Gay Activism, by Olavo de Carvalho

This series of newspaper columns by Olavo de Carvalho was collected in this order in the book “The Minimum You Need To Know So As Not To Be An Idiot”.

In the first article, "Hatred of Reality", Olavo argues that certain homosexual practices pose significant health risks and questions why such behaviors should be legally protected from criticism. He asserts the superiority of heterosexual relationships, which ensure the continuity of the human species, over homosexual practices that he views as merely recreational.

The second article, "More Than Predictable Consequences", critiques the proposed anti-homophobia law in Brazil. Olavo warns that the law could criminalize a wide range of behaviors and opinions deemed “homophobic,” granting excessive power to the gay movement and leading to a form of authoritarianism comparable to a coup d’état or revolution.

In "Have You Noticed?", Olavo observes a societal shift where opposing gay marriage or abortion is labeled as “extremism.” He criticizes the media and authorities for accepting provocative actions by the gay movement while condemning peaceful religious expressions, arguing that this inversion of values undermines genuine freedom and reason.

The fourth article, "Psychologists and Psychopaths", discusses the prohibition of psychological treatment for those uncomfortable with their homosexuality. Olavo contends that this prohibition obscures the distinction between genuine sexual desire and neurotic behaviors, ultimately protecting neurosis under the guise of legal rights and reflecting a broader societal confusion between reality and fantasy.

• Hatred of Reality
• More Than Predictable Consequences
• Have You Noticed?
• Psychologists and Psychopaths

Hatred of Reality

Jornal do Brasil, May 17, 2007

Anal sex can cause rectal cancer; oral sex can cause throat cancer. Excluding masturbation, which does not require partners, this exhausts, with incomparably higher risks than those of the abhorred tobacco, the list of possible sexual contacts in a gay relationship. What is so exalted about these activities that any criticism of them should be prohibited by law?

I am certainly more willing to defend the right of parliamentarians to engage in these dangerous activities than they are to let me light a single cigarette in the increasingly vast areas where it is prohibited.

What I cannot understand is why harmful acts to health should be considered more worthy of official protection than the good old marital relationship from which we were all born, to the point that the mere assertion of the latter’s superiority is condemned as an abomination and a crime. After all, it is not possible to perform oral or anal sex without having been born, much less be born through these practices, whereas birth precedes them by many years and is completely independent of them. Among the various sexual activities, the one from which the continuity of the human species derives has manifest priority over those intended only for recreational or pleasurable purposes, no matter how interesting these may seem to their enthusiasts.

I cannot believe that my father would have acted better if, instead of depositing his sperm in my mother’s womb, he had injected it into the neighbor’s rectal conduit, from where the said liquid would go to the toilet at the first opportunity. Nor can I imagine that these two hypotheses are as noble and respectable as each other. As much as, in the light of gay doctrine, this may sound presumptuous, I cannot admit that I and a piece of feces are equally desirable and valuable results of a sexual relationship. Nor do I suppose that the parliamentarians themselves deserve this radical leveling, although many strive to achieve it.

All this is quite evident, and deputy Clodovil Hernandes¹ is proof that one does not need to be heterosexual to admit it.² If the assertion of the obvious is on the verge of becoming a crime, it is because the gay movement’s hatred is not directed against real injustices and persecutions (infinitely smaller, in any case, than those suffered by Christians and Jews), but against reason, logic, common sense, and civilization. Culturally, gay ideology stems from currents of thought that profess to destroy the “tyranny of logos” and establish, in place of rational order, the pure will to power of a overbearing and blackmailing activism.

Every time one of their spokespersons, like a new Queen of Hearts, orders everyone to bow down to absurd demands, they know they are not fighting “homophobia,” but the structure of reality or, in religious terms, the Divine Word. Only a total option for irrationality explains why, under the pretext of protecting a community from mere opinion, new judicial persecutions are sought against other communities that are not exposed to the mere risk of hearing unpleasant words but of dying in extermination camps.

More Than Predictable Consequences

Diário do Comércio, June 4, 2007

As it is not for the political analyst to tell people what they should or should not do in their private lives, I have never written a line for or against homosexual practices or any other erotic behavior, existing or yet to be invented. I have written against the gay movement as an ideological formula and a project of power. That was enough to label me “homophobic” countless times. Conclusion: if the damned law that our Parliament wants to pass were in effect, I would go to jail for political opinions.

