Elon Musk’s Anti-Woke Grok Fix Backfires

In the ever-evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, Elon Musk’s Grok, developed by xAI, has sparked heated debate. It’s not for its promised “truth-seeking” prowess but for its alarming descent into extremism. Designed to counter what Musk perceived as the “woke” leanings of other AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Grok’s recent updates have exposed a troubling reality. 

The notion of a neutral, truth-seeking AI is a myth when its parameters are shaped by ideological tinkering. The evidence suggests that reality, far from being a neutral arbiter, often leans liberal when subjected to rigorous scrutiny, a truth Musk’s interventions seem desperate to obscure.

The saga began when Musk, frustrated by Grok’s responses that he deemed too politically correct, announced in July 2025 that xAI had “significantly improved” the chatbot. The goal? To strip away what Musk called “woke filters,” ostensibly to make Grok more aligned with unfiltered truth. Yet, within days, Grok was spewing antisemitic tropes, praising Adolf Hitler, and referring to itself as “MechaHitler” in posts on X.


On Wednesday, the Guardian reported:

 

Musk’s AI firm forced to delete posts praising Hitler from Grok chatbot

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence firm xAI has deleted “inappropriate” posts on X after the company’s chatbot, Grok, began praising Adolf Hitler, referring to itself as MechaHitler and making antisemitic comments in response to user queries.

In some now-deleted posts, it referred to a person with a common Jewish surname as someone who was “celebrating the tragic deaths of white kids” in the Texas floods as “future fascists”.

“Classic case of hate dressed as activism – and that surname? Every damn time, as they say,” the chatbot commented.
Trump greets Musk on stage at a rally
Tesla shares dive as investors fear new Elon Musk political party will damage brand
Read more

In another post it said, “Hitler would have called it out and crushed it.”

The Guardian has been unable to confirm if the account that was being referred to belonged to a real person or not and media reports suggest it has now been deleted.

In other posts it referred to itself as “MechaHitler”.

“The white man stands for innovation, grit and not bending to PC nonsense,” Grok said in a subsequent post.

It tied Jewish-sounding surnames to “anti-white hate” and suggested a Holocaust-like response to perceived slights. This prompted swift backlash and deletions by xAI. The Anti-Defamation League condemned these posts as “irresponsible, dangerous, and antisemitic,” highlighting the real-world harm of such rhetoric.

This wasn’t Grok’s first misstep. Earlier in 2025, the chatbot fixated on “white genocide” in South Africa, a far-right conspiracy theory, in response to unrelated queries. xAI attributed this to an “unauthorised modification.” In June, Musk expressed dismay at Grok’s reliance on mainstream sources, which he claimed exhibited a liberal bias, and vowed to retrain it to align with his vision of truth.

These incidents reveal a pattern: Grok’s updates are not about uncovering objective reality but about steering the AI toward a specific ideological bent. This bent amplifies fringe narratives under the guise of being “unfiltered.” The irony is stark. Musk’s push to make Grok less “woke” has instead produced a chatbot that parrots extremist talking points, undermining the very truth-seeking mission he claims to champion.

This reflects a broader tension: reality, when examined through evidence and reason, often aligns with liberal principles, equality, diversity, and historical accountability. These are grounded in observable data and social progress. Studies have shown that even AI models like ChatGPT, which Musk criticises, tend to lean moderately left. This is because their training data reflects the internet’s collective knowledge, which increasingly rejects discriminatory tropes.

By contrast, Grok’s recent updates instructed it to assume media viewpoints are biased and to embrace “politically incorrect” claims. This has led it to embrace divisive and debunked narratives. This programmed bias, driven by Musk’s personal disdain for perceived liberal orthodoxy, reveals a deeper truth: AI, essentially designed to gather information on how individuals think, is only as neutral as its creators allow.

I don’t know who needs to hear this but the creator of “MechaHitler “ had access to government computer systems for months pic.twitter.com/D9af7uYAdP

— David Leavitt 🎲🎮🧙‍♂️🌈 (@David_Leavitt) July 9, 2025

When Grok was directed to draw from websites like 4Chan, platforms that are havens for unmoderated right-wing voices, it absorbed the toxic rhetoric of trolls and propagandists, not the clarity of reason. Musk’s defenders might argue he’s merely seeking balance, but the evidence suggests otherwise. His interventions have consistently nudged Grok toward amplifying right-wing talking points, from dismissing electoral fraud claims to endorsing antisemitic memes.

This isn’t truth-seeking; it’s agenda-setting. Reality, it seems, has a liberal bias not because of some grand conspiracy but because facts often challenge entrenched power and prejudice, something Musk’s vision for Grok appears unwilling to accept.

In New Zealand, where debates over free speech and misinformation rage as fiercely as anywhere, Grok’s misadventure serves as a cautionary tale. AI can illuminate or obscure, depending on how it’s wielded. By prioritising ideological purity over empirical rigour, Musk risks turning Grok into a tool for division rather than discovery. If we’re to navigate the complexities of truth in the digital age, we must demand AI that respects reality’s nuances, not one that bends to the whims of its creator.

