Pro-abort, pro-‘gay’ marriage Duke U prof threatens to sic cops on detractors

The following commentary titled “The technique of reverse labeling” reflects a situation that is so absurd as to be almost laughable – that is, if it weren’t for the harm that is being done to at least one persecuted Christian, our good friend Julio Severo, who is in hiding thanks to a Marxist government that criminalizes all public speech unfavorable to homosexuals.

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

MSNBC thinks we’re even stupider than before

MSNBC massages poll, calls national TV show “private”

By Don Hank

Censorship has always happened in one form or another, since the beginning of time. However, the censorship in the US has usually been more or less muted, based on the assumption that a certain percentage of us are sentient.

That assumption seems to have eroded considerably lately, and precisely at a time when Americans are more awake perhaps than ever before. Never has the emperor looked more naked.

Recently, MSNBC ran a poll asking whether people thought Sara Palin’s and other political rhetoric (implication: conservative speech) may have contributed to the Tucson shootings. The poll numbers posted beneath the poll showed that only 35% thought there was no link between political “rhetoric” and massacres like that one. 60.5% fell obediently into line behind the Left and agreed there is a link. The rest weren’t sure.

On January 14 I sent the poll out to thousands of conservatives guaranteed to vote the other way.

The next day the poll results were unchanged, down to the last decimal! Incredibly, the poll is still up at this writing and there is no indication from MSNBC that the poll is closed.

A few of the recipients told me days later that the poll numbers were still unchanged. At least 3 days later, as more and more recipients notified me of the anomaly, I went to the poll and personally noted that the nos. were unchanged.

Of course, the Left, long noted for revisionism, invents its own truth. But this was so crass, it was mind boggling.

Then a few days later I sent to my short list a link to an MSNBC commentary by their own Rachel Maddow, not noted for her sympathy with the right. Incredibly, she was scathingly, blisteringly attacking Obama for a recent speech he made endorsing indefinite detention based on a “new legal regime.” She compared him favorably with GW Bush.

One of the recipients just today asked for another link. I thought “that’s strange. The link worked for me.” Sure enough, when I clicked, I got a message saying “this video is private.” Another link I found to the video said that due to “third party infringements,” they had to take it down. But yet, the video was originally put up by MSNBC for the general public to view, so that precludes any “third party” infringements. No one can infringe on a copyright if the material is intended for the public at large. Who do they think they are kidding? As for the other excuse, a video of a commentary made on national TV is “private”? Come on!

After looking on about a dozen sites, I finally found one that is a live link.

Please listen while you still can. Also, if you know how to make a copy, please do because this must not be lost. It is valuable evidence that even the Left cannot support Obama’s blatant violation of the Constitution:

http://dotsub.com/view/cfad3ce8-8b80-4981-ba6b-f48f184d6712

Another live link from a reader:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Z2ac34RDI

We are all loonies now

We are all loonies now

by Don Hank

There is at least one report that Jared Lee Loughner may be associated with the so-called “patriot movement,” sort of second cousins to the Libertarians. Indeed, he thinks (if it can be called thinking) exactly like one.

In the early 90s a business acquaintance of mine invited me to a meeting of a group he called “patriots.” They sat around discussing the Constitution and heroic people who defy the government on the basis of what they considered to be their constitutional rights. One of the first things I noticed was a frequent ear-grating misuse of the word “whom” (in the subjective case) by some of the speakers who seemed to be accepted as authorities by the rest of the group.

I was told that one of the guys in the group specialized in baiting the cops by driving around in a car without a tag. Whenever he was pulled over, he pulled a copy of the Constitution out of his glove compartment and showed the officer a clause protecting the right of free travel. This he interpreted to mean that the government could not force anyone to buy a license to use a car. This same gentleman was unemployed, spending most of his time fighting the “fascist” government. He couldn’t afford to pay his mortgage but claimed no one had the right to evict him, again, supposedly based on the Constitution. He had a sign on his door stating that the “owner of this house is a Christian gentleman” and something to the effect that no one had the right to evict him, alluding to the dear Constitution he claimed as his all-purpose personal shield. The group seemed to accord him a special degree of respect.

Another guy in the group, who was dependent on a prescription antidepressant, was obliged to leave his apartment upon expiry of his lease. He had made a pest of himself, going around challenging people, including his fellow tenants and his landlords, on the constitutionality of various laws. Like Jared Lee Loughner, he had made himself unwelcome everywhere, including in areas he had staked out as his turf.

This evicted “patriot” sued the landlord in court and told the judge it was his Constitutional right to have his lease renewed, but did not cite any particular part of the Constitution. It was as if that document was for him what a silver cross is to a vampire’s intended victim. Just brandishing it before the enemy makes you invulerable. The best he could come up with, following disjointed statements, was “my freedom was bought at the price of patriots’ blood.” 

He seemed to be conflating the Founders with Jesus. At any rate, the judge did not accept the argument.

This “patriot’s” case best spotlights what is wrong with a very tiny segment of the US population, who are neither leftists nor conservatives.  They claim to love their country but what they mean is themselves. The Constitution in no way calls for security for renters or restricts the right of property owners to rent to whomever they want to. It is in fact Statists who argue that landlords should not be entitled to freely choose whom they may or may not rent to but should rather be constrained by the State to rent to a percentage of minorities corresponding to the general demographics. The plaintiff in this case was in fact arguing for a kind of affirmative action for himself.

Claiming to be a “sovereign citizen,” this plaintiff was in fact demanding that the State intervene on his behalf against the wishes of his landlord. While claiming the Constitution as his defense, he was in fact using a liberal-progressive interpretation of that document.

It was just such a tragic and self-centered misunderstanding of the Constitution that seems to have motivated Jared Lee Loughner in his war against his Pima Community College. The college had learned early on that Loughner was extremely disruptive and posed a potential threat to his professors and classmates, and as a result, had seen fit to expel him. But Loughner asserted on his web page that they had deprived him of his First Amendment right to free speech.

There always will be people out there like Loughner and the patriots to whom I was introduced in the early 90s.

But these people most certainly are not conservatives, quite the opposite. They outwardly pretend to share our concern for the Constitution and for the way it is being trampled in our courts and legislatures.

But in fact, their concern is for themselves, their own selfish interests, and they are, in their own way, attempting to usurp and distort the Constitution for personal gain and power. In this way they are no different from the power happy activist judges in our courts. What these Statist patriots demand on their own behalf, the Statist Left demands in the name of social and economic justice. The difference is razor-thin.

Thus, seen in this light, the loony Left, in accusing conservative talk radio and TV hosts and politicians like Sara Palin of inciting loony Loughner to kill, is in fact trying to distance itself from a man who is arguably one of their own. They are succeeding in part so far because naive people on the other side have allowed themselves, out of fear, to be branded by their lies and people in the amorphous center believe them. They really ought to see through the subterfuge.

But looniness – in this case, manifested as the mental incapacity to see through a relatively transparent smoke screen — is spreading epidemically thanks to the wondrous distortive power of the press.

Conference Calls for Defense of Family through Film and Culture

Anthony Horvath, a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries which in turn is an apologetics organization with a unique bent:  it aims not just to defend the Christian faith through evidence and argumentation, but by influencing the culture through the arts.

Their second annual online apologetics conference has a more narrow emphasis:  a defense of Biblical marriage and the family through film, video, and movies.  After all, the family is constantly being undermined in our movies and sitcoms.  Homosexuality is being normalized right beneath our noses, and with it gay ‘marriage.’  The defense will have to be mounted not just at the political level, though.  We’ll have to fight fire with fire.  And, as it happens, Christians were never supposed to abandon the arts to secularists, anyway.

Please take the time to check out the conference home page:  http://onlineapologeticsconference.com/

Since the conference is held online, you can participate from anywhere around the world.  We look forward to seeing you there.

More info:

Keynote:

(Topics, if listed, are tentative)

  • Gene Edward Veith, Jr. Provost and Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, and columnist for World Magazine.  Website.  Topic:  “Cultural Apologetics.”

Others:


“A picture is worth a thousand words.”  Whether this is good or not, it is the reality.  Today, attitudes and beliefs are often shaped by the things we see and the movies we watch.  For some Christians, this would prompt them to consider withdrawing altogether from our media rich society.  However, movies, music, art, and literature are all expressions of human creativity- and humans, though fallen, still are made in the image of the Creator God.  Our artistic endeavors bear witness to our created nature and therefore have the potential to open eyes, hearts, and mind to the nature of the Creator.

Read the Rest