Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has set the pro-life blogosphere on fire with her posting of the ‘Jaffe Memo,’ a memorandum written by Frederick S. Jaffe, former vice-president of Planned Parenthood.  Jaffe apparently was in charge of PP’s population control agenda.  The memo was written in 1969.

The memo appears to be legit but I haven’t been able to find its original source.  Read it.

This memo has all sorts of blood chilling suggestions- blood chilling if the culture of death does not run through your veins, that is.  Ideas on controlling world population include:

• Fertility control agents in the water supply
• Encourage women to work
• Require women to work and provide few child care facilities
• Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
• Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children- except for a few who would be allowed three
• Discouragement of private home ownership
• Allow certain contraceptives to be distributed non-medically
• Make contraception truly available to all

Some of my more predictable readers will go through that list and their eyes will simply glaze over for most of it.  With their eyes in a fog as they instinctively declare the above as merely an instance of “Godwin’s Law” but their blood started boiling when they saw on the list “Encourage women to work.”

Dear God, who could be against that? And who could be against making contraception available to everyone?  Clearly, this blogger is a bigot.

I included that item in order to make a very important point.

I can help make that point here by sharing something from my foreword to Margaret Sanger’s The Pivot of Civilization.  I illustrate it by asking my readers to identify who wrote the following:

 “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.  Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

 “As Western society comes to distinguish between those forms of euthanasia that are pernicious and those that are therapeutic- an inevitable consequence of our progress toward liberal humanism- expanded access to neonatal euthanasia appears likely.”

“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people.   …  No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions… ”

And which Nazi wrote these words?  Was it Himmler?  Goebbels?  Hitler himself?    The case could be made that any Nazi could have comfortably made these statements, but in fact they were uttered by current ‘science czar’ of the Obama administration, John Holdren (1977), ‘bio-ethicist’ Jacob Appel (2009), and Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court case, in a letter to Bill Clinton in 1992.

These are essentially the same ideas and concepts as embodied in the Jaffe Memo, as well as the sort of reasoning seen in Sanger, the eugenicists, and the Nazis;  the words and phraseology are different, for 2 reasons.  1., they are not idiots;  they know that it is not 1930 anymore, and if you talk like a Nazi, people are going to object and 2., they don’t actually think they are Nazis;  true, the ideas may be the same at some points and in some ways, but the Nazis used violence.  And therein lies the difference:  they want to achieve many of the same goals, but without the excessive bloodshed.

Which brings me back to the notion of women and working.  My random reader’s eyes glazed over at the rest of the list, but my inclusion of the hallmark of women’s liberation will set their teeth on edge.  But isn’t it curious to see such a thing on a list of ideas for controlling the world’s population?

Here, then is the point:   many of the positions accepted in our society are thought to be defensible on one set of arguments but they were originally advanced on an entirely different set of arguments.   I don’t know about the reader, but I get a little nervous about a particular position that was advocated, sometimes for the first time, by nazis, communists, and eugenicists.

The Jaffe Memo shows what anyone who has ever looked into Planned Parenthood and its roots will see:  Planned Parenthood doesn’t care at all about ‘women’s liberation’ and never has.   The average person on the street thinks that the crux of the abortion issue centers on whether or not a woman has the ‘choice’ to do as she pleases with her own body.  Wrong!

That’s how PP sold abortion to the masses, but that’s not their own agenda.

But is it possible take these issues separate from their original purposes?

Short answer:  That depends.  The purpose of this [adapted] article is meant only to illustrate the importance of carefully examining every issue right down to the rock bottom.   We must do this because there are people out there actively attempting to deceive us and manipulate us.  We can take nothing for granted.  If we fail to examine the issue to that level, we risk rendering ourselves nothing less than one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots.’

Let me give one more illustration from the Jaffe Memo. Not listed above, but in the memo itself, was this population control measure:  “Encourage increased homosexuality.”

If you check the newspaper and talk to the man on the street, homosexuality reduces to whether or not people have the right to ‘love’ whomever they please, and receive society’s stamp of approval in every instance.   It is put forward as such a basic human right, that to speak against it is to be regarded as a hate-monger.  In fact, it is the case that the world’s ‘hate crimes’ legislation almost exclusively targets those who are opposed to homosexuality and homosexual marriage.  Those who stand in the way of people ‘loving’ each other in whatever manner must be folks of the lowest possible quality- equivalent, of course, to the Nazis.  And we all know what to do with such hate-mongerers;  outlaw their hate-speech and put them in prison, and some would go further- all in the name of tolerance, of course.

But the Jaffe Memo raises a very distinct possibility:  the push to normalize homosexuality was never about ‘equal rights’ or ‘human rights’ or ‘free and unrestrained sexual contact between consensual adults’ but about controlling the world’s population.

That would mean the fact that we’re even discussing the acceptability of gay marriage in our society is the result of a manipulation on a grand scale.   We may wonder:  if people are born gay, then should not there have been huge numbers of gay people for thousands of years constantly and consistently, so that there would not be any social mores against them to be overcome?  It should have been normal a long time ago.  Isn’t it interesting that their numbers have increased so rapidly just in the last fifty years?

The Jaffe Memo is just one example of the sort of thing that would lead a reasonable person to ask:  perhaps people are not born gay at all, but rather are made gay, by constant and consistent social engineering and normalization of behaviors that were heretofore- for perfectly good reasons- considered abnormal?

There are indisputable biological facts about men and women that suggest that homosexual behavior is wrong- or at minimum, not the sort of thing we should be mainstreaming and condoning as a society.

Unless, of course, it is precisely those biological facts that you are trying to get around.  Hence, the elitist liberal’s hard work of manipulating the masses to push their agenda without the masses knowing the real reasons for it.  If they did, they would not stand for it.  Since they didn’t, they’ve accepted it, hook, line, and sinker.

It is has never been more important to carefully examine what one believes and why they believe it.  If you do not carry out this work, you may end up being nothing more than a useful idiot of the worst sort:  directly bringing about the goals and ends of those you specifically repudiate as wicked and evil… condemning the communists, nazis, and eugenicists, while carrying out their work.

In light of this extensive manipulation, I feel compelled to argue that in our day and age, religion and politics must absolutely be mixed.  Before you leap to conclusions, you best hear me out.   I’ll post a link to it as soon as I have it ready.

[This is adapted from a much longer essay by Laigle's contributor Anthony Horvath, which can be read here. Anthony is a pro-life speaker and the president of Wisconsin Lutherans for Life. He is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence

The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul.