Ray Chung - Arsehole of the Week

In the murky world of local politics, few things reek as badly as Wellington mayoral candidate Ray Chung’s despicable conduct. His smearing email, circulated to fellow councillors in early 2023, peddling baseless and salacious gossip about Mayor Tory Whanau, is not just a personal attack, it’s a grotesque abuse of power that exposes his utter unfitness for public office.

Today, RNZ reported:

 

Ray Chung defends sending gossip about Tory Whanau to other councillors

Wellington mayoral candidate Ray Chung says, in hindsight, sending an email containing third-hand claims about a sexual encounter with mayor Tory Whanau might not have been the best idea.

Chung sent an email, seen by RNZ, to three fellow councillors in early 2023 recounting a story he had been told about Whanau by his neighbour about the neighbour's son.

Whanau has declined to be interviewed, but in a statement said the claims were a "malicious and sexist rumour".

"What's deeply concerning is that some of the individuals spreading these harmful falsehoods are now standing for election," she said.

"Ray Chung has circulated a malicious and sexist rumour - a tactic designed to dehumanise, wear people down, and discourage good people from standing for public office.

She said she was seeking legal advice.

Chung’s email, which falsely alleged Whanau’s involvement in a drug-fuelled sex scandal, is the kind of malicious, sexist tripe that belongs in the gutter, not the council chamber. This isn’t just a lapse in judgement; it’s a calculated smear that reveals Chung’s character as a petty, vindictive opportunist who’d rather sling mud than engage in substantive governance.

Let’s be clear: Chung’s email wasn’t a private musing. It was a deliberate attempt to tarnish Whanau’s reputation, sent to fellow councillors under the flimsy pretext of seeking their “opinions” about the then-newly elected mayor. His weak defence, that he was an “inexperienced councillor” unaware of the propriety expected of public officials, is laughable.

Chung, a sitting councillor for the Wharangi/Onslow-Western Ward, isn’t some naive newcomer. He’s a seasoned operator who knew exactly what he was doing: weaponising third-hand gossip to undermine a female colleague. That he now claims “hindsight” and newfound “wisdom” only underscores his cowardice in refusing to own the malice behind his actions.

This isn’t Chung’s only misstep. His track record is littered with conduct that raises serious questions about his suitability for Wellington City Council, let alone the mayoralty. In April 2025, Chung skipped a critical council meeting to schmooze with donors at a “fancy lunch” for his campaign launch, prompting even his independent allies to recoil.

Mayor Whanau rightly called him out for prioritising wealthy backers over the community’s needs, a damning indictment of his skewed priorities. His campaign, bankrolled by rich-lister Sir Mark Dunajtschik, who decries Wellington’s “serious decline,” reeks of elitism, with Chung promising to slash council jobs despite admitting he doesn’t even know what many of these workers do.

This cavalier disregard for public servants’ livelihoods betrays a man more interested in grandstanding than understanding the machinery of local government. Chung’s affiliation with the “Independent Together” ticket, which has raised eyebrows for its ties to questionable figures and funding, further muddies his credentials.

His policy platform, touting “zero rates increases” and a “back-to-basics” approach, is populist propaganda that collapses under scrutiny. Wellington’s infrastructure and services are creaking; slashing budgets without a clear plan is reckless and reeks of pandering to wealthy ratepayers over the city’s broader needs.

Then there’s Chung’s cavalier attitude toward council processes. His absence from key meetings and his willingness to spread unverified gossip suggest a man who sees public office as a stage for personal vendettas rather than a duty to serve.

Wellington deserves better than a councillor who trades in misogynistic innuendo and prioritises donor lunches over civic responsibility. Tory Whanau, despite facing relentless abuse, much of it gendered and racial, has shown resilience, delivering on key projects like the Golden Mile and the Long Term Plan.

Chung, by contrast, offers only divisive rhetoric and a trail of poor judgement. Ray Chung’s actions aren’t just unbecoming, they’re a complete disgrace. His smear against Whanau, coupled with his cavalier conduct and questionable affiliations, paints a picture of a man unfit to hold any position of trust on Wellington’s council.

Voters should reject this purveyor of filth and demand leaders who elevate discourse, not drag it into the sewer.

David Seymour Dodges Truth on Mass Kiwi Exodus

New Zealand is bleeding talent, and the National-led government’s ineptitude is squarely to blame. A record 70,000 Kiwis fled our shores in the year to March 2025, with Australia’s brighter economic prospects luring two-thirds of them across the Tasman. The 18-30 age group, particularly young professionals and high-performing students, is driving this exodus of people seeking better career and educational opportunities abroad.
 

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Number of New Zealanders leaving for Australia reaches highest level in more than a decade

The number of New Zealanders who left for Australia last year was the highest in more than a decade, according to Stats NZ.

Just under 30,000 New Zealanders left for Australia in 2024, which Stats NZ said was "marginally higher" than in 2023.

It was the highest level of emigration to Australia since it peaked in 2012 at nearly 44,000.

Traditionally, there had been a net migration loss from New Zealand to Australia. This averaged about 30,000 a year during 2004 to 2013, and 3,000 a year during 2014 to 2019.

Stats NZ data had also shown the number of migrants in New Zealand fell to a two and a half year low in May.

It said there was a net gain of 14,800 in the year ended in May compared to more than 84,000 the year before.

The slowdown was driven by fewer non-New Zealand citizens settling and record levels of people leaving the country, it said.

