Everything Dr. Craig says is just deluded nonsense caused by chemicals in his brain. He has cognitive biases the undermine all his logical arguments and scientific evidence. He just invented an imaginary friend with super powers. Except me, I’m a smart atheist, so I actually have real consciousness, real reasoning powers, and no cognitive biases. Also, my argument isn’t the genetic fallacy at all, because my arguments would not get an F in a first-year philosophy course.
Discussion
I’m not going to summarize everything in the discussion, or the question and answer time. I’m just going to list out some of the more interesting points.
Dr. Craig asks him how it is that he has managed to escape these biases from tribalism, projection, etc. He talks about how brave and noble atheist rebels are. The moderator asks him the same question. He repeats how brave and noble atheist rebels are.
Dr. Hester is asked whether he affirms a causeless beginning of the universe or an eternal universe. He replies he states that the universe came into being without a cause, because causality doesn’t apply to the beignning of the universe. He also asserts with explanation that Borde, Guth and Vilenkin have undermined the kalam cosmological argument, mentioning a web site.
Dr. Craig replied to this phantom argument after the debate on Facebook:
Speaking of which, although I haven’t had time to consult the website mentioned by Dr. Hester concerning Guth and Vilenkin on the kalam cosmological argument, I know the work of these two gentlemen well enough to predict what one will find there. Since neither one is yet a theist (so much, by the way, for the dreaded confirmation bias!), they have to reject at least one of the premises of the kalam cosmological argument.
Guth wants to deny premiss (2) The universe began to exist–for which Vilenkin has rebuked him. Guth would avoid the implications of their theorem by holding our hope for the Carroll-Chen model, which denies the single condition of the BGV theorem. This gambit is, however, unsuccessful, since the Carroll-Chen model does so only by positing a reversal of the arrow of time at some point in the finite past. This is not only highly non-physical, but fails to avert the universe’s beginning, since that time-reversed, mirror universe is no sense in our past. The model really postulates two different universes with a common beginning.
So Vilenkin is forced to deny premiss (1) Whatever begins to exists has a cause. He says that if the positive energy associated with matter exactly counterbalances the negative energy associated with gravity, then the net sum of the energy is zero, and so the conservation of energy is not violated if the universe pops into being from nothing! But this is like saying that if your assets exactly balance your debts, then your net worth is zero, and so there does not need to be a cause of your financial situation! As Christopher Isham points out, there still needs to be “ontic seeding” in order to create the positive and negative energy in the first place, even if on balance their sum is zero.
Dr. Hester is asked how he explains the evidence for fine-tuning. He literally says that “Life is fine-tuned for the Universe”, i.e. – that evolution will create living beings regardless of the laws of physics, constants, etc. For example, he thinks that in a universe with a weaker stong force, which would have only hyrogen atoms, evolution would still evolve life. And in a universe that recollapses in a hot fireball, and never forms stars or planets, evolution would produce life. Physicist Luke Barnes, who was commenting on the YouTube chat for the video, said this:
“Life is fine-tuned for the Universe” – complete ignorance of the field. Read a book.
Hester tries to cite Jeremy England to try to argue for life appearing regardless of what the laws of physics are. Barnes comments:
Jeremy England’s work supports no such claim.
Hester appealed to the multiverse, which faces numerous theoretical and observational difficulties. For example, the multiverse models have to have some mechanism to spawn different universes, but these mechanisms themselves require fine-tuning, as Robin Collins argues. And the multiverse is falsified observationally by the Boltzmann brains problem. It was so ironic that Hester claimed to be so committed to testing theories. The mutliverse theory cannot be tested experimentally, and must be accepted on faith.
Dr. Hester is asked how he grounds morality on atheism. He says there are no objective moral values and duties. He instead lists off a bunch of Christian beliefs which he thinks are objectively wrong. Even his statements about these moral issues are misinformed. For example, he asserts that homosexuality is causally determined by biology, but this is contradicted by identical twin studies that have a rate of 20-40% where both twins are gay.
Dr. Hester is asked about free will, which is required in order to make moral choices. He denies the existence of free will, which undermines his earlier statements about morality. Morality is only possible if humans can make free choices to act in accordance with a moral standard. So, he claims that Christians are immoral, then he claims that they have no freedom to act other than they do.
Dr. Hester also volunteered that his father believed in the prosperity gospel, and tithed in order to be rewarded with money by God. Dr. Craig immediately says “no wonder you’re in rebellion against Christianity”. Indeed.
Dr. Hester is asked about his view that human beings are unable to unable to perceive the world objectively. How is he able to perceive the world objectively, when all of the rest of us are unable to? His response is that he is just smarter than everyone else because his ideas have never been falsified by testing.
Scoring the debate
Dr. Craig’s 5 arguments went unrefuted. Hester’s argument about genetic algorithms was ludicrous to anyone who understands software engineering. His arguments about tribalism and unreliable mental faculties were self-refuting, and committed the genetic fallcy. At several points, Hester denied mainstream science in favor of untested and untestable speculations. It was the worst defeat of atheism I have ever witnessed. He was uninformed and arrogant. He didn’t know what he was talking about, and he tried to resort to speculative, mystical bullshit to cover up his failure to meet Dr. Craig’s challenge.
WINTERY KNIGHT 