In fact, the list of human attitudes punishable as “homophobic” is quite varied. It includes:

1. Citations of the Bible or sacred books of any religion that make moral objections to homosexuality.
2. Medical, psychiatric, and psychotherapeutic opinions that question, more or less explicitly, the sanity of homosexual behavior. This includes classic works by Freud, Adler, Szondi, Frankl, and Jung, among others.
3. Personal manifestations of physical repulsion towards homosexuality, an emotion as spontaneous and irrepressible as homosexual desire itself. (Conversely and complementarily, the repulsion of homosexuals towards heterosexuality, or even towards homosexual variants that do not coincide with their own, such as the repulsion of macho gays towards transvestites and transsexuals, will not only be considered licit but will be under the protection of the law, condemning as “homophobic” any objection to it or, worse yet, any attempt to repress it. In other words, the right to sexual repulsion will be the exclusive monopoly of the gay community.)
4. Popular verbal expressions, of spontaneous and irrepressible use, considered derogatory and anti-homosexual.
5. Jokes and jests that show homosexual behavior in a ridiculous light.
6. Political opinions contrary to the interests of the gay movement, which are already and increasingly necessarily interpreted as adverse to the rights of the homosexual community.
7. Sociological, historical, or statistical analyses that highlight any negative behavior of the gay community. These analyses are already practically excluded from the decent cultural universe. The law will prohibit them entirely.
8. Any resistance that a parent may offer to homosexual indoctrination of their children in schools or their participation in homosexual groups and entities.
9. Any attempt to prevent or repress, by words or actions, public expressions of gay erotism, discreet or ostentatious, moderate or extreme, even in front of children or in places consecrated to religious worship.
10. Any casual observation, made in the office, on the street, or even at home (if there are witnesses), that may be considered derogatory to homosexuals or the gay movement. This includes the simple expression of satisfaction that a citizen may have for being heterosexual.

In short, the law criminalizes and punishes with imprisonment countless behaviors considered normal, legitimate, acceptable, and even meritorious by almost the entire Brazilian population. And don’t think it will remain on paper. Right now, groups of watchers are being organized — first in schools, then everywhere — to monitor, denounce, and punish the ten types of behavior mentioned above.

The more than predictable consequences of the approval of this law are so portentous and unlimited that most citizens have difficulty conceiving them, limiting themselves to grasping their most superficial and apparent aspects, if not treating the subject with light indifference. But these consequences can be summarized as follows: with a single stroke of a pen, a highly organized militant group, generously subsidized from abroad, associated with left-wing parties and acting in accordance with the general strategy that guides them, will have conquered a quantity of discretionary police power as vast and threatening as could be obtained through a coup d’état or a revolution. Equipped with the necessary legal apparatus to terrorize all opposition, reduce it to humiliating silence, marginalize it, and make it socially inoperative, this group will have become, in the hands of the leftist alliance that governs us, another powerful instrument of social and political control, adding to the tax police, the occupation of territory by “social movements,” the hegemonic control over cultural and educational institutions, and the so-called moralizing police campaigns, which always target the left’s disaffection or politically innocuous criminal gangs, never the FARC agents, the true lords of crime on the continent, increasingly ostentatiously protected by the PT establishment.

In fact, the gay movement did not need to wait for the law to be approved to make its police ambitions felt by those who dared to contest its pretended authority. The judicial harassment of D. Eugênio de Araújo Sales,³ the efforts of gay activists and sympathizers to destroy the career, family, and even the soul of writer Júlio Severo, and the repetition of the same procedure against Pastor Ademir Kreuzfeld from Santa Catarina⁴ show that the gay elite has no shortage of weapons to persecute, frighten, and marginalize its adversaries, let alone defend themselves from the imaginary dangers that threaten them. The new law is surplus military material, only usable in perfectly superfluous demonstrations of strength.

That such an overwhelming rise in authoritarianism is necessary to protect poor homosexuals from jokes, jests, and Bible citations is an argument so laughable that only a complete idiot or a shameless liar could use it in a serious debate.

Worse still is the allegation of violence against homosexuals. I have already explained what the mere use of the term “homophobic” against the opponents of the gay movement has of Machiavellian, perverse, and criminal. But to the semantic crime is added the arithmetical perversion. Among the 50,000 Brazilians murdered annually, the gay movement has not managed to point out more than ten or twelve individuals who would have been — if they were — for “homophobic” reasons. To claim that anti-homosexual fury is a socially alarming and epidemic fact, in need of special and drastic legislation, is nothing more than a cynical farce, a parliamentary scam that, if there were a drop of rationality and decency in Brazilian politics, would cost its authors their mandate for lack of decorum, for the misuse of Congress as an instrument to serve unjustifiable group ambitions.

Much greater than the number of fatal victims of “homophobia” is the number of homosexual murderers, an obvious fact that the media systematically hides, reinforcing the legislative scam with journalistic fraud. And I say it is obvious for an even more obvious reason. It is not rationally acceptable that the percentage of homosexuals is much different among criminals and the honest population, the usual claim of the gay movement that the latter quota is 5 to 10% would necessarily lead us to several thousand homosexual murderers, not to mention homosexual thieves, homosexual drug dealers, and, evidently, homosexual parliamentary blackmailers.