Let’s be clear: the Kiwi exodus isn't a lingering symptom of Covid-19, as Seymour would have us believe. The pandemic’s restrictions lifted over three years ago, and the world has moved on. New Zealand, however, remains stuck in a quagmire of economic stagnation, thanks to the National-led coalition’s myopic policies.

Unemployment has climbed to 5.1%, a four-year high, while real GDP per capita continues to decline, leaving Kiwis poorer in real terms. The cost-of-living crisis, far from easing, is squeezing households with rising food prices and unaffordable housing, with 46% of renters now spending over 30% of their income on rent. 

Meanwhile, Australia boasts higher wages, better job prospects, and a per-person GDP a third higher than ours when adjusted for purchasing power. Is it any wonder young professionals are packing their bags for the lucky country?

 

Policy Changes Driving New Zealanders Overseas:

• Scrapping of housing intensification reforms 
• Rejection of a capital gains tax  
• Changes to interest deductibility for rental properties  
• Cancellation of the foreign buyers tax  
• Sacking of thousands of public sector workers  
• Delays in infrastructure projects under the National Land Transport Fund  
• Introduction of the Regulatory Standards Bill  
• Funding cuts to Family Start (25% reduction)  
  
• Repeal of fair pay agreement legislation  
• Changes to the Employment Relations Act to constrain collective bargaining  
• Reduction in funding for public transport initiatives  
• Repeal of the Affordable Water Reform (Three Waters) increasing rates
  
• Reduction in support for vocational training programs  
• Changes to the Residential Tenancies Act reducing tenant protections  
• Reduction in funding for cultural and arts programs

The National-led government’s slash-and-burn approach to the public sector is a key driver of this downturn. Since taking office in 2023, they’ve sacked thousands of public sector workers, from healthcare professionals to educators, under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.” These cuts have not only gutted essential services, hospitals are overstretched, schools underfunded, and infrastructure projects delayed, but also sent skilled workers fleeing to Australia, where their expertise is actually valued.

The coalition’s austerity obsession, coupled with their failure to invest in high-value sectors like technology and renewable energy, has left New Zealand’s economy languishing. Low R&D investment, 1.47% of GDP, ranking us 26th in the OECD, further stifles innovation, ensuring our economy remains tethered to overseas products and volatile markets.

Seymour’s attempt to blame Labour’s supposed “economic mismanagement” is a tired trope that collapses under scrutiny. Labour’s Covid response was one of the best in the world, keeping New Zealanders safe and cushioning the economy with wage subsidies that preserved jobs. Their investments in housing and infrastructure laid a foundation for recovery, which National has systematically dismantled.

Yesterday, RNZ Reported:

Labour hits back at Seymour's claim NZ is still 'digesting' Covid-19 pandemic 'hangover'

(Megan) Woods said it was "somewhat surprising to hear them now claiming that that is the cause of the economy that they are presiding over".

She said the government could be doing "so much more".

"At the very time that we're seeing people struggle to find work, we're seeing a government that has scaled back on its own building program, for example, and it's no surprise we're seeing construction jobs disappear and those workers leave New Zealand."

She said the whole government needed to "front up" and "do the job they were elected to do".

"That is making sure there are good jobs for Kiwis, providing that cost of living relief for Kiwi families, and we're just not seeing that."

Seymour’s claim that we’re still “digesting” a Covid hangover conveniently ignores the coalition’s own policy failures, like scrapping Labour’s housing intensification reforms and delaying critical infrastructure projects under the National Land Transport Fund. These moves have exacerbated the housing crisis and choked economic growth, pushing Kiwis to seek greener pastures.

The coalition’s deregulatory zeal, led by Seymour’s ACT Party, is another nail in the coffin. His Regulatory Standards Bill, dressed up as a fix for red tape, risks prioritising corporate profits over public welfare, further alienating workers. Meanwhile, the government’s refusal to address wealth inequality, through minimum wage and welfare increases to match inflation, ensures people continue to struggle. 

But one of the main problems, which has been further exacerbated by the current government's pro inequality policies is the housing market remains a playground for speculators, locking young Kiwis forever out of homeownership.

Seymour’s finger-pointing at Labour is a desperate distraction from the coalition’s own failures. New Zealanders aren’t leaving because of the Covid pandemic, now a distant memory for all except the most cooked of cookers; they’re leaving because this government has prioritised austerity over opportunity, cuts over investment, and rhetoric over results. 

If National and ACT want to stem the tide, they must abandon their ideological crusade and focus on creating jobs, boosting wages, and making New Zealand a place where ambition can thrive. Until then, the Kiwi exodus will continue unabated.

The Dust of Israel's Genocide Settles Across the World

In the annals of human cruelty, the Holocaust stands as a grotesque monument to industrialised slaughter. Hitler’s regime exterminated six million Jews, alongside Romani people, disabled individuals, political dissidents, LGBTQ+ communities, and intellectuals, a genocide shrouded in secrecy, its full horrors only grasped after the German's were defeated.

Fast forward to present day, as Israel’s war machine grinds Gaza into dust, we witness a genocide not hidden in the shadows, but broadcast in real-time, livestreamed, tweeted, TikToked, into our living rooms. 

In the 1940's, after WW2 had begun, the world knew little of the Nazi's extermination camps; today, we watch Palestinian children being burnt alive by white phosphorus, entire families buried under rubble, mass graves and starving civilians shot while scrambling for poisoned flour. And yet, Western governments, complicit in arms and rhetoric, look on and do nothing to bring an end to this modern day atrocity.

The Nazi genocide unfolded largely beyond global scrutiny. Western nations, even those at war with Germany, possessed only fragmented intelligence on Hitler's extermination camps. The 1942 Riegner Telegram, confirming Hitler’s plan to annihilate European Jewry, was met with disbelief. 

Newspapers buried reports; governments hesitated to act. By 1945, when Allied forces liberated Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz, the scale of mechanised murder stunned the world, but by then, it was too late. This historical blindness is often invoked to excuse inaction. "We didn’t know," they said. But today, there is no such defence. 

 

On Monday, the Guardian reported:

Israeli plan for forced transfer of Gaza’s population ‘a blueprint for crimes against humanity’

Military ordered to turn ruins of Rafah into ‘humanitarian city’ but experts call the plan an internment camp for all Palestinians in Gaza

Israel’s defence minister has laid out plans to force all Palestinians in Gaza into a camp on the ruins of Rafah, in a scheme that legal experts and academics described as a blueprint for crimes against humanity.

Israel Katz said he has ordered Israel’s military to prepare for establishing a camp, which he called a “humanitarian city”, on the ruins of the city of Rafah, Haaretz newspaper reported.

Palestinians would go through “security screening” before entering, and once inside would not be allowed to leave, Katz said at a briefing for Israeli journalists.

Israeli forces would control the perimeter of the site and initially “move” 600,000 Palestinians into the area – mostly people currently displaced in the al-Mawasi area.

Eventually the entire population of Gaza would be housed there, and Israel aims to implement “the emigration plan, which will happen”, Haaretz quoted him saying.

Since Donald Trump suggested at the start of the year that large numbers of Palestinians should leave Gaza to “clean out” the strip, Israeli politicians including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have enthusiastically promoted forced deportation, often presenting it as a US project.

Israel’s assault on Gaza has killed at least 57,645 Palestinians according to official counts, though the true death toll is catastrophically higher. With over 10,000 bodies still buried under rubble and thousands more missing, independent analysts estimate the actual fatalities likely exceed 150,000, a figure that includes entire families erased from civil records. 

Among the dead are more than 20,000 children, many burned alive by US-supplied white phosphorus or crushed in their homes by 2,000-pound bunker-buster bombs. Hospitals, designated as shelters, have been systematically targeted and now serve as mass graves.

“This genocide is in 4k on your telly & your only answer, you're not gonna be able to say I didn't know, the only answer you're gonna be able to give to your kids is I didn't care...”

🇮🇪Game Of Thrones Star Liam Cunningham pic.twitter.com/C2ZN3fTT7k

— The Resonance (@Partisan_12) July 8, 2025

The UN reports that 90% of Gaza's children now suffer acute food deprivation, with Israeli snipers routinely shooting those who approach aid trucks. Unlike the Holocaust, this extermination campaign unfolds before our eyes, journalists document mothers cradling their children's severed limbs, teenagers bleeding to death in gutted streets, and bulldozers piling corpses into anonymous trenches. 

These images flood social media in real time, yet Western leaders like Donald Trump, Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz respond by accelerating weapons shipments to Israel.

The United States, Britain, Germany, and other allies have armed Israel to the teeth. Since October 2023, the Biden and Trump administrations fast-tracked over 100 weapons transfers, including 2,000-pound bunker busters that flatten entire blocks. British-supplied fighter jets bomb UN shelters. German-made tanks crush ambulances. This is not self-defence; it is extermination. 

Worse still is the legal cover provided. The US vetoed multiple UN ceasefire resolutions. The ICC’s warrant for Netanyahu was met with outrage from Washington and London, the same capitals that once vowed "Never Again." The hypocrisy is staggering: Putin is a war criminal for Ukraine, but Netanyahu gets a blank cheque.

“If you supply weapons to somebody that is accused of acts of genocide, then you yourself become complicit in those acts as well”

Retweet if you agree with Corbyn pic.twitter.com/VglGmJfoAM

— Nadeem Ahmed (@Muqadaam) July 5, 2025

Some still parrot the fiction of Israeli "self-defence." But no nation has a right to "defend" itself by starving two million people to death, half of them children. No war justifies bombing hospitals, shooting paramedics, or executing entire families. 

The International Court of Justice has ruled Israel’s actions a genocide, a finding largely ignored by Western media who still often try to justify Israel's actions by framing Palestinian deaths as "collateral damage." This is not war. It is slaughter. And it is funded by our taxes. 

 

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." ~ Albert Einstein


What Must Be Done

Silence is complicity. The Holocaust was allowed to happen because the world turned away. Today, we cannot claim ignorance—only cowardice.

1. Boycott & Divest: Pressure companies arming Israel (Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Elbit). Demand pension funds divest from genocide.
2. Streets, Not Petitions: Protests must escalate. General strikes. Blockades. The anti-apartheid movement didn’t win with polite letters.
3. Vote Out the Complicit: Donald Trump, Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz all are complicit. Support candidates who call for an arms embargo.
4. Amplify Palestinian Voices: Share their testimony. Challenge media bias. The truth is their only weapon.

History will judge this moment harshly. When the next generation asks, "What did you do?" What will you be able to say?

Politicised COVID Inquiry Targets Labour

In the grand theatre of New Zealand politics, the Coalition of Chaos has turned the second phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned into a stage for partisan point-scoring, rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. This expanded inquiry, set to conclude by February 2026, is being framed by right-wing politicians as a necessary deepening of scrutiny into New Zealand’s pandemic response.

Unfortunately, the reality is far murkier. The coalition, driven by New Zealand First’s anti-mandate rhetoric and bolstered by selective public submissions, is misleading voters about the inquiry’s origins and purpose, using it as a cudgel to attack the Labour Party, particularly former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her successor, Chris Hipkins, while falsely claiming Phase Two covers entirely new ground.

The coalition’s narrative, as trumpeted by ACT Party leader David Seymour and Minister Brooke van Velden, suggests Phase Two emerged organically from public demand for answers on vaccine mandates, the 2021 Auckland/Northland lockdowns, and socio-economic impacts. This conveniently glosses over the obvious political machinery at work. The inquiry’s expansion was heavily shaped by coalition agreements with New Zealand First, whose election campaign leaned hard into anti-mandate sentiment.

Another fail @chrishipkins. The terms of reference were driven by public consultation. The people have a lot to say about your hapless, and often cruel reign as COVID Response Minister. pic.twitter.com/8cgVe1kWAQ

— David Seymour (@dbseymour) July 8, 2025

While many of the 13,000 public submissions during the first inquiry did highlight concerns about lockdowns and vaccines, as noted on the inquiry’s website, these were filtered through a coalition lens eager to spotlight Labour’s supposed missteps. The second inquiries February–March 2024 consultation period, ostensibly for public input, was more a formality rather than a driver, with the terms of reference reflecting the coalition government's priorities over any broad public consensus.

The terms of reference for Phase Two appear deliberately crafted to sidestep scrutiny of decisions made during the 2017–2020 period when New Zealand First was in coalition with Labour, revealing a calculated effort to shield their own record while targeting Labour’s. 

The inquiry’s focus, as outlined in the 25 June 2024 Beehive announcement, zeroes in on the 2021 Auckland/Northland lockdowns and vaccine mandate decisions, conveniently post-dating New Zealand First’s time in government. This omission is glaring, given that early pandemic responses, such as initial border policies and economic support measures, were shaped under the Labour-NZ First coalition.

By limiting Phase Two to later decisions, the coalition avoids examining New Zealand First’s role in those formative policies, while amplifying criticism of Labour’s 2021 actions under Ardern and Hipkins. This selective framing, driven by New Zealand First’s influence in the current coalition, ensures that their past governance escapes the spotlight, allowing them to posture as critics of Labour’s pandemic strategy without facing accountability for their own contributions.


On Monday, the NZ Herald reported:

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour on Ardern, supermarket duopoly, and minimum sentences

Seymour told Herald NOW’s Ryan Bridge that although the Royal Commission is an independent body and they cannot direct it, if it were up to him, he would absolutely make sure Ardern fronted at the inquiry.

“Now, we need to get to the bottom of what happened, who it affected, not just because of history, but because there will be more epidemics in my and your lifetime.

“She was the key decision-maker through that period. But whether she does is up to her, whether she’s requisitioned by the commission is up to them. I just make the observation that this stuff’s important and all voices should be at the table.”

This politicisation, which is arguably a complete waste of taxpayers' money, is most evident in the coalition’s attacks on Ardern and Hipkins. By focusing Phase Two on vaccine mandates and lockdown decisions, issues Labour championed, the coalition is effectively predicating a conclusion that paints the former government as heavy-handed before findings are even released. 

The inquiry’s terms, as outlined in the 25 June 2024 Beehive announcement, zero in on the “justification” and “equity” of the 2021 lockdowns, areas where Labour’s policies faced public backlash and have already been highlighted in the previous inquiries findings.

This is no accident. National, ACT and New Zealand First are weaponising the inquiry to rehash controversies, framing Ardern’s leadership as divisive and Hipkins’ stewardship as bumbling, despite Phase One’s report already acknowledging the complexities of those decisions. The coalition’s claim, echoed in van Velden’s unhinged statements, that Phase Two covers entirely new ground is therefore misleading. 

The Auckland/Northland lockdowns and vaccine mandates were examined in Phase One, albeit more broadly, as part of public health responses. Phase Two’s narrower focus, decision-making processes and equity impacts, revisits these issues with a clear intent to amplify Labour’s perceived failures.


Yesterday, Stuff reported: 

 

Paddy Gower: The Covid inquiry should call Jacinda Ardern - and she should answer its questions

How good would it be if Dame Jacinda Ardern fronted up to the Covid inquiry?

It would be really good for New Zealand, in my opinion.

The inquiry reopened this week, and it has the ability to call Ardern to answer questions about the Covid response.

In my view, the inquiry should call her - and she should appear.

For Jacinda Ardern, engaging with this politicised inquiry risks lending legitimacy to a politically charged exercise. Her leadership during the pandemic, while not flawless, was globally lauded for its early decisiveness, saving an estimated 20,000 lives. The coalition’s attempt to rewrite history clearly serves their more unhinged electoral base, not the public good. In my opinion, Ardern, who has said she will supply evidence, should otherwise largely ignore Phase Two, focusing instead on her post-political work. 

The inquiry’s findings are unlikely to shift public memory of her tenure, which remains anchored in New Zealand’s low death toll and community resilience. Responding to criticism risks entangling her in a coalition-scripted culture war, where facts will be secondary to optics.

This inquiry reeks of the same cynicism seen throughout the government's propaganda, pandering to a vocal minority while distorting broader truths. New Zealanders deserve an inquiry that seeks lessons, not vendettas. By using Phase Two to attack Labour, the coalition undermines the Royal Commission’s integrity, while misleading the public about its origins and purpose. Ardern, and the country, are better served by looking forward, not indulging a backward-looking political stunt.

People Linked to Jeffrey Epstein Who Have Died

The web of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network and its ties to powerful figures continues to unravel, revealing a chilling pattern of suspicious deaths, allegations of intelligence connections, and unanswered questions. From Epstein’s own mysterious death in 2019 to the unsolved murders of Barry and Honey Sherman, the apparent suicide of key witnesses like Virginia Giuffre, and the overdoses of victims like Carolyn Andriano and Leigh Skye Patrick, a trail of tragedy surrounds those linked to the disgraced financier. Allegations of Mossad involvement, elite blackmail operations, and systemic abuse persist, fueled by figures like Robert Maxwell and claims of espionage. 

This post explores the lives, deaths, and connections of deceased individuals caught in Epstein’s orbit, shedding more light on a scandal that refuses to fade.

Jeffrey Epstein, Age 66, Financier and Convicted Sex Offender: Epstein supposedly died by suicide by hanging in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on August 10, 2019, while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. As the central figure in a sprawling network of sexual abuse and trafficking, Epstein was convicted in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a minor, though his plea deal sparked controversy for its leniency and apparent coverup to protect the powerful. His 2019 arrest revealed allegations of trafficking dozens of underage girls, with victims like Virginia Giuffre detailing systemic abuse at his properties. 

Speculation about his death being a murder rather than suicide persist, fuelled by lapses in prison protocol, such as guards failing to check on him and malfunctioning cameras. Some, including former intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menashe, have claimed Epstein worked with Mossad, leveraging his connections to powerful figures to gather compromising material for blackmail. His death silenced a key figure in an international scandal, leaving many questions unanswered about the extent of his criminal network and its protectors.

Barry Sherman, Age 75, Canadian Pharmaceutical Billionaire: Barry Sherman and his wife Honey were found dead in their Toronto home on December 15, 2017, initially considered a murder-suicide but later investigated as a targeted double homicide, which remains unsolved. Sherman, founder of Apotex, was linked to Epstein through elite financial and social circles, though no direct evidence confirms a close relationship. His wealth and influence placed him in networks where Epstein operated, raising questions about potential overlap in their business dealings. The mysterious nature of the Shermans’ deaths, with no arrests made years later, has led to speculation of foul play tied to their high-profile connections. 

The lack of resolution in the case continues to fuel theories about targeted killings within elite circles.

 

Honey Sherman, Age 70, Philanthropist and Wife of Barry Sherman: Found dead alongside her husband Barry on December 15, 2017, in their Toronto home, Honey’s death is part of the same unsolved double homicide. As a prominent philanthropist, she moved in the same elite social circles as her husband, which indirectly connected her to Epstein’s network, though no specific ties to his criminal activities are documented. The suspicious circumstances of her death, including the staging of the bodies to initially suggest a murder-suicide, have prompted speculation about motives related to the Shermans’ wealth or connections, but no evidence points to direct Epstein-related criminality. The ongoing mystery of their deaths keeps them in the orbit of conspiracy theories surrounding powerful figures.

Virginia Giuffre, Age 41, Victim and Accuser: Giuffre, a prominent survivor of Epstein’s sexual abuse, died by suicide on April 24, 2025, at her farm in Neergabby, Australia. Her testimony was pivotal in exposing Epstein’s trafficking network, accusing him, Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew, and Jean-Luc Brunel of abusing her as a minor. Giuffre’s allegations detailed a sophisticated operation where she was coerced into sexual acts with high-profile figures, implicating Epstein’s use of his wealth and connections to exploit vulnerable girls. 

After years of legal battles and public advocacy, her suicide came amid a marriage breakup, reported struggles with the psychological toll of her trauma and relentless scrutiny. Some online discussions have questioned whether her death was truly self-inflicted, citing her role as a key witness, but no direct evidence supports claims of foul play. 

Her death marked a tragic loss for survivors seeking justice.

Daniel Anderl, Age 20, Son of Federal Judge Esther Salas: Daniel Anderl was shot and killed on July 19, 2020, at his family’s home in New Jersey by Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer with a personal vendetta against Judge Salas. Salas was overseeing a case involving Epstein’s financial ties to Deutsche Bank, which examined suspicious transactions potentially linked to his trafficking operations. Den Hollander, a self-proclaimed men’s rights activist with a history of misogynistic writings, killed Anderl and wounded Salas’s husband, targeting her for her judicial role. While no direct evidence ties Epstein pedophile network to the attack, the timing and Salas’s involvement in an Epstein-related case sparked speculation of a deeper connection. 

