Redleg V artists

Robert Raymond Cripps

sues artists for defamation:

Redleg Museum Services (ACN 105 986 829) sues

Demetrios Vakras (artist)
Lee-Anne Raymond (artist)

Supreme Court of Victoria
SCI 01484/2011

Cripps' crack legal team: Christopher Dibb & ? Tao Jiang (replaced)

1. Redleg Museum Services now runs RUBY'S MUSIC ROOM , Registration number:    B2409701A, ASIC;
2. Cripps' Redleg Museum Services Pty Ltd was the respondent to objections raised in VCAT regarding his Ruby's Music Room
3."The team behind one of Melbourne’s much loved galleries and performance spaces, Guildford Lane Gallery are very proud to present Ruby’s Music Room."

Note: Redleg runs Ruby's Music Room, and in the past ran Guildford Lane Gallery. That is a simple fact. But to mention it, and make sure that we are not sued for some reason on grounds we are not aware of and have not anticipated, entails that we have to make "a bigger deal of it" than we otherwise would. It would have been simpler to just mention the fact, but by leaving it at that might be said to have been done by us out of "malice", or that it may have been wrong in fact; hence we need to show where the relationship lies between Redleg and Ruby's Music Room. Indeed, it becomes MANIFESTLY obvious that we could avoid mention of the fact and avoid any legal repercussions; self-censor; which is precisely the the outcome achieved by Australia's 2005 Defamation Act, though the act itself asserts categorically that it is not designed to "unreasonably" impinge on the right to freely impart (and receive) information (though not necessarily expressed by these exact words).


~ we are not born with the sentiments that we eventually come to hold ~


Robert Cripps, left, who ran the failed GLG, realised and accepted he was racist to hate Jews ("self-confessed racist" means just that). He preferred to call me "racist" in my critique of Islamic doctrine (the Koran) because he preferred to blame "the Jews and their state in Palestine" for a conflict that was not mentioned in my criticism of religions. Supporters of the "Palestinian cause" call "racist" any critic of Islam - as they did recently in Melbourne, Australia, when they organised pro-"Palestine" protests against a critic of Islamic doctrine.

Subject: The political left express a number of views regarding Muslims, Palestine, Jews and Israel - and these views are those that have been expressed by Hitler and Nazis (al Husseini).

Robert Cripps is seeking to make a financial gain from what is either a deliberate misreading of what I write, or a consequence of the limitations of his intellect.

Apparently, if the reader of one's writings is intellectually deficient, and Robert Cripps is such a person*, then what is misunderstood by such a reader, can be argued in court to be what is actually meant by what is written.

(*Robert Cripps posted disclaimers throughout my exhibition of 2009, on the grounds that the content might expose him to some legal liability. His disclaimers stated that he disagreed with the content. Subsequently he has claimed that this was on account of the complexity of that content, complexity that prevented him from understanding what was written, therefore he feared being liable for who-knows-what. In his sworn submission to VCAT Cripps claimed that the liability he feared regarding content was over the "complexity" of that content. Apparently complexity can cause a mental or other injury? This is not a mark of someone who anyone could describe as intellectually competent.)

Australia's bizarre legal definitions (drawn from High Court rulings) define readers who are limited in the way described to be "ordinary" and "reasonable" and dispenses with what the words actually mean. This allows for words to mean whatever they might be assumed to mean by those who are intellectually deficient and allows for words to mean what such a person presumes they might mean.

If, in addition to their intellectual limitations, the "ordinary" or "reasonable" reader has a limited knowledge of history, and if such a reader holds, on the basis of such limitations, beliefs about history, even if such beliefs are inconsistent with the historical facts, then any author who refers to history can be penalised for not considering such readers' shortcomings, or that such persons might exist. Thus the law makes it incumbent that an author is to suffer a penalty for failing to include material that would correct the misconceptions such readers have, or might have, because the author did not use their powers of premonition to anticipate the myriad of shortcomings in the knowledge of history that one's readership might have. As I have failed to use my powers of premonition (Australian law works on the premise that I must possess such powers), and did not write a complete history of Nazis and Islam (etc), I can suffer penalty and Cripps can sue to make a financial gain on the grounds of the severe limitations of his intellect and erudition.

In Australia if someone holds an idea such as the ideas held by Robert Cripps, and if another points out that the same ideas have been expressed by Adolf Hitler (an historical fact), this will cause others to think less of the person, such as Robert Cripps, for holding such ideas. In Australia someone like Cripps can therefore sue to protect the ideas that they hold from being criticised, because, since they hold such ideas, having it pointed out to another that such ideas have already been expressed by someone like Hitler will "defame" them.

