DEPRAVITY WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY KNOWS NO BOUNDS, as many homosexuals known as ‘Bug Chasers’ seek to have sex with men who are HIV positive, so that they too may contract the ‘Gift’ of HIV in what they term “the ultimate erotic experience”.

When I say that there are “many” who seek this perverted experience, there are contested statistics put forward. Rolling Stone claims that 25% of gay men are bug chasers, while a study quoted in Wikipedia put the number at 7.5%.

There is a documentary available on YouTube called THE GIFT, while here I post a shorter interview [4 mins], with the producer ………..


The wikipedia article on it is here ……..

Where innocent li’l ol’ me caught up with this suicidal depravity was on Reddit where, on a particular forum, gay men were putting out requests to find other men with the ‘gift’. The language was the most vile and sickening I can recall seeing where the ‘gifted’ and the ‘chasers’ were exchanging what they would like to do with each other. And, no thanks to the facebook friend who alerted me to it.

BUT, why do I bring this up now?

Alerting others to this activity will probably be of no consequence in this post-modern world where relativism and situational ethics prevail for the sake of  “love being love” and Truth is now whatever you claim it to be for yourself. But, the area where this issue does affect others in the world of rights and redress is the world where our taxes are getting poured into the health care of these intentionally sick people with self-inflicted disease.

They will eventually need medical care and, even if this were given in a public hospital with little cost to the afflicted, our taxes pay for that hospital and all treatments given. Then, additionally, it’s fair to say that they will choose medication, either as a cure or for the easing of distressing symptoms. THIS IS MY POINT, since we are powerless to restrict the activity itself and even to do so would impinge on their ‘rights’. But we can do something about the public taxpayer funding of treatment. What actually prompted this blog post was yesterday’s article by the ABC which says ……..

“A ground-breaking HIV prevention drug has been approved for taxpayer subsidy in Australia — marking a major milestone in the four decades long battle against HIV and AIDS.

PrEP or pre-exposure prophylaxis has been recommended for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by a panel of experts.

The Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt previously promised government funding for the drug if approved by the committee.

The decision is expected to see the over-the-counter cost of the drug drop from up to $1,000 to about $40.

Victorian AIDS Council CEO Simon Ruth said it should be available by the middle of the year from any doctor or pharmacy.”

NO WAY JOSE !! We should and must not subsidize these degenerate grubs to the tune of $1000 per treatment. We can and should put pressure on the appropriate government Ministers to not fund treatments for this self-inflicted disease. But, there’s a problem. Or two or three. The taxpayer, remember, already funds HIV treatments in public hospitals for HIV patients, some of whom have contracted the disease via non-homosexual sex. Gays who have contracted the virus via sex know the risks they have taken, yet they are subsidized without taxpayer protest. Of course the argument will be made in relation to subsidized cancer treatment for smokers. While that argument appears justified, it is not. Why? Because for one thing [apart from the addiction angle], long term smokers will have paid around $100,000 in taxes over aproximately 50 years and so have paid for their treatment by proxy. Another problem inherent here is determining which infected person has contracted HIV deliberately as a ‘bug chaser’, who should be excluded from receiving subsidized care. This area is above my pay grade, so I will leave readers to ponder and to take any action that they deem warranted. There are many articles on bug chasing per se, and I will leave you with this one ……….

Kyrie Eleison.



I don’t need to think how I might compose an introduction to the following post from VIGILANT CITIZEN. It speaks for itself. I did see a small article about this new franchise some days ago and planned to return to it to establish its veracity and perhaps post on it. And how would you be? My previous post looked at blasphemy in a clothing ad. and now this. So I am now prompted to dig up some more that occurs in the so-called art world, so look out for it  –  not because of any sensationalist factor, but because all this points to a trend of attacks against Christianity that society should be aware of to make some conclusion about where we are heading…….. and that, whether one is a Christian or not. So prepare yourself, because this is awful. [Have to wonder if an Ally Akbar Ice Cream Co. will be next. I don’t think so]!!

Sweet Jesus: The Disturbing Marketing of a Trendy Ice Cream Franchise


The marketing surrounding Sweet Jesus is based on satanic symbolism combined with children in creepy and questionable situations. 

Sweet Jesus is an absurdly popular ice cream chain that’s been around for a few years and is quickly expanding in Canada and the United States. Deemed “Toronto’s Most Overrated Ice Cream” by the Globe and Mail, Sweet Jesus nevertheless attracts huge crowds on a daily basis. The chain has been enjoying lots of media coverage and because its stores are custom-made to be “Instagrammable”, Sweet Jesus is all over social media.

The chain does not only serve ice cream to its customers: The “experience” also involves intense imagery and Biblical references. This peculiarity even prompted a lengthy article on Medium that analyzes the “Christian symbolism” of the shop. While the article is very in-depth and used all kinds of references, it completely missed one point: The symbolism is not Christian, it is satanic. But it was close … satanic symbolism is based on the inversion and the corruption of Christian symbols and Biblical references.

The logo consists of the words Sweet Jesus combined with two satanic symbols: An inverted cross and a lightning bolt.

These two symbols are an important part of the imagery of the Church of Satan.

An altar of the Church of Satan with inverted crosses.

To those who say: “The inverted cross is not satanic, it is actually the Cross of St Peter. I read that on Wikipedia”. Nope! In this context, it is satanic. Satanic Black Masses are all about the inversion of Christian symbols to represent a diametrically inverted philosophy.

The symbol of the lightning bolt is also prevalent in satanism. It most likely originates from the Bible passage where Jesus said: “I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven”.

The sigil of Anton Lavey (the founder of the Church of Satan) features a lightning bolt inside an inverted pentagram. A sigil is a symbol used in ceremonial magic to represent the magician’s outcome (and to summon demons).
A Marilyn Manson promo poster. He’s a member of the Church of Satan.

These two symbols make up the logo of Sweet Jesus.

The Sweet Jesus logo in front of a shop.
It’s also on their cups
Inverted cross, lightning bolt, pyramid, eyeballs. Remember when eating ice cream was not a satanic ritual?

The marketing of the brand is all about ridiculing Jesus combined with satanic symbolism.

That’s funny because Jesus bore his cross before he got crucified. Also, gluttony is considered to be one of the seven deadly sins by some Christian denominations.
That’s funny because Jesus … whatever.

Other ads combine Christianity with thinly veiled sexual innuendos.

“Let Sweet (lightning bolt) (inverted cross) Jesus into your mouth” … Um, no thanks.
“Love is patient, love is kind” is the beginning of a popular Bible verse. It is followed in this ad by “but you can’t lick it so who cares”. The popsicle stick is held in a phallic matter. There are satanic symbols on the chalice. But who cares.
This ad cites the commandment about using the Lord’s name in vain … followed by using the Lord’s name in vain. And of course, satanic symbols on the commandment tablet.

Here’s another “project” by the same graphic designer. Since it is not an ad selling ice cream, it is a little more … blatant.

Another creation by graphic designer Murilo Maciel.

Although none of this would EVER exist if it ridiculed any other religion, one can still dismiss the above as an attempt at being “edgy and clever”. However, there’s more.

Sweet Jesus also created ads involving children. And they’re creepy. Not fun creepy. They confirm that this is not simply about being “edgy” … there’s a connection with the darker, more sinister side of the occult elite: Preying on children.

Using Children

Most of the marketing surrounding Sweet Jesus involves fashion magazine-style photoshoots involving children and ice cream. One might think: “Well, that’s normal enough, right? Children love ice cream.” But these pictures involve children in a creepy way. At best, the pics “adultize” children. At worse, they sexualize them.

This kid is dressed like a sailor and he’s doing all kinds of adult things: Smoking, wearing tattoos, drinking coffee from a cup with a satanic logo. But, more importantly, why does the kid have a bruised eye? Child abuse?
This picture is very creepy. First, the entire thing is reminiscent of the horribly exploitative world of child pageants. This blond girl looks eerily similar to JonBenet Ramsey – the child pageant star who got savagely murdered in bizarre circumstances. Also, the girl has pink stuff around her mouth reminiscent of blood. To make things even more disturbing, the girl has bunny ears – not unlike Playboy bunnies.


The company’s IG page featured this “behind the scenes” pic of the above picture, along with the borderline creepy comment “Tough day at the office, eh kiddo.”. The other comments got real.
These two boys have strange animal masks on their heads. You know who else loves to wear strange animal masks?
These guys! (This is a picture from the Church of Satan website).
This girl has one eye emphasized by a magnifying glass – effectively doing the one eye sign. The magnifying glass’ handle is actually an antler.

In occult circles, holding animal horns or antlers represent drawing power from Baphomet.

Occultist Marina Abramovic holding the horns of a goat. Powerful occult meaning.
This girl has a “crown” made of what looks like tiny antlers. She looks like she has blood all over her hand and she is also sucking on her thumb. No.
A shirtless kid. He has the satanic symbols right on his glasses. Nope.
People from Sweet Jesus donating to “Sick Kids” … Not before they teach the kids how to throw up the devil horns, though.

In Conclusion

Associating the decadence of deserts with the devil is nothing new. However, Sweet Jesus takes thing way further. It is not simply about “edgy images”, it is about an entire culture that is perfectly in line with the occult elite.

As seen in previous articles on this site, a main agenda of the occult elite is the normalization of powerful satanic symbolism, which is based on the corruption and desecration of Christian symbols. But that’s just the surface of it. The marketing of Sweet Jesus also subtly implies the corruption and desecration of children. This is where things stop being “cool and edgy” and the ugly head of pure evil sticks out.

And there’s nothing sweet about it.


Jesus In Jeans.

Advertising, Strasbourg: it is permissible to use Jesus and Mary on posters and on the web

IN SHORT:  A Lithuanian court fined the company responsible for depicting Our Lord and Our Lady in a clothing ad. [around $1000 Aud.], following a complaint from a Catholic group [there can’t be too many of those in Lithuania]. The company appealed to the EU court of Human Rights which subsequently over-ruled the Lithuanian court and ordered them to repay the company. Such is the totalitarian power of the EU that it can over-rule the self-determination of a sovereign state.

And readers will anticipate my next point: according to the EU the ad. is not inciting hate and religious symbology is up for grabs. So, why will NO country in the world permit even the public propagation of a benign image of Mohammed, let alone for advertising, satire or animation? Okay, that’s a rhetorical question as we all know why, but what’s good for the goose is obviously offensive to the gander.

Here is the article for those with too much time on their hands……….

from this mob:

ROME – The European Court of Human Rights legitimizes and defends the use of religious symbols in advertising and condemns Lithuania for having fined a company that used Jesus and Mary on posters and the internet to sell clothes. According to the judges, the fine imposed for “offended public morality” violated the right to freedom of expression of the company.

The facts date back to 2012 when a Lithuanian company that produces clothes launches an advertising campaign using the photo of a man and a woman with a halo, he in jeans and tattooed, she with a white dress and a beaded necklace, accompanied by phrases “Jesus, what trousers!”, “Dear Mary, what dress!” and “Jesus and Mary, what do you wear!”.
The advertisements triggered a series of protests sent to the National Agency for the Defense of Consumer Rights.

The latter, after asking the opinion of the self-regulating body of the advertising specialists and the Lithuanian episcopal conference, concluded that the advertisements did not respect religion and therefore were a violation of public morals and imposed a fine of 580 euros on the company. .

In today’s ruling, which will become final within 3 months if the parties do not appeal, the judges affirm that the national authorities have a wide margin of maneuver on similar issues especially in cases involving a commercial use of religious symbols.

However, the prosecutors point out that the advertisements in question “do not appear to be gratuitous offensive or profane” and “do not incite hatred”, and therefore the authorities are required to provide relevant and sufficient reasons why they would be contrary to public morality. Instead in this case the reasons given by the authorities “are vague and do not explain with sufficient accuracy why the reference in advertisements to religious symbols was offensive”.

In particular, the Court criticizes the authorities for having judged that advertisements “promoted a lifestyle incompatible with the principles of a religious person” without explaining what the encouraged lifestyle was and how the photos and captions in question were favoring it. . The judges are also critical of the fact that the only religious group consulted to judge the case was the Catholic group.

The sentence states that the Court of Strasbourg considers that “freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the individual self-realization of each person”. It also “extends to ideas that shock, offend or disturb”. He also emphasizes that the Lithuanian authorities have held publicity contrary to public morality because they have used religious symbols “for superficial purposes”, “distorting their main purpose” and being “inappropriate”.

However, for the Court these findings are “vague and insufficient to explain why the reference to religious symbols in advertisements is offensive, if not for the fact that the purpose is not religious”. Moreover, for the judges, the images “do not seem gratuitous offensive or profane, nor do they incite hatred for reasons of faith or attack a religion in an abusive or gratuitous way”.

The court concludes that the local authorities have not “reached the right balance between the protection of public morals and the rights of religious people on the one hand, the right to freedom of expression of the company on the other”. The positions they expressed, he justified, “show that they have given

total priority to protect the sentiments of religious people, without taking into consideration the right to freedom of expression of the company. “Vilnius, therefore, will have to compensate the company with 580 euros.


A Queer Conversation.

Kevin’s puppy, being diminutive, had squeezed its way into my yard through our common fence. That was no problem for me, but it was for the lorikeet that had just descended from above to beg a few nibbles from my pantry. Tucking Junior under my arm I made off for Kevin’s front door at which the predictable chat about recalcitrant animals took place. Then I asked ……….

“So, do you think the plebiscite will go your way”? I was referring to the imminent postal vote about to happen in Australia where the electorate would say YES or NO to changing the constitutional definition of marriage to allow marriage for homosexuals, or not.