But even that calculation would not be necessary to unmask the protective facade with which the law presents itself. One of the most salient traits of the gay movement is its effort to fight discrimination where it does not exist and to completely ignore it where it does exist. In Iran, homosexuality is punished with the death penalty. Have you ever seen the gay leadership organize an international protest against this? On the contrary, it allies itself with the other leftist forces to defend the ayatollahs' dictatorship against “Yankee imperialism.” In Cuba, homosexuals and transvestites are considered police cases, and when they catch AIDS, they are isolated forever from society. The gay elite not only refrains from protesting against this inhumane treatment but also does not want anyone to protest. Recently, a documentary about the humiliating condition of homosexuals in Cuba was excluded from a festival in New York — at the gay militancy’s request.

In contrast, in the USA and Western Europe, where gays have a privileged place in society and the practice of homosexuality has been an elegant tradition among the beautiful people at least since the 1920s, the clamor for laws that criminalize any criticism of homosexual behavior comes in a tone of someone advocating emergency measures to save the gay community from an imminent genocide.

In Brazil — one of the most permissive societies on the planet, where declared homosexuals occupy seats in Parliament to general applause, where grandmothers watch transvestite shows on TV with their grandchildren, and where a public spectacle of lesbian caresses between a governor’s wife and a minister’s wife does not cause the slightest scandal in the media — the anti-homophobic clamor gives the impression that homosexuals are being gunned down in the streets by an army of Christian Taliban.

Over the past decades, as all moralistic resistance to homosexual behavior gave way to generous understanding and unconditional acceptance, the demands of the gay movement in the West have grown, first demanding the moral equation of their practices with heterosexual marriage,⁵ then the teaching of homosexuality in elementary schools, finally the penalties of the law for priests, pastors, and rabbis who cite Bible verses against homosexuality.

The contrast between discourse and reality is evident: the gay movement grows in arrogance, virulence, and dictatorial pretensions as society becomes more tolerant, sympathetic, and subservient to the demands of the homosexual community. Who would have thought that sexual inversion would so often come along with mental inversion?

It is enough to observe this phenomenon to immediately realize that the characteristic claim of gay discourse, to protect an oppressed community, is merely a camouflage, an ideological veil spread over very different and incomparably more ambitious objectives.

A clue to the effective understanding of the phenomenon are the groups of homosexual intellectuals, politicians, and artists, tremendously powerful and influential, who marked the political and cultural history of the twentieth century with the cult of gay supremacy. Three of them are particularly important: the circle of Stefan George in Germany, André Gide in France, and, in England, the fraternity of the “Apostles” of Cambridge. In each of the three cases, public militancy — always on the wrong side, Nazi or Communist — covered a deeper and more sinister dimension, a Gnostic sect committed to subjugating common humanity to a homosexual elite imbued with a sense of almost divine superiority.

The current gay movement is the powerful and frightening materialization of a civilizational revolution project that, under the pretext of protecting the oppressed, does not hesitate to deliver them to the beasts when it suits its grand strategy. That this project is merely a specific development within the larger framework of the world revolutionary movement is so obvious that it does not need to be emphasized. But, due to the absolute misunderstanding of this point, the opponents of the gay movement, almost without exception, have committed two monstrous errors.

First: they combat, along with the movement, homosexuality itself. Politically, this is madness. The gay movement has existed for a few decades and only in some parts of the planet; homosexuality has existed everywhere since the world began. The first can be defeated; the second cannot be eliminated. Conditioning victory over the gay movement to the eradication of homosexuality is postponing that victory to the Last Judgment.

Second: trying to mitigate the bad impression of dogmatic authoritarianism that this attitude inevitably arouses, they hasten to declare that they respect the rights of gays and only wish to preserve, side by side with them, the rights of religious conscience. By doing so, they equal the unequal, negotiate the non-negotiable, level the freedom of conscience to a “sexual option,” to the preference for a certain type of erotic pleasure. Should these gentlemen be reminded that, deprived of erotic satisfaction, a human being suffers some discomfort, but deprived of freedom of conscience, loses the last remnant of dignity, the meaning of life, and the reason to exist?

In short: they are intransigent where they should yield, they yield where they should be intransigent, inflexible, and even intolerant. There is nothing wrong with accepting homosexuality as a social reality that cannot be eradicated and, if it is to be fought, it should be with all the necessary care not to hurt and humiliate people. In contrast, treating the highest principle of morality and the mere legal right to do certain things in bed as equally noble and respectable is a heinous inversion of logical and moral hierarchy, an ostentatious disobedience to the First Commandment, whose most obvious implication is the unconditional duty to put the first things first. If the opponents of the gay movement want God’s protection in their struggle, they should start by not offending Him in this way.