1- Robert Cripps opposed the existence of "the Jew's state" in "Palestine" (or "the Jews and their state in Palestine"). This is the position of the political left. Hitler opposed the Jews forming a state in "Palestine".

2- Robert Cripps said that Jews are illegally in the land of "Palestinians". This is the position of the political left. Hitler claimed that Jews were illegally in the land of the Germans (Hitler made the same claims regarding "Palestine", Russia France, etc).

3- Robert Cripps said that the Jews were the cause of conflict. This is the position of the political left. Hitler said that the Jews were the source of conflict.

4- Robert Cripps supported the Muslim cause in Palestine. This is the position of the political left. Hitler supported the Muslim cause in Palestine. (The hadith, part of the Sunna, urges the genocide of the Jews. This is found in the Hamas Covenant, is supported by Australia's current mufti, and was being pursued by al Husseini, a Nazi).

Cripps acknowledged he hated Jews and admitted this was racist. Hitler openly hated Jews.

Australia is oppressive. It is safe only if one writes nothing at all; if one does not question anything at all; a nation in which the only thing encouraged is to mindlessly fuck and breed:

 1) Robert Cripps is a self-confessed racist.
 2) Robert Cripps is:

"a manifestation of the new-left who have adopted the sentiments Hitler expressed in his Mein Kampf, but who believe that, though theirs and Hitler's sentiments are the same, their racism is a 'justifiable' one"

The explanation of what the views of the political left are, and how the left even without reading Hitler's Mein Kampf adopt the sentiments expressed in Mein Kampf can be found here: [new-left Nazis] (

in which I write: "A large number of the "conscientious" Left are (or claim to be) oblivious to what Hitler actually wrote, but denounce him for for what they claim is his racism. Nevertheless, this "conscientious" Left have adopted what Hitler wrote in the Mein Kampf, and express these very same sentiments as a demonstration of the sincerity of their good conscience!"

The views expressed by the left have, as a matter of history, been expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf. The historical record is immutable.

I AM BEING SUED BECAUSE BY POINTING TO AN HISTORICAL FACT I CAN CAUSE INJURY TO A PERSON WHO, THOUGH UNAWARE THAT THE OPINIONS AND IDEAS THEY EXPRESS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPRESSED BY HITLER HISTORICALLY, THEY HOLD THESE IDEAS NEVERTHELESS. This is nothing more than an attempt to limit thought, analysis of thoughts, information and ideas, in other words this is simple censorship intended to prevent the imparting of the following information:

1) The left, like Hitler in Mein Kampf, oppose the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine;

2) the left, like Hitler/Nazis ( Nazis includes such persons as al Husseini), define "Palestinian" to be Arab and Muslim;

3) the left, like Hitler, support the Muslim cause against "the Jews of Palestine" (Hitler supported al Husseini's Muslim objective of making "Palestine" Judenfrei);

and the cause of Muslims is a religious cause (hence it is a Muslim cause) which seeks to exterminate the Jews, as that, in Islamic doctrine, is a mandatory prerequisite for Judgement Day, or as it is called by Muslims "Day of Resurrection". (The Muslims, like Christians, believe in judgement day, however, the Muslims, unlike the Christians, require that all the Jews have to have been exterminated for this to come about. This is a requirement made in the hadith, for instance, Sahih Muslim, Book 41, number 6983. Another of the hadith which calls for the genocide of the Jews is cited in the Hamas covenant as being the objective of Muslim Palestinians. Australia's own current Mufti visited "Palestine" - Gaza - in December 2012 and urged Muslims vigilance and perseverance in the quest to commit the genocide of the Jews ( Therefore ANYONE who supports the "Palestinian cause" is supporting a religious cause that has as its objective the committing of genocide of the Jews. This is the same objective Hitler sought for Germany and for Palestine in WW2, and is the same objective sought by the Nazi Muslim al Husseini.);

4) the left, like Hitler, blame Jews for violence and ascribe to Jews the trait of being fomenters of violence. The left, vis-a-vis "Palestine" (
"the Palestine issue"), make accusations against Jews which are made out to instead be criticism of the state of Israel and not "the Jews". However, the left's criticisms that are claimed to be of Israel are of the kind that Hitler, as well as the Nazis (which includes Arab Muslim Nazis), made against Jews before the state of Israel ever existed. (This point is made here: [new-left Nazis]

That is:
4.1 Hitler claimed Jews were responsible for war, including ww2 (as well as the Franco-Prussian war, ww1, etc, Hitler speeches);
4.2 Nazis (al Husseini, a Muslim Arab Nazi) claimed ww2 was caused by Jews (and continued to make that claim over a decade after ww2);
4.3 The left claim that the Jews are the cause of war (vis-a-vis) "Palestine", and so
both the Nazis and the left accuse the Jews of being fomenters of war and conflict, warmongers

p. 35, FACES OF THE ENEMY - reflections of the hostile imagination. The psychology of Enmity. Sam Keen. ISBN 0062504673. Even while Jews were being exterminated, the Nazis proclaimed that the Jews bore the guilt for war and were responsible for the fate that was befalling them. The Muslim Nazi al Husseini made the same pronouncement a decade after the war.