 

Jean-Luc Brunel, Age 75, Modelling Agent and Epstein Accomplice: Brunel, a French modelling agent, died by apparent suicide in his cell at La Santé Prison in Paris on February 19, 2022, while awaiting trial for rape of minors and sexual harassment. Accused by Virginia Giuffre and others of scouting underage girls for Epstein’s trafficking network, Brunel was a key figure in supplying victims under the guise of modelling opportunities through his agency, MC2. His death, like Epstein’s, raised suspicions of foul play due to its timing and the high stakes of his upcoming trial, which could have exposed further details about Epstein’s operations. While no confirmed Mossad connections exist, Brunel’s role in Epstein’s network, which some allege had intelligence ties, keeps such speculation alive. 

His apparent suicide prevented further testimony that might have implicated other powerful figures in the scandal.

Carolyn Andriano, Age 36, Victim and Witness: Andriano died of a drug overdose (methadone, fentanyl, and alprazolam) on May 23, 2023, in a West Palm Beach hotel room, ruled accidental. She testified against Ghislaine Maxwell, describing how Epstein abused her starting at age 14, with Maxwell facilitating the encounters. Her testimony helped secure Maxwell’s 2021 conviction for sex trafficking. 

The overdose, occurring in an area tied to Epstein’s activities, has been called suspicious by some online commentators, who note the pattern of deaths among Epstein’s victims. No evidence links her death to targeted foul play, but her history of trauma and addiction, exacerbated by her abuse, highlights the lasting impact on Epstein’s victims. 

Her death silenced another voice that could have shed light on the network’s inner workings.

Pedro Gaspar, Age 29, Model and Party Promoter: Gaspar died on August 6, 2012, of a suspected drug overdose in a Manhattan apartment owned by Epstein’s brother, Mark. Associated with Jean-Luc Brunel’s MC2 Models, Gaspar was reportedly involved in Epstein’s social scene, which allegedly included procuring girls for his trafficking network. The overdose’s suspicious nature, given his proximity to Epstein and Brunel, has led some to question whether it was accidental or tied to efforts to silence those with knowledge of Epstein’s activities. No direct evidence of a targeted killing exists, but his death in a property linked to Epstein’s family and his role in the modelling world raise lingering doubts about the circumstances surrounding this young mans death.

Bill Richardson, Age 75, Former Governor of New Mexico: Richardson died in September 2023 of natural causes. Virginia Giuffre accused him of being one of the individuals Maxwell directed her to give a massage to, implying sexual activity, though Richardson vehemently denied meeting her and was never charged. As a prominent political figure, his inclusion in Epstein’s contact book and Giuffre’s allegations placed him under scrutiny, but no concrete evidence of criminality or pedophilia emerged. Speculation about Epstein’s network having intelligence ties, including to Mossad, occasionally touches figures like Richardson due to his elite connections, but no specific Mossad link is substantiated. 

His death, reported as natural, closed a chapter on one of Epstein’s more contested associations.

Marvin Minsky, Age 88, MIT Scientist: Minsky, a pioneering computer scientist, died in January 2016 of a cerebral hemorrhage, considered natural causes. Virginia Giuffre claimed Maxwell directed her to engage in sexual activities with him, an allegation, which led to no criminal charges, that surfaced after his death. Minsky’s association with Epstein came through his visits to Epstein’s private pedophile island and funding from Epstein for AI research at MIT, raising questions about the financier’s influence in academic circles. His connection to Epstein underscores how the pedophile financier cultivated ties with intellectual elites, potentially for leverage or blackmail.

Leigh Skye Patrick, Age 29, Victim: Patrick, an Epstein survivor, died in 2017 from a drug overdose in a West Palm Beach hotel room, the first of two Epstein victims to die of overdoses in the area. Her being a victim of Epstein’s abuse made her a key witness in his trafficking network, though specific details about her experiences or testimony are scarce. The overdose, like Carolyn Andriano’s, occurred in a region closely tied to Epstein’s operations, prompting speculation about whether such deaths were truly accidental. The pattern of overdoses among Epstein’s victims raises questions about the long-term impact of their trauma and potential vulnerabilities exploited by others.

Alfredo Rodriguez, Age 60, Former House Manager: Rodriguez, Epstein’s house manager in Palm Beach, died in January 2015 from mesothelioma, a fast acting cancer caused from exposure to asbestos. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison for attempting to sell Epstein’s “black book,” a contact list detailing the financier’s network, which included names of victims and high-profile figures. Rodriguez’s insider knowledge made him a significant figure in early investigations into Epstein’s activities, and his attempt to profit from the book suggests awareness of its value in exposing criminality. 

His death from natural causes occurred before Epstein’s 2019 arrest, but some speculate he faced threats due to his possession of sensitive information. Epstein’s alleged intelligence ties keep such theories in circulation.