So, this leads to another important observation which I think is critical in fueling the push towards Christian conservatives leaning libertarian: it is clear that the form of government we have at present is chock full of the secular humanists, progressives, etc, etc. They didn’t elect themselves. They were voted in by a mass of Americans who saw no harm in that worldview, or worse, didn’t even think it was relevant. Once elected, folks like this appointed other like minded individuals, and these folks tend to stay on in government in one way or another, no matter who is in the White House. In short, John Adams didn’t mean only that the populace needed to be ‘moral and religious’ but also those in the government. In his day as in ours, the latter draws from the former; therein lies our current predicament.

Unfortunately, this is as often true of our Republican representatives as the liberal ones.

But I said that I was a ‘Constitutional-libertarian.’ Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be gangbusters about the Constitution? Why shouldn’t I just be a Republican?

As it happens, there are two basic kinds of Republicans. There are the ‘limited government’ sort, who believe that the government shouldn’t go further (or very far from) what is laid out in the Constitution. If I could count on Republicans to carry that out consistently, I might be one today. But there is another kind of Republican. This one we often dismiss as a RINO, or a Republican in Name Only, but in point of fact, this person also abides by the Constitution. No, really.

Let’s take an example: Mitt Romney. Here is a man who is a man who put Massachusetts under the thumb of Romney-Care, a close precursor to Obama-Care. His justification for why this was an ok thing for a Republican governor to do? Many claim that Obama-Care is unconstitutional but Romney-Care gets a pass, and Romney defends it. Why?

the judge clearly explained that Mitt Romney’s health care did not violate Federal or State constitutional principle because a state can regulate health care on the basis of a state’s police power. Link

And strictly speaking, the judge is correct. Romney is correct. Under the auspices of the state, one has all sorts of flexibility in heaping on layers and layers of government. So, Romney is able to walk around taking the name of Republican- rightly- because he acted within the parameters of his state’s and the federal Constitution. Do you see the missing ingredient?

A Republican like Romney doesn’t really buy into the whole ‘limited government’ thing. If a particular measure or activity is not specifically precluded from the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), they don’t see anything really wrong with it. Why, they’re perfectly happy to go along with it, provided it is done so ‘responsibly,’ that is, it doesn’t put us into huge amounts of debt.

Take away the Constitutional part, and I’m sure that loads of Republicans could go along with ObamaCare- they may have to, since they’re also willing to accept the premise that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Thus, I don’t feel like merely calling myself a Constitutionalist is sufficient. I add the ‘libertarian’ modifier in order to make clear the principle that I believe was shared by the founders. They believed that people ought to be free and the government at all levels ought to mind its own dang business by and large but if there was an extremely compelling reason for the majority to inflict its will on the minority, there would at least be a process that would protect the minority’s rights. Certainly, times change, and new circumstances manifest that weren’t dreamed of by the framers, but they built into the Constitution a way to handle such things that makes a great deal of sense to me today- not that anyone these days actually uses those mechanisms. They’re just as likely to ram it through to the Supreme Court, bypassing the legislative branch altogether, ala Roe vs. Wade.

We are now so far away from the Constitution- including at the hands of Republicans- that it is hard to see how we can make our way back. I think this is what people are seeing. Christian conservatives are coming to this conclusion, if they haven’t already. The ‘limited government’ Republicans sell them down the river all day long and the pool of available freedoms grows shallower every day. Where does one turn? Self-preservation.

A very common criticism of ‘libertarianism’ is that it essentially reduces to, “And everyone did as they saw fit.” Judges 21:25. This passage notes that this was in the days when Israel had no king. The implication of this line of argument is that apparently ‘government’ is the great plan of God- there must have been something awfully wrong with the anarchists in ancient Judea! There was! They were not ‘moral and religious’!

Those who argue in this fashion forget two extremely critical points: 1., the people in Israel during the time of the Judges were living under a system of governance that was established by God. It was not anarchy at all, but theocracy. Everyone did as they saw fit, but they ought to have done as God saw fit. Judging from the very loose human governance imposed by God on the Israelites at the time, one may guess that God didn’t think as highly of the need for ‘big’ government. But there is a second point to add to this one: 2., when finally the Israelites demanded a King, God was really, really, really, really, really, really mad.

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: ‘Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.’” 1 Samuel 8

Now, this is interesting to me, because many of those seeking the continuation of the Republic, only on purer, ‘limited government’ lines, view the Libertarian casting off of the constraints of the Republic, as a violation of God’s plan for government (and one can see why, see Romans 13), but one might imagine the passage reading, “When they said to them, ‘Give us a president to lead us.’ … it is not you they have rejected, but me they have rejected as their president.’” To the point: government is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever- and I mean NEVER- to be deemed as God’s replacement on earth. A steward, perhaps, but never a replacement.

Now, I have said all that to say this.

Let us say we do go back to the pure foundations of the Republic. We cite Romans 13 and similar passages as all the more reason to dispense with notions of ‘anarchy’ (for that is what many think when they hear ‘libertarianism’) and attempt to reinvigorate the values of the founding fathers and the Constitution they erected. What then do we find when we begin such a process? This passage in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Has anyone given any thought to the first section I bolded? One of the values of our founders was that the government derives their just powers from the ‘consent of the governed.’ Does this jibe with Romans 13 which says that God has established all authorities? So, Governments have their just powers from the consent of God, not the governed. No? In the book of Judges, did God rule through the judges by the ‘consent of the governed’? When the monarchy was established, was this by the ‘consent of the governed’? Quite the opposite! (see 1 Samuel 8:10-18) And the second section I bolded raises issues that need little elaboration.

Now, as it happens, I am inclined to believe that it is possible to reconcile these statements from the Declaration of Independence with Biblical principles. Indeed, it is because I take them very seriously that I feel like I need to add the modifier ‘libertarian’ to my self-label.

Do you know why libertarians from the right are ostensibly on the rise? It is simply because of this: on a grand level, individual by individual, moment by moment, imperceptibly, but definitely, removing their consent from this present government.

They are doing this unconsciously. It isn’t a deliberate decision. It is a movement along a spectrum, and I don’t even think that they themselves know what they are doing. But they are doing it. Confusing the matter, they aren’t alone. There are people of many diverse political and worldview stripes that likewise have decided (for different reasons, I’m sure) that they don’t like direction the ‘Republic’ has taken.

Now, as for those coming to Libertarianism from the left, I don’t think we need to dwell on them. Nor should we conflate them with those who come to it from the right, for those that do are (I think) an entirely different animal, even if some of the positions look similar.