Above, one of the many anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda posters that can be found doing a Google search for "Nazi propaganda posters". Jews are referred to as “kriegsanstifter”, warmongers in German. It is a trait ascribed to the Jews both by the Nazis historically, and the political left such as Leunig, below, who make similar pronouncements about Jews as did the Nazis. The Palestinian Charter of 1968 proclaims that all peace-loving nations will wage war against Israel to achieve peace. Although it is Muslims who proclaim that "war brings peace", Leunig ascribes this to the victims of the Muslim-war-waged-for-peace, the Jews.

Article 22 of the 1968 Palestinian Charter "war brings peace":

…the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle…"

5) the left, like Hitler, claim that Jews (illegally) live in, and come to occupy, the land of other peoples, or others' states (Hitler maintained that this was the case in Germany and first sought their expulsion, and later sought their extermination; the left claim that Jews are in illegal occupation of "Palestine" and seek to have the Jews expelled, expunged or exterminated and the land "returned" Judenfrei to the "Palestinians" on the grounds that this is a requirement for Islam.)

Hitler supported the Muslim's doctrinal objective with that objective being the extermination of Jews. The contemporary left support the same Muslim objective, HOWEVER, the left seek to prevent widespread knowledge of Islamic doctrine and seek to suppress knowledge that Islam seeks the genocide of Jews. By suppressing such knowledge the left can falsely claim:
a) there is no Islamic attempt to commit the genocide of the Jews;

b) that they therefore do not support the genocide of the Jews by claiming that there is no evidence to show that Islam pursues genocide, simply because they have made such information unavailable. (That is: in the absence of evidence, since that evidence has been suppressed by them, the left claim that the evidence is of the absence of evidence that such an intent exists in Islam. This is the concept of the claim that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.);

this allows the left to:

c) blame Jews for defending themselves against Muslims' religious objectives since there is no evidence that Islam seeks genocide of the Jews. The left then deride anyone who knows Islamic doctrine (Koran and hadith) and who cites it as "racists".

In June (18 and 24) 2009 Robert Cripps declared me racist because he realised that the passages quoted from the Koran that urged violence as the only means of achieving Islamic martyrdom would mean that Muslims could be seen to be at fault for violence in "Palestine", though "Palestine " was not mentioned, and the criticism I made was of religion (which included criticism of
Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism). Cripps preferred that these passages should remain unknown because, as he ADMITTED (confessed), he hated Jews, which he acknowledged was racist and wanted to blame Jews for conflict.

The left, and the ideas expressed by the left, MANIFEST themselves in a number of ways. The left's ideas are MANIFESTED IN:
a) protests against Israel, or
b) by people such as Robert Cripps who simply repeat the claims and arguments made by the left.
This does not make such a person a representation, personification, or embodiment of the left.

Hitler expressed his society's hatred of Jews in Mein Kampf, a hatred that pre-existed Hitler and which had been made respectable by the pre-Nazi intelligentsia. Hitler was a MANIFFESTATION of German antisemitism. The left have adopted the sentiments, being the hatred of Jews, that were expressed historically, by Hitler. They do not need to have read Mein Kampf to do so, they have simply adopted the sentiment of antisemitism and it was antisemitism that was expressed by Hitelr in Mein Kampf.

Cripps is attempting to make a profit on his being ignorant of history and limited in intellect. His crack legal team have, on his behalf, claimed that what I have imputed means that I am claiming he is a "dangerous racist", which I do not write or suggest, and that he has "adopted the failed theories of the National Socialists", which I also do not write nor suggest

On the new left Nazis:
On the left's pursuit of the Islamic cause in Palestine (in which critics of Islam are called racist):
On the sentiments expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf:
On the Muslims sentiments (being the committing of the genocide of the Jews):
On the Palestinain cause being based on the Nazi cause:

 Author: Demetrios Vakras 30 November 2013
edited 9:50 AM 6 January 2014 to add the Nazi image of "the Jew bears the guilt of war".

We are petitioning the Australian government to amend the Defamation Act of 2005 to make Australian law consistent with its international obligations.

Support our petition here: