Is Dilma impeachment the result of a US-Soros-led covert operation?

Is Dilma impeachment the result of a covert US-Soros operation?

by Don Hank

The alternate news site counterinformation.com takes a critical view of the Dilma Rousseff impeachment process and its lead-up in Brazil, pointing out that it has all the earmarks of a Washington-led covert action. The cogent analysis they present supports what I have thought from the outset.

I never liked the far-left Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, whose politics are not far from those of Barack Obama. Here is an article I wrote condemning her character and politics: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/29/terrorist-who-will-be-brazils-next-president-came-to-our-white-house/.

If you read that article, you will see why I condemned her. I still do.

However, now that she is being impeached, a larger issue has emerged, and that is, the meddling of the corrupt leftist Washington government in sovereign governments in a cynical effort to force its will on other peoples.

My reason for opposing this meddling is two-fold:

Firstly, the elites we summarily call the New World Order have attacked a common-sense and morally justified principle that could be called the “Westphalian principle,” described by our friend Bernard Chalumeau here. It is a time-tried principle in international law, which is intended to prevent a country or countries from overpowering other, weaker countries for their own selfish purposes. If we transposed this situation to the school yard and applied it to weaker kids being bullied and having their lunch money stolen by bullies, then no one would argue that the bully must be opposed and defeated.

But in the international arena, the elites know that they can easily pull the wool over the eyes of a public who think foreign affairs are too complicated to study and understand and who are more than willing to turn over the conduct of foreign policy  – including decisions to send our young people to war –  to an elitist government claiming to be “experts” when in fact they have little or no diplomatic skill, little knowledge of the cultures of the regions they deal with (as I pointed out here; see the heading “Culture” about 9 paragraphs from top of the article), and absolutely no moral values whatsoever. Thus they fit the MO of Neoconservatism as described by the founders of that movement, which I summarized here (has no relation at all to true conservatism but millions of duped “conservatives” think it does).

My other reason is the disastrous outcomes of US meddling in other countries, such as Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and others. Washington’s efforts to overthrow governments never result in the replacement of a corrupt government by a stable, viable new government and a viable economy. Entire peoples are ruined as a result. (The Western press refuse en bloc to report on the current genocide in Kosovo. Please see this report).

While my attitude toward Dilma as a president remains unchanged, I want the reader to consider the larger aspect of a corrupt hypocritical Washington government stirring up an uprising against alleged corruption in Brazil (BTW, note that Dilma was not accused of a crime).

Not 5 minutes after I posted this article, one of my researchers sent me this: 

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/brazils-democracy-to-suffer-grievous-blow-today-as-unelectable-corrupt-neoliberal-is-installed/ 

Looks like the impeachment is a done deal and, assuming there was US involvement, Brazil could be added to the growing list of countries ruined by US meddling. I’d hate to be a Brazilian today.

Sex ed material with gay content suspended by Brazilian president

Laigle’s Forum recently ran an article by our friend Julio Severo showing how Julio and a handful of allies who trusted in God, almost single-handedly brought down the pro-gay political juggernaut in Brazil, which bullies and threatens anyone who dares to oppose “gay” marriage and the official view that homosexuality is a harmless and healthy lifestyle worthy of protection. For now, Julio is in hiding, thanks to these threats. But a blogger and his faith can move mountains, as we see below. As always, we urge you to visit Julio’s web site via one of the links below and give your most generous gift. Julio has sacrificed everything to do what he does and has no other source of income but your donations.

 

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:

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