Say what you want about those coming from the left, but rather than chastising ‘libertarians’ coming from the right, we should be willing to recognize that they are merely exercising their rights as laid out by the framers. They have read the writing on the wall, engraved deeper and deeper each time a new Congress enters session. They are slowly and deliberately withdrawing their consent to be ruled by this corrupt and invasive political system. By saying they are ‘libertarian’ they are only protecting themselves, essentially advocating for a position that says, “It looks like both sides are going to screw with me, rob me of my rights and fleece me of my wealth. I don’t trust the lot of them to act morally or with religious virtue; indeed, I expect the opposite. Perhaps I can insulate myself and my family from their overreach by urging them to leave me the heck alone in these areas…”

No one is disputing that this would only ‘work’ if lived out by those with a working moral compass. Likewise, the Republic. The difference is that there is no chance that the Republic can be restored. The clutching at libertarianism is a stop-gap position before the consent is fully and finally withdrawn (many decades from now, I expect) and the second section of the Declaration of Independence that I bolded above becomes the next, natural step.

In the meantime, we may wish to take the positions of ‘Christian’ ‘libertarians’ seriously and acknowledge that they have legitimate grievances. Indeed, it may be that the ‘Christian Libertarian’ is exactly the same as your standard genuine limited government Christian conservative Constitutionalist- the only difference being in outlook. The latter believes a restoration to our founding principles is desirable and possible, while the former also believes that a return to our founding principles is desirable… but as for possible? Not so much.

 By Jim O’Neill, Canada Free Press

“The American homosexual movement really only began in the 1940s after the Allied defeat of the Nazis. …the center of international “gay” power in the world did in fact shift from Germany to the United States after the demise of the Third Reich. This represented a huge setback for the “gay” movement, requiring it to begin “from scratch” as it were, since America in the 1940s was at least as family-centered as Germany had been in the 1860s.”—From “The Pink Swastika” 

“The 112^th Congress requires sufficient time to conduct independent hearings on the consequences of the LGBT Law and policies that the lame-duck Congress did not consider before rushing to repeal the law last December. …The administration’s lack of answers to reasonable questions, combined with revealing missteps like the Navy’s move to prepare for same-sex marriages, are indications that the Pentagon does not know what it is doing.”—Center for Military Readiness (CMR) 

”[Pollster Gary Gate’s] best estimate, derived from five studies that have asked subjects about their sexual orientation, is that the nation has about 4 million adults who identify as being gay or lesbian, representing 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population. …Gates observed that the 10% figure [often used by homosexual activists] was pulled from a non-scientific work by sexologist Alfred Kinsey, and that it was latched on to by gay activists as a useful ‘political strategy.’ …‘It was a brilliant political strategy as a figure that was large enough to ‘matter’ but hopefully not so large as to threaten the general population,’ said Gates.”
Huffington Post, CBS News, LifeSiteNews               

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 1:25 (NAB)                         

Only in his dreams could Hitler have imagined the blatant homosexualizing of the German Wehrmacht. What Hitler could only dream of, the United States is poised to make fact, a scant sixty-six years after fighting a costly and bloody war to defeat Hitler and the Nazis. Link                     

Before I get ahead of myself, let me point out that the title of this article, and the article itself, are meant to be attention getting, but do not constitute a spurious ad hominem attack on homosexuality; they are designed to bring attention to historical facts that are of profound importance to the future of America (and the world).                               

To give credit where it is due, I first became aware of much of the material presented here after reading “The Pink Swastika” (4th edition 2002), by Scott Lively and Kevin Abram. The entire book can be accessed for free online (link given after the opening quote above). My reaction to the book was similar to Scott Lively’s reaction, “When I initially learned the truths set forth in [“The Pink Swastika”] I was first astonished and then angered.”

At the outset of this article let me reiterate that Communism and Fascism (of which Nazism is a subset) are both Far Left ideologies. That is not to say that they are “like peas in a pod;” they are not—nonetheless they are both left-wing, top-down, big-government social engineering movements.

Read more here:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37535

Psalm 86:15, NIV. “But you, O Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.”

I have often gotten weary of waiting for good things to happen, wondering what was taking God so long to act.

Like back in 2006, when in my article titled “Gay agenda, you’re going down,” I introduced the idea that homosexuals who had been induced to pursue the “gay” lifestyle and became sick as a result, should sue the groups that promoted the lifestyle.

Comparing smoking with homosexual practice, I had written on March 5, 2006

Now “alternative” sexual lifestyles are all the rage. They too are killing people. And again, it’s the “intellectual” cool, liberal, worldly, suave thing to do. The usual suspects are involved. All the big name colleges have special programs for promoting “alternative” sex. Businesses promote the Gay Olympics. Politicians like Barney Frank think they can foist alternative sex on people through their power positions. Hollywood uses its influence to turn the Marlboro Man into a spokesman for today’s popular deadly activity. It’s just like the bad old days of Big Tobacco, and the Grim Reaper is having a gay old time (pun intended).

World Net Daily linked to this article and I got several thousand hits the first day it ran. Emails poured in from all over the world, some from “gays.” Many were enthusiastic about my idea. Some, of course, were skeptical, and some were irate, but I remember one from a young homosexual who said “you have given this 20 year old something to think about.” I was deeply touched.

Yet it seemed as if my idea was going nowhere. No activist group seemed to have picked it up and run with it.

May 16 of this year, I wrote on diseases incurred by homosexual behavior. Again, hoping to stir some discussion and spur someone, anyone, into action, I pointed out the disparity between the way smoking and homosexual sex are treated in our politically correct environment, and how “progressives” generally accuse people who want to keep homosexuals safe of being “homophobes” while praising those who celebrate a patently dangerous, irresponsible lifestyle. I wrote:

Why do professionals march in lock step to oppose people with one kind of unhealthy lifestyle (smokers) while endorsing another group with another unhealthy lifestyle (practicing homosexuals).

Since then, an article published in World Net Daily gave me hope that this idea will some day be brought to fruition.

On Saturday, June 11, World Net Daily published an article titled “What if some other behavior cost 25 million lives?”

It was about Peter LaBarbera’s latest campaign urging the government to investigate homosexual behavior in the same way as smoking was once investigated prior to the banning of smoking in public establishments. This campaign was new to me.

On his website, LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, takes off on my idea, explaining that homosexual behavior is like the behavior of smoking, which the U.S. government investigated and addressed directly by requiring warnings and other limits and by suing tobacco companies.
LaBarbera is an effective activist and if his campaign to force government to investigate the link between homosex and disease is effective, ironically, it will benefit particularly the community that has fought it the most vigorously.

Once that link is established officially, I would urge LaBarbera’s group to push hard for lawsuits against groups that promoted homosexual behavior – on behalf of homosexuals who suffered the most from this irresponsible promotion of a lethal and morbid habit.

As I wrote in 2006:

Once enough of the victims have seen how they have been duped by the universities, politicians, the media, business (deep pockets), Hollywood, politicians, and, yes, the gay agenda itself, to throw away their health and life expectancy, they will come out swinging, marching boldly behind their lawyers.