Kevin had a tendency to swear a lot, which may have been to lend a macho bent to his effeminate vocals. “Fucking waste of time and money as far as Nigel and I are concerned. Mate, the people who look down on us with their snide remarks and their high-and -mighty judgments are not suddenly about to accept us if we get married. Like: ‘Oh Hi Nige and Kevin, I hear you’re married, why don’t you both come around for dinner’? That’ll be the fucking day! The people who accept us or reject us now are not going to change their attitude because we get married.”

I added: “So, getting married wouldn’t make any difference to you”?

“Mate,” he said, “Why the fuck would we? This house is in both names. Our wills are made out to each other and we get each others’ super when one croaks. There’s bugger all that we don’t get that regular marrieds do. Well, except that Nige’s two kids will get whatever he willed to them. I mean the gay community themselves are not gunna think better or worse of their fellow gays for getting married, and neither are the homophobes; the bigots are gunna stay bigots. Still, I dunno, we might do it just for the party and a get-together with our friends. I’ll leave the decision to Nige. I couldn’t care one way or the other to be honest”.

That was the crux of  our chat. His request that I cut down some branches that hung over the fence and dropped some seeds and leaves onto his property is not worth the telling.

ancestry, australia, CULTURE, ESSAYS


Now, dear reader, that you have fallen for the clickbait headline, let me say that it is quite true, mostly.

For 40 years Catholic priests were not permitted entry to Australia from settlement in 1778 until 1820 when Frs. Therry and Conolly arrived. Let me qualify this.

A Catholic priest, Fr. Dixon, had come to the country around 1802, but he came as a convict having been sentenced for collusion in the Irish rebellion. He did eventually become a freeman and said a public mass. The Governor relented too in 1817 by allowing a Fr. O’Flynn into the country; alas, he was sent packing after a year. Finally, in 1820, 42 years after the First Landing, the first two permanent priests were permitted entry. Thus, for almost half a century tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of left-footers suffered religious persecution. “Persecution” is not too strong-a-word since the practice of that brand of faith centred around the Sacraments which only priests could perform.

Why was it so?

THUMBNAIL VERSION: Simply, the Micks in England and Ireland had been suppressed ever since Fat Henry; and Cromwell had done a job on killing off lots of Micks in the fair isle. Those feisty Irish though wouldn’t go down without kicking up a stink and priests were viewed as leaders or potential leaders of rebellions and sedition. Moreover, they were viewed as loyalists to the Vatican before they would give loyalty to the Crown. To be sure, to be sure, they would surely cause trouble in the new colony.

PERSONAL ASIDE: Cromwell’s genocide necessitated Irish ancestors, such as my own, to adopt the survival measure of having half the family convert to protestantism while the other half remained Catholic. From ancestral enquiries, this occurred in both my and my wife’s family – although my ancestors were Irish gentry, while hers were Scottish criminals deported to the Great Southern Prison [earning their title as Australian Royalty]. As both sets of ancestors wound up in Van Diemen’s Land [Tasmania], they were deprived of the ability to practice their faith fully, having their offspring baptised, married or buried by a Methodist minister, of which there was just one in them there wilds of Northern Tassie.  It is a matter of record that through the descendency the true faith returned to this amalgam of allegiances; none ever took up arms against the colonial gummint, while plenty of them fought – and plenty died – in both World Wars.

The first Christian Brothers – Bodkin, Lynch and Tracey – didn’t arrive until 1868 to offer Catholic education to young men, 90 years after settlement. They founded CBC Parade in Melbourne, my alma mater.

But the persecution was not quite over. Enter Archbishop Mannix [Melbourne, 1913-1963].

Manic Mannix was a fly in the Gummint ointment throughout, mainly due to his conflicting views of conscription. At one point, due to return to Ireland for a vacation, he was advised that his return would be refused re-entry, – so he didn’t go. In true Irish spirit he found a way to present the Gummint with a middle-finger salute. St. Patrick’s Day Parade was Melbourne’s biggest public event by far and was usually led by the Arch in an open car – as per the picture above. On said occasion, to show the great civic powers that it was He who had the support of the soldiery, not them, his vehicle was preceded by a dozen VC winners on white chargers – again, as this picture shows. That was tellin’ ’em!

There we have it. No Great March on the Sydney Harbour for a Reconcilliation with the Micks. No apology for the suppression and persecution of one religion. No compensation or reverse discrimination. No special benefits. No Sorry Day.

No – we descendants would not even think of it. Demeaning. Perish the thought. FECK OFF THEN AND LET’S GET ON WITH LIFE.