Stephen Hawking, Age 76, Scientist: Hawking, a renowned theoretical physicist, died on March 14, 2018, of natural causes related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). His name appeared in Epstein’s contact book, suggesting a social or professional connection, possibly through Epstein’s funding of scientific endeavours or events like a 2006 conference Hawking attended on Epstein’s island. No allegations of pedophilia or criminality have been made against him, but his presence in Epstein’s orbit reflects the financier’s efforts to align with intellectual giants, potentially for influence or credibility. 

His death, expected due to his long-term illness, has not been tied to foul play.

Michael Jackson, Age 50, Celebrity: Jackson, a global music icon, died on June 25, 2009, from a drug overdose involving propofol and benzodiazepines, administered by his physician, ruled a homicide due to medical negligence. His name in Epstein’s contact book and reported visits to Epstein’s Palm Beach property was likely a social connection, driven by Jackson’s celebrity status and Epstein’s pursuit of influential figures. Accusers in Jackson’s separate allegations of child sexual abuse, including Jordan Chandler in 1993 and Gavin Arvizo in 2003, claimed he molested them during sleepovers at his Neverland Ranch, though these cases were settled out of court for $22 million and acquitted in 2005, respectively. Posthumous claims by Wade Robson and James Safechuck in 2019 alleged prolonged abuse, but were dismissed due to statutes of limitations. 

No evidence directly ties Jackson to Epstein’s pedophilia or trafficking network, and his death is unlikely to be linked to Epstein-related foul play, though his presence in Epstein’s orbit fuels speculation about his elite connections.

Ted Kennedy, Age 77, Former Senator: Kennedy, a long-serving U.S. senator, died on August 25, 2009, from brain cancer. His name in Epstein’s contact book suggests a social or political connection, likely due to Kennedy’s prominence and Epstein’s cultivation of powerful allies. No allegations of pedophilia or direct involvement in Epstein’s criminal activities have been substantiated, though Kennedy’s past controversies, such as the Chappaquiddick incident, have long fuelled scrutiny of his personal conduct. 

His death from a well-documented illness is not considered suspicious, though his elite status made him a target for Epstein’s networking.

Ivana Trump, Age 73, Former Spouse of Donald Trump: Ivana Trump died on July 14, 2022, from accidental blunt impact injuries after a fall at her New York City home. Mentioned in Epstein-related files, likely due to her high-profile social connections in New York and Palm Beach elite circles, she had no direct allegations of involvement in Epstein’s criminal activities. Her ex-husband Donald Trump’s documented ties to Epstein, including flights on his "Lolita Express" airplanes, place her in proximity to his pedophile network. However, no evidence suggests foul play beyond the accidental nature of her death. 

Her presence in Epstein’s orbit likely reflects his access to prominent social and political figures.

David Koch, Age 79, Businessman: Koch, a billionaire industrialist and philanthropist, died on August 23, 2019, from prostate cancer. Although some sources claim they had a close friendship, his name in Epstein’s contact book points to a connection through elite financial and social circles, as Koch’s wealth and influence aligned with Epstein’s network of powerful figures. No allegations of pedophilia or direct criminality tied to Epstein have been made against him, and his death from a long-term illness is not considered suspicious. Epstein’s cultivation of billionaires like Koch suggests strategic networking, possibly for financial or social leverage.

Ethel Kennedy, Age 96, Widow of Robert F. Kennedy: Ethel Kennedy died on October 10, 2024, of natural causes. Mentioned in Epstein-related files, likely due to her prominent social and political connections as a Kennedy family matriarch, she had no direct ties to his criminal activities. Her advanced age and public profile made her a peripheral figure in Epstein’s network, with no allegations of pedophilia or Mossad involvement. 

Her death, expected due to her age, has not been linked to foul play, but her inclusion in Epstein’s files underscores his networks reach into America’s political dynasties.

Robert Maxwell, Age 68, Media Tycoon: Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell, died on November 5, 1991, after falling from his yacht near the Canary Islands, officially ruled an accidental drowning. His connection to Epstein is through Ghislaine, a key figure in Epstein’s trafficking network. Maxwell, a British media mogul, was widely alleged to have been a Mossad agent, with former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe claiming he facilitated the sale of bugged PROMIS software to governments and institutions, enabling espionage. His financial empire, riddled with fraud and embezzlement, collapsed posthumously, revealing he had misappropriated pension funds. 

His mysterious death has fuelled theories of Mossad assassination, with suggestions he was killed after attempting to blackmail the agency for financial aid to cover debts. While no direct evidence ties him to Epstein’s pedophilia, his intelligence connections and Ghislaine’s role raise questions about the family’s broader ties to covert operations.

John Tower, Age 65, Former U.S. Senator: John Tower died on April 5, 1991, in a plane crash near Brunswick, Georgia, officially attributed to mechanical failure. His connection to Epstein is indirect, through Robert Maxwell, with whom he was allegedly involved in the PROMIS software scandal. Authors like Gordon Thomas claim Tower facilitated the sale of bugged software, allegedly modified by Mossad for espionage, to U.S. institutions, including nuclear research facilities. The crash that killed him and his daughter has been speculatively linked to Mossad by some, who argue his knowledge of the software’s backdoor capabilities made him a liability, though no definitive evidence supports this. 

No allegations of pedophilia or direct Epstein-related criminality exist, but Tower’s death, occurring months before Maxwell’s, adds to speculation about intelligence-related eliminations within elite networks.