My idea in March 2006: class action lawsuits against “gay” activists

http://laiglesforum.com/gay-agenda-youre-going-down-2/5.htm

My recent article on diseases linked to homosexual behavior:

http://laiglesforum.com/the-recompense-of-their-error/2509.htm

WND article on the AFTAH campaign:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=300089

Web site of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality:

http://americansfortruth.com/

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has suspended the distribution and production of gay sex education films for schools in Brazil.

By Julio Severo

Education packs containing gay and lesbian video scenes, supposedly aim to combat homophobia, will not be used in Brazilian schools.

Government spokesman Gilberto Carvalho said President Rousseff viewed the material personally and found the footage unsuitable for youngsters.

“She didn’t like what she saw,” Carvalho said. So she decided to suspend its distribution.

However, her reaction came after evangelical and Catholic parliamentarians and their allies in the Brazilian Congress threatened to block any upcoming legislation unless President Rousseff halted the films. They also threatened to support investigative commissions on the minister of Education, his Ministry and another powerful minister, who has been exposed for corruption.

Carvalho said President Rousseff was not, however, discontinuing anti-“homophobia” programs in the public schools.

The “gay kits”, as they are known in Brazil, were produced for the Brazilian Ministry of Education by ABGLT, the largest homosexualist group in Brazil, which received more than one million dollars in government grants to make them. ECOS, another (US-funded) Brazilian NGO that helped make them, also received more than one million dollars. The exposing of this multi-million dollar partnership in a recent Brazilian television news program produced a scandal that rocked the government plan to distribute “gay kit” to all the Brazilian schools.

Matthew Hoffman, in a LifeSiteNews report, said the kits, aimed at “children between the ages of 7 and 12 years, were designed to encourage acceptance of homosexuality. The kits reportedly include a DVD with a story about a fourteen-year-old who goes to the bathroom, and becomes sexually aroused while watching another student urinate in the stall next to him”.

Several members of the Brazilian Congress said the sex education packs encourage homosexual behavior. Even Reinaldo Azevedo, a prominent Catholic social columnist favoring gay “marriage” and child adoption by gays, said that “the gay kit aims to promote sexual harassment against heterosexual children”.

In response, ABGLT has launched a fierce campaign to defend its kits, calling its oppnents “homophobic”.

With information from BBC and LifeSiteNews.

Source: Julio Severo in English:

www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

More information on ABGLT, the NGO that made the gay kit:

ABGLT Files “Hate” Charges Against Julio Severo and Other Brazilian Christians

ABGLT is denounced in the US media for persecution against Julio Severo and other Brazilian Christians

ABGLT Launches Multiple Lawsuits to Silence Christian Opposition

ABGLT ask reforms in the children’s “rights” in Brazil

ABGLT is favored by former Brazilian President Lula

With the assistance of Hillary Clinton, UN Approves ABGLT, Drops Christian Charity

From Julio:

Wow! Some US websites are covering what has happened in Brazil about the kit gay:

• Brazilian President Rousseff Pulls Distribution of Anti-Homophobia Kits to Schools (towleroad.com)
• Brazilian President Pulls Anti-Homophobia Kits From Schools (lezgetreal.com)
• Brazil President bans “Anti-Homophobia Kits” (queerlandia.com)
• Brazilian leader suspends anti-homophobia campaign (sfgate.com)
• Brazilian President Pulls Anti-Homophobia Kits From Schools (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Brazil’s president suspends school anti-homophobia campaign (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Brazil sex education material suspended by President (therainbowpost.com)
• Brazilian leader suspends anti-homophobia campaign (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

by Don Hank

 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:27 

A group that wants “recognition for gay and lesbian communities” has introduced the International Day Against Homophobia, and has set May 17 for that celebration. That’s tomorrow.

These homosexual activists claim to be protesting homophobia. But what is homophobia?

Webster’s definition is irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. But is all fear of homosexuality irrational?

Well, according to the homosexual activists, it is.

However, it is known that over 70% of AIDS sufferers are male homosexuals. Is it homophobic to report that? Or can we admit that there can be rational fears of homosexual sex? Medical doctors, particularly proctologists, say that there are diseases associated with homosexual sex. Is it homophobic for them to say that? Are all proctologists homophobes simply because they know the truth and may at some point be obliged to tell it to a homosexual?

What can health practitioners do to help homosexuals protect themselves if telling the truth is taboo? Can they warn them of the dangers of their lifestyle? Or should they pretend there is no risk in what they do?

When smokers with respiratory disease see a doctor – at least one who is worth his salt – they are told to quit, or at least cut back on their smoking habit.

Did you ever hear of a group of smokers demanding “recognition for the smoking community”?

Why do professionals march in lock step to oppose people with one kind of unhealthy lifestyle (smokers) while endorsing another group with another unhealthy lifestyle (practicing homosexuals).

It is because of something called political correctness. The smoker group has little or no political clout.

But “gays” are a potential treasure trove for unscrupulous politicians, who only want to exploit them for votes and care not a fig that many are headed to an early grave.

Thus we are confronted by the myth that the Left and unscrupulous “conservative” political groups, which exploit homosexuals, are friendly to the “gay” community, while conservatives, who warn of the dangers of their lifestyle, are “homophobic.” This is a complete reversal of human logic, but that is normal for the Left and their foot soldiers.

They wanna celebrate this? (DO NOT open the link if you have a weak stomach or about to sit down to a meal!)

Knowing that physicians, particularly proctologists, are familiar with diseases of the anus that are common among practicing homosexuals, I scoured the web for medical sites dedicated to sexually transmitted diseases caused by anal sex.

I was amazed to find no English language site that actually showed photos of such conditions. Nor did I find much in other languages. I suspect this is because such graphic illustrations of the devastating power of same-sex sex would be “offensive” to its practitioners. However, one brave specialist in these diseases did put up such photos in his Spanish language site and he may be the only one (look for this site to go down soon). Now, I do not recommend that you just blithely open this link without at least preparing yourself for a shock to your psyche. These are some of the most horrible, sickening pictures you will ever see.

On the other hand, if you are not sure whether to believe the PC propaganda that homosexuality is something noble or romantic and deserving of special recognition, then you may wish to open these and have a look to satisfy yourself that there is a very important aspect to homosexuality that you are not being told. That the true face of the homosexual lifestyle is anything but glamorous and not necessarily something worthy of protection or “recognition.”

Here is the link to the very graphic site  that you can peruse to evaluate the claims that homosexuality is a viable lifestyle that you can support (it is in Spanish, but the diseases are anal-sex related, as you can see). But don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Now, homosexual activists demanding recognition for the activity undeniably causing the above-illustrated diseases claim that a homophobe is someone who calls their lifestyle unhealthy. Yet, every medical practitioner who has seen these diseases knows that this lifestyle is unhealthy.

If a physician said smoking is a worthwhile lifestyle, he would meet with vehement protests on that part of the media and politicians. No one would defend him. They would say he is irresponsibly enabling people with bad habits to harm themselves. That would be true.

Yet, when it comes to homosexuality, we apply a glaring double standard. Any physician who dared to suggest to one of his homosexual patients that he “lay off” homosexual activity would be opening himself up to a lawsuit. And any media outlet suggesting this would be the object of vehement protests.

Our hypocritical government, with the backing of hypocritical media, educators, professionals, and even many members of the clergy, does nothing to curb the clearly dangerous homosexual lifestyle and even does all it can to promote it, thereby promoting these horrible diseases.

And, in keeping with its habit of reversing all traditional values and commons sense, the PC media and leftist politicians insist that anyone pointing out the obvious dangers of homosexual sex is a benighted homophobe, while people who celebrate this lifestyle are homo-friendly and enlightened.

So to recap:

If you don’t mind seeing homosexuals trapped in a dangerous and filthy lifestyle, you are ok in today’s West. But if you care about them and dare to suggest that they need to beware of the obvious pitfalls, then you are a homophobe.

They have gotten it exactly backwards. Anyone promoting the “gay” agenda is actually a homophobe and is harming the “gay” community, just as anyone promoting smoking would be harming smokers.

That’s why you if you want to celebrate the International Day Against Homophobia, you need to do it by sending this article to as many of your “gay” friends as possible. It could save a life.

But don’t expect any thanks from the “gay” community.

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/teen-suicide-and-homosexuality/1928.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/would-you-believe-genocide-against-homosexuals/2188.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/is-gay-marriage-a-historical-imperative/1626.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/did-paul-mean-homosxual-or-man-ogler/1292.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/307/307.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/category/gay-agenda

Friends, the Western world is falling into the hands of the wicked. I solicit your prayers for our brother Julio, who has suffered great persecution and is still in hiding. At the end of this article are some links to his site. Check it out. Keep in mind that Julio and his family are fugitives because of the stand he takes and the cold-blooded viciousness of gay activists and their minions in the Brazilian government. Imagine being hunted like an animal for your beliefs. Please give as you are led.

Blogs as tools to express the voice of God’s Kingdom

By Julio Severo

A few days ago I received a message from a visitor who recently became acquainted with my blog:

Julio, how are you?

Last Tuesday (26/April/2011) I was having a nap at lunch time and  a name came to me in a dream. I am not in the habit of writing down my dreams, but the name was very clear. I woke up and wrote down the name: JULIO SEVERO.

I had never heard your name before and when I got home I googled it and saw that you are also a Christian and that you fight to preserve Gospel principles from corruption.

Well, I do not believe in coincidences…

I do not believe in coincidences either, at least not this kind.

In my interview with Christianismo Hoje* (the Brazilian version of the magazine Christiany Today) I said,

Early in 1995 I clearly felt God directing me to write a book about the threat posed by the homosexual movement. For weeks, I hesitated, because the homosexual issue was a formidable taboo. There were no gay parades in Brazil, and none of the homosexual obsession we see everywhere today, in the schools, the media, etc. After some time, I overcame my fears, accepted the calling of the Spirit, and began to research the homosexual movement. When, by mid-1995, the first international conference of ILGA in the South Hemisphere was held in Brazil, I understood God’s plan to call me into the battle, because after the conference, Brazilian gay groups made an extraordinary push to advance their agenda. God anticipated this spiritual assault from hell with an action of the agenda of God’s Kingdom. Thus my book “O Movimento Homossexual” (The Homosexual Movement), was born and was published by Editora Betânia, the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers, in1998.

When my book “O Movimento Homossexual” was published in 1998, many thought it was an exaggeration and said that forecasts would never come true. Sadly, they eventually did. And today its readers call me a prophet. The exaggerater of yesterday is today’s prophet.

In 1999, on receiving an autographed copy of my book “O Movimento Homossexual,” Bishop Robson Rodovalho said that he had received the revelation that in the future I would be severely persecuted because of the message of my book, and be forced to flee from place to place. It was an accurate prophecy, but I am sad that the one who delivered it eventually joined the political system that spawned PLC 122 and other absurdities. PLC 122 is the most threatening anti-“homophobia” bill in the Brazilian Congress.

In 2002, even without a blog, I began to warn against an electoral victory for socialist Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva. In 2003, with just a page of articles in the Brazilian Christian website JesusSite, I revealed to Brazil for the first time that the Lula administration had introduced in the United Nations (UN) a resolution classifying homosexuality as an inalienable human right. This was the first time this kind of initiative had come before the UN.

After I reported on this, a Representative in the Brazilian Congress requested an accounting from the Brazilian government because Brazilian representatives at the UN were taking actions without the knowledge of the Brazilian people and Congress. There was also a petition against the Lula administration’s resolution.  JesusSite suffered an attack by hackers and went down. Despite many threats it received pressuring me to remove my articles, JesusSite* stayed firm.

The pioneering resolution from the Lula administration in the UN never advanced, and ILGA, the largest homosexual organization in the world, complained that grass-roots resistance in Brazil stemming from “extremist” websites was helping to deter the resolution. Who said that today there are no little Davids to take down  massive Goliaths?

With the Lula administration’s obsessive pro-sodomy policies, the message of my book, which had been seen as exaggerated, was now coming into focus. Even congressmen were making references to my book in their official speeches in the Congress.

At the inspired insistence of a brother in the Mid-Night Call Ministry, I eventually created a blog at the beginning of 2005, with this brother guiding me in the first steps. The first year, I published very little.

Only later did I begin issung warnings to Brazil more regularly. And God honored me. At the same time, philosopher and Reformed theologian Harold O. J. Brown invited me to write the leading article in his academic periodical The Religion & Society Report. The essay was published in August 2006 and is available in an online version. This was the first time my watch dog ministry was acknowledged by a respectable international publication.

Through my blog, my still small voice was now showing the United States and the world the homosexualist face of Lula and his socialist ideology. Brown told me he did not realize that Lula was so radical, and he wanted to help people outside Brazil learn the truth.

In 2007, I was interviewed by LifeSiteNews, the largest Catholic pro-life news website in the world. It was my small voice echoing with immutable values that transcend frontiers.

Yet, as far as the performance of my simple blog is concerned, the most remarkable aspect in 2007 was the awareness effort against PLC 122, the anti-“homophobia” bill introduced by a member of PT (Lula’s party) in the Brazilian Congress. The bill sought to give government the power to exercise out and out thought control and would have criminalized any speech construed as “antigay.” It amounted to nothing less than a direct ban on biblical Christianity. In February 2007, a group of influential conservative Catholics contacted me to launch an awareness effort. They had read my writings on homosexuality, prepared a paper based on my articles and wanted me just to put my signature in it. Their role would be to spread the message. My role would be to lend my name.

The campaign made great strides. After March 2007, the awareness movement grew like wildfire and was soon unstoppable, having struck the consciences of many people. But there was a price to pay. The same year the campaign was launched, gay activists, in their effort to thwart me, managed to convince Google in Brazil to shut down my blog. With the intervention of Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, in an article in the paper Jornal do Brasil denouncing attacks against me, and protests from several lawyers, including an attorney who called Google, my blog came back online.  

Before February 2007, I had already intended to  oppose PLC 122. Yet, in the months of November and December 2006 and January 2007, I was hiding in a refuge with my family, because of persecution.

Before this persecution, God had used a former homosexual to warn me that the devil was trying to destroy me. November happened to be the month that PLC 122 was approved in the House of Representatives in Brazil. Lacking the means to act, I dunned Dr. Zenóbio Fonseca for several weeks to write an article against the anti-“homophobia” bill, because his special legal knowledge was vital. His consulting work allowed him little time, but eventually he managed to write the article. Next, the Catholic message* to mobilize Brazilians was ready, and it was sent to countless thousands of email addresses and other media.

The sequel was that hundreds of blogs, not to mention thousands of people forwarding e-mails against PLC 122, became such a strong chain that the passage of this bill, which was taken for granted because of the influential and imposing support of government and media, eventually became uncertain, because of the resistance, particularly from Evangelical and Catholic blogs.

Catholic and Evangelical magazines — with a shallow Christianity and deep-rooted political ideologies — either ignored the story or gave it short shrift. Had it been up to them, Brazil would today be in thrall to the Kingdom of the Workers’ Party, of Dilma Rousseff and her antecessor Lula, with the passage of PLC 122 hovering like a sword over the heads of prophetic Christians.

Yet, blogs speaking with the voice of God’s Kingdom are having a major impact in opposing the massive power of magazines, papers and TV channels that mirror — and are paid to mirror — the voice representing the ideology and system of state idolatry.

And unlike evangelical TV shows, which ignore or fail to denounce the government’s promotion of aberrations like PLC 122, pro-family blogs are not afraid to speak out against state threats.

The strong resistance to PLC 122 today is a symbol of what can happen when humble little blogs serve as a vehicle for the voice of God’s Kingdom. If one blog makes a lot of people uncomfortable, a host of blogs united in the same effort much more effectively spread the uncomfortable truth that shakes people into action.

In the wilderness of disinformation from magazines, newspapers and blogs that reflect the voice of the political machine and its ideology, God can lead, even through dreams, those who need to know the truth.

This is the value God assigns to blogs that carry His voice.

Do you want be used by God through a blog? Hear and mirror His voice.

PS:

Dear Donhttp://acapa.virgula.uol.com.br/blogs/cindy-butterfly/fanatismo-religioso-um-dia-de-furia!/100/13513/

Let me tell you something important, which perhaps your readers would like to know. Today, as the articles I sent you today show, the Brazilian Senate would vote PLC 122, the anti-”homophobia” bill, but I encouraged Brazil to resist and in the afternoon today the largest gay website in Brazil reported that because of me and another evangelical, who is a televangelist, the anti-”homophobia” bill was not voted today!! See here:

Praise God!

Julio

Reviewed by Don Hank.

* These are Portuguese links. Links without an asterisk are English links.

Portuguese version of this article: Blogagem profética

Spanish version of this article: Blogging profético

Source: Julio Severo in English

www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Other articles by Julio Severo:

Why I am not a socialist

por Don Hank

¿Existe alguna amenaza de que los homosexuales en los países occidentales pronto sean  eliminados por peligrosas bandas homofóbicas?

Pregunta ridícula, ¿verdad?

No, los homosexuales gozan de privilegios especiales aquí en el Occidente. En San Francisco ellos tienen libertad de circular desnudos por las calles durante el desfile del orgullo gay en la calle Folsom practicando actos sexuales reales en público a la vista de los infortunados espectadores, inclusive niños, que tengan la desgracia de encontrarse con este escenario. (No voy a dar los enlaces de las fotos de esta perversión, pero si desea confirmación, solo necesita buscar en Google utilizando las palabras clave: folsom street gay pride o cosas similares).

Entre tanto muchos gobiernos occidentales se encuentran afectados por las “terribles condiciones” de los gays, mientras que cristianos en el mundo entero están perdiendo el derecho de dar testimonio de la cura y del poder redentor de Dios por medio de Jesucristo. La agenda de estos tiranos, que nos gobiernan por medio de furtivas maniobras sin nuestro consentimiento, es evidente para todos los que tienen al menos la mitad del cerebro: Ellos están ansiosos por acabar con la cultura cristiana tradicional — de hecho, cualquier cultura mínimamente decente que incluya la boda tradicional, la ley y el orden.

A la vez los nuevos gobiernos “democráticos” en el Oriente Medio masacran las poblaciones cristianas, mientras gozan del pleno apoyo de casi toda la clase dominante — la oligarquía que maneja un poder cada vez más dictatorial a través de los grandes medios de comunicación, universidades, sistema “educativo” y la gran mayoría de las clases profesionales, y nuestra propia clase dominante pretende que se preocupan profundamente por la persecución de los gays.

Poco después que el gobierno americano invadió Irak, las iglesias cristianas asirias comenzaron a ser quemadas y sus congregaciones perseguidas, asesinadas y dispersas. Muchos ahora viven en Suecia. El gobierno americano no dijo nada, pretendiendo que el único enemigo era el “terrorismo”, no el fanatismo islámico. Los cristianos coptos en Egipto están, en este momento, sufriendo un destino similar, en gran parte gracias a la colaboración de Occidente. Las fuerzas armadas del nuevo gobierno “democrático” egipcio con el apoyo de Obama y de los líderes de Europa atacaron a un monasterio copto poco después de que Mubarak fuera derrocado de la presidencia, baleando y matando a varios monjes. La Hermandad Musulmana, con el apoyo de Barack Obama, está detrás del asesinato y de la persecución. La prensa occidental está totalmente de boca cerrada.

Pero la Clase Dirigente y los medios de comunicación nos dicen que los que están siendo perseguidos son los gays y que tienen extrema necesidad de nuestra protección. Es mentira. Los homosexuales no sufren ni siquiera una fracción del uno por ciento de la persecución que los cristianos están sufriendo en el mundo entero. Sin embargo, ellos son la nueva clase protegida, y gobiernos como el de Brasil se están apresurando para ayudarlos como si ellos hubieran sido víctimas de un tsunami, terremoto y desastre nuclear. (¿Y Su país tiene programas para proteger a los gays como si fueran una especie en vías de extinción?).

En la mayoría de los países nadie se atreve a mencionar que su estilo de vida produce enfermedades como el SIDA u otras ETS. Nadie puede siquiera dar asesoramiento y asistencia a los ex-gays o personas con atracciones no deseadas hacia el mismo sexo. Mi amigo brasileño Julio Severo se vio obligado a abandonar su patria porque ayudaba a los hombres deseosos de una mejor vida a superar la homosexualidad y vivir vidas seguras, saludables y morales.

Él les estaba ofreciendo una valiosa ayuda.

Pero los dirigentes de la extrema izquierda de Brasil, empezando con el ex presidente Lula y ahora continuando con Dilma Rousseff (que es más virulentamente anti-cristiana y ex terrorista implicada en el asesinato de varias personas, incluyendo un estadounidense), dice que es ilegal ayudar a los homosexuales a superar su estilo de vida.

Cualquier persona que se encuentre en ese estilo de vida está prácticamente enjaulada por la ley para el resto de su vida.

Cualquier hombre que quiera abandonar el sexo anal, por razones de seguridad, fe o moralidad, o cualesquiera que sean las razones, se le recomienda salir de Brasil.

No hay espacio para la decencia en Brasil, que está siendo objeto de una andanada de malignidad ultra-marxista y no tiene como salir de este curso. El resto de Occidente está siguiendo la misma tendencia.

Y la mayoría de los americanos (y europeos) no está atenta a la tragedia moral que se está develando en Brasil — y en muchos otros países occidentales.

Es hora de despertarnos y tratar de conocer a las personas que viven en el mismo hemisferio que nosotros. Es hora de aprender una nueva palabra en el vocabulario: No.

No con nosotros. No con mi país.

Más detalles sobre Julio:

Julio Severo provocó un “terremoto” cuando advirtió a las iglesias y al pueblo de Brasil acerca de la agenda gay y sobre la reversibilidad del inmoral estilo de vida gay.

Él es el autor del libro “El Movimiento Homosexual” publicado en 1998 por la Editora Betania. Su obra fue el primer libro en portugués a desenmascarar las intenciones del movimiento gay.

En 2007, cuando ayudó a concientizar al público sobre el PLC 122, el proyecto de ley “contra la homofobia”, los activistas gays comenzaron amenazar a la Editoria Betania, que bajo esa presión dejó el libro. Los activistas también presentaron demandas contra Severo. Desde entonces, fiscales federales han estado tratando de ponerle mordaza y de bloquear sus artículos.

Probablemente no pueden hacer nada contra él ahora, porque está lejos de Brasil. Sin embargo, la mayor organización gay en Brasil, que recibió el apoyo de Hillary Clinton para tener una acreditación oficial ante la ONU en 2010, está tratando de encontrar su ubicación. Esta misma organización, la ABGLT, también presentó una demanda en su contra.

Traducido de portugués para español por Maria Valarini

Versión en portugués: Dá para acreditar que existe algum genocídio contra homossexuais?

Blog de Julio Severo en español:

www.julioseveroenespanol.blogspot.com

Fuente: Laigle’s Forum

 por Don Hank

 ¡Ay de los que a lo malo dicen bueno, y a lo bueno malo…!

Iasaías 5:20

El grupo activista católico C-FAM informó recientemente:

“El movimiento internacional para incluir el comportamiento y la identidad homosexual dentro de una nueva clase de derechos especialmente protegida una vez más pone la mirada en el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU. “

Este movimiento no es nuevo y cuenta con el pleno apoyo de la mayoría de los dirigentes occidentales.

Lo que choca aquí es la falta de una correspondiente propuesta para proteger a los cristianos y los Judíos Ortodoxos, que en el Medio Oriente están siendo masacrados, y que, en el Oeste, están perdiendo el derecho de expresarse y pensar libremente — un derecho sin el cual nada más seríamos (¿o somos?) esclavos.

El mencionado masacre de los cristianos de Medio Oriente, que se ha intensificado simultáneamente con los movimientos “democráticos” que la UE, la EU y la ONU tanto apoyan, no ha sido motivo de ninguna protesta de parte de estos grupos, que tan hipócritamente lloran la persecución de los “gays”, los cuales en ninguna parte del Oeste han sufrido ni la décima parte de la persecución que han sufrido los cristianos.

El motivo de esa política es muy obvio para observadores con la más mínima inteligencia y sensibilidad, que durante los últimos años han visto un creciente número de casos legales contra cristianos. En el Reino Unido, por ejemplo, un profesional o negociante que se atreve a hablar a un Musulmán sobre su fe cristiana  puede ser demandado o hasta arrestado por el crimen de ofender a un musulmán (el musulmán, al contrario, puede ofender al cristiano con impunidad).

 Es más, este mes una pareja en Inglaterra, dueña de una casa de acogida, perdió su derecho a seguir en su profesión y acoger a orfanatos porque, en base a su fe cristiano que incluye claras enseñanzas del apóstol Pablo sobre el tema, se negó a enseñar a los niños que el homosexualismo sea “normal” y aceptable. Con otras palabras, negó a renunciar su fe y fue castigado por ello.

La Clase Dirigente de Europa y EU está ansiosa por destruir las últimas trazas de la cultura cristiana tradicional que persisten en el Viejo Continente. Y lo más cínico del caso es que realiza esta destrucción con la colaboración de clérigos cómplices que se han vendido al enemigo del cristianismo por lucro y prestigio. En Inglaterra, muchos clérigos enseñan que el matrimonio “gay” es aceptable y en Alemania la Asociación de Evangélicos aboga por la construcción de misquitas, que muchas veces implica contribuciones de parte del gobierno. De esta forma los cristianos son obligados a donar su dinero para construir misquitas en las cuales los imames a veces enseñan el odio contra los europeos y promueven el terrorismo.

Lastimosamente, esa propaganda anticristiana tan transparente, que pinta a los homosexuales y musulmanes como víctimas, con el fin de inducir a los occidentales ingenuos a actuar en contra de su propia cultura y moral, está funcionando a maravilla gracias a un pueblo de ovejas que rápido está perdiendo la capacidad del pensamiento autónomo.

Y por lo tanto su propia libertad.

El autor es un traductor técnico y el dueño del blog internacional Laigle’s Forum.

First, please read Mr. de Carvalho’s commentary on this and then my email to the professor who wishes to harm Julio even more. I had originally hoped Professor Nicolelis would respond, but he has chosen to ignore my email.

Pastor Severo is a perfect example of how a Christian minister who wants to help homosexuals break away from their dangerous lifestyle (70% of AIDS cases are active male homosexuals) is persecuted by influential Leftists who want to make sure they never break away and remain trapped. The death of these unfortunate people seems to make no difference at all to the callous Brazilian Left, which also wholeheartedly supports the murder of the unborn.

The fact is, these same leftists who want to keep homosexuals trapped in their unwanted lifestyle are the real homophobes, despite the fact that they falsely label others that way.

Emails for Dr Nicolelis if you desire an explanation for his actions:

nicoleli@neuro.duke.edu

and colleagues (be polite):

http://www.neuro.duke.edu/faculty/nicolelis/personnel.html

Don Hank

The technique of reverse labeling

by Olavo de Carvalho

Miguel Nicolelis is a neuroscience teacher at Duke University (USA), founder of the Edmond & Lilly Safra Neuroscientific Institute (Macaíba, RN) and member of the Brazilian and French Academies of Sciences. Added to that notable curriculum was his recent appointment by Pope Benedict XVI to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Viomundo website, directed by journalist Luiz Carlos Azenha, now introduces him in a still more attractive light, claiming the scientist is a defenseless victim of a vast hate and fear mongering campaign waged by the eternally abominable “extreme right.”

Shocked and intimidated by the murderous virulence of the campaign, Prof. Nicolelis, in a tone of spurious sincerity distinguishing him as an unconditional follower of the free and democratic debate, warns against the dangers of ideological radicalization:

“Your political, ideological opponent starts to be seen as your enemy. And that enemy is subject to any kind of punishment, even death. I cannot imagine that those people spreading hate, revenge and violent messages can at the same time be Christians.”

But, after all, what did the murderous campaign consist of? It consisted of two things: Firstly, a ten-line story, published at the Rorate Coeli website on January 5 (see: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/pope-names-pro-abortion-and-pro-gay.html), stating that Prof. Nicolelis is a fervent defender of abortion and the gay agenda (and also, as of last year, of the candidacy of radical socialist Dilma Rousseff). His presence in an institution linked to the Catholic Church is therefore a little strange. Then, an article written by American journalist Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, published on the website Last Days Watchman (see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/defender-of-for-abortion-and-homosexualist-police-appointed-to-vaticans-to) and later reproduced with or without additions and comments on a few Christian websites, among them the Brazilian version of Lifesitenews, Notícias Pró-Família, administered by Brazilian writer Julio Severo (I will speak about him later on). Hoffman, who is a Catholic, commented, “Pope Benedict XVI is a staunch defender of the right to life and of family values, and it is unlikely that he was aware of Nicolelis’ record when he made the appointment.”

Was there some threat, any hint of injurious plans? Prof. Nicolelis admits, “No, there was none.”

In view of these perfectly inoffensive expressions of disagreement, how did Prof. Nicolelis react? By debating with his opponents? No way. He himself describes his argumentative procedures:

“My laboratory staff contacted Duke University, warned about those websites and the university police have already begun to monitor the case. The security of my laboratory was reinforced… Nobody enters there without going through security procedures.”

And he cautions: at the first threatening sign in Brazil, he will call the Federal Police immediately.

Among the potential aggressors of Prof. Nicolelis denounced by the Viomundo website, one has already been put under control. Julio Severo, wanted by Brazilian authorities for the heinous crime of having stated and insisted that homosexuality is a sin and curable, is hidden abroad, moving from one country to another, living in extreme poverty with a wife and four small children. Journalist Luiz Carlos Azenha mentions that fact with evident contentment. The Fórum website, by columnist Luis Nassif (http://blogln.ning.com/forum/topics/homofobia-em-preto-e-branco), also celebrates it as a sign that Brazilian democracy is progressing.

The logical premises forming the basis of Prof. Nicolelis’ statements and the reports of the Viomundo and Forum websites could not be more evident:

1) Uttering a single word against homosexuality, even in a generic way and with no threat, is incitement to violence, something unworthy of people professing to be Christians.

2) An informed citizen and lover of the free and democratic debate should react to those opinions by presenting himself publicly as a victim under imminent attack, calling police and having his unfortunate critics persecuted like criminals and hunted down like animals.

The brutally exaggerated reaction is expected to prompt the distinguished public to believe piously that the violent individuals are those who expressed opinions, not those who mobilized against them the armed forces of the repressive State system.

If the reader wanted a local illustration of what I have written previously on the technique of reverse labeling, this is it.

The constant and obsessive use of that technique is one of the most trivial manifestations of the general inversion of reality, characteristic of the revolutionary mentality.

Not by coincidence, but very significantly, Prof. Nicolelis had been railing some time ago against the “hysterical right.” Hysteria, by definition, is a hyperbolic reaction to some imaginary and false provocation. Therefore, when Prof. Nicolelis reacts hysterically, it is the others who are hysterical.

Translated by Julio Severo. Reviewed by Don Hank.

Portuguese version of this article: The technique of reverse labeling

Spanish version of this article:  La técnica de la rotulación inversa

Source: Diário do Comércio

Divulgation: Julio Severo in English

www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

My email to Nicolelis:

Dear Dr. Nicolelis,

You have recently complained that groups of bloggers, whom you refer to as “ultra-right” have expressed concern that you, while serving as a member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, also are outspokenly pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage – positions diametrically  opposed to the Vatican’s positions.

It is not surprising that, given the Vatican’s approval of your membership (despite their disagreement with your views), this annoys you, as you have made clear. What surprises is that, in an interview with Viomundo you express fear that anyone who opposes your viewpoints on these issues is a potential threat to your safety or possibly your life.

I learned of this situation when I was asked to edit a translation by Olavo de Carvalho dedicated to your apparently intransigent viewpoint as expressed in that interview and elsewhere. I had intended to run the translation at my web site (Laigle’s Forum) but I then realized, I do not have a personal quarrel with you and it would perhaps be unfair to run this article before hearing your side of the story.

De Carvalho’s article says that, for you

1—Uttering a single word against homosexuality, even in a generic way and with no threat, is incitement to violence, something unworthy of people professing to be Christians.

2—An informed citizen and lover of the free and democratic debate should react to those opinions by presenting himself publicly as a victim under attack, calling police and having his unfortunate critics persecuted like criminals and hunted down like animals.

Obviously, Mr. de Carvalho is being ironic here. But he is conveying the impression, based largely on the aforementioned interview, that you are not in favor of a free debate on certain topics.

My question to you is:

Is an objective debate on homosexuality or abortion, for example, possible in your world or is Mr. de Carvalho correct in his ironic statement about your inflexibility in such areas? Such inflexibility would certainly seem incompatible with a questioning, scientific mind and with the image you otherwise project as a scientist dedicated to open and uninhibited inquiry. I therefore want to give you a chance to respond so that my readers can hear your side as well.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Don Hank

Editor, Laigle’s Forum