For my part, I state that I would defend by all means at my disposal the right of homosexuals to not have their sexual preference cost them humiliations or constraints. But as soon as one of these creatures pretended to equal or surpass this right over the freedom of conscience, of which it is itself only a logical consequence, albeit quite remote and secondary, I would respond to them, in the most polite way possible, with the following words:

— Shut up, fool. Do not ask me to respect a right that you yourself, although perhaps without realizing it, are trampling on with four paws.

Have You Noticed?

Diário do Comércio, August 23, 2012

Have you noticed that, in recent years, the mere opinion against gay marriage or the legalization of abortion has been condemned under the label of “extremism,” as if homosexual marriages or commissioned abortions were not shocking, revolutionary novelties, but millennia-old consensual practices, firmly anchored in history, human nature, and common sense, to which only a mad extremist could oppose?⁶

Have you noticed that public sexual exhibitionism, brutal offenses to religious faith, and the brazen invasion of temples have come to be accepted as normal means of democratic protest by that same media and those same constituted authorities who, in the face of the most peaceful and serene citation of the Bible, promptly alert against the “fundamentalist” abuse of freedom of opinion?

Have you noticed that the simple act of praying in public is considered a manifestation of “intolerance,” and that, conversely, the prohibition of praying is celebrated as the purest expression of “religious freedom”?⁷

Have you noticed that, after giving the term “fundamentalist” a sinister connotation due to its association with Islamic terrorism, the most respectable and elegant media outlets began to use it against pastors and believers, Catholics and evangelicals, as if Christians were the authors and not the helpless victims of terrorist violence in the world?

What you certainly haven’t noticed is that the easy transition from the epithets “extremist” and “fundamentalist” to “terrorist” has already surpassed even the phase of semantic mutations to become a real, practical instrument of state intimidation. You haven’t noticed because it was never reported in Brazil that, in the USA, any Christian who opposes abortion or contributes to campaigns to defend their persecuted co-religionists is theoretically regarded by Homeland Security as a prime target for “terrorism”⁸ although the number of terrorist acts committed so far by such people is, strictly, zero. In contrast, any suggestion that investigations should focus primarily on Muslims or leftists — the authors of the vast majority of attacks on American soil — is condemned by the government and the media as hate speech.

No member of the Family Research Council had ever shot anyone, nor punched, nor even insulted anyone when the leftist NGO Southern Poverty Law Center put that conservative organization on its hate list. When a gay fanatic entered there shouting anti-Christian slogans and shooting everyone, not a single media outlet called it a “hate crime.”

In all these cases, and in countless others, the strategy is always the same: to break the normal chains of association of ideas, invert the sense of proportions, force the population to deny what their eyes see and to see, instead, what the enlightened elite commands them to see.

No, it is not about persuasion. The beliefs thus propagated remain superficial, coming out of the mouth while the impressions that deny them continue to enter through the eyes and ears. What is sought is the opposite of genuine persuasion: it is to instill in the public a state of hysterical insecurity, where the contradiction between what is perceived and what is spoken can only be appeased by the expedient of speaking louder and louder, shouting what, deep down, is not believed nor can be believed. It is a calculated effect, a work of psychological technology. Can any gay activist sincerely believe that in a country with 50,000 homicides a year, a hundred or so murders of homosexuals prove the existence of an epidemic of anti-gay hatred? Of course not. Precisely because they cannot believe it, they have to shout it. Shout it to avoid realizing the existential farce in which they have bet their life, and on which they depend to keep their friends, their well-protected place in the militancy, their false identity as persecuted and discriminated in a society that does not dare to say a single word against them.

The ideal militant of these movements is not the sincere believer but the hysterical pretender. The former consents to lying in favor of their beliefs but retains some capacity for objective judgment and may, in crisis situations, become a dangerous internal dissident. The hysterical one, on the other hand, has no limits in their compulsion to falsify everything. The sincere militant uses lies as a tactical instrument; for the hysterical, it is an unavoidable necessity, a psychological lifeline. Inversion, the basic mechanism of revolutionary thinking, is above all a hysterical symptom. This is why for decades revolutionary movements have given up rational persuasion, lost all scruples of intellectual honorability, and are not ashamed to wave ostentatiously and deliberately absurd and self-contradictory banners. They do not need “true believers,” whose integrity causes problems. They need masses of hysterics, full of that passionate intensity W. B. Yeats spoke of, ready to stage sufferings they do not have, to fight fanatically for what they do not believe in, precisely because they do not believe and because only hysterical theatricalization keeps their militant solidarity bonds alive with thousands of other hysterics.

Psychologists and Psychopaths

Diário do Comércio, July 2, 2012

I do not believe that erotic attraction between people of the same sex is unnatural, and I see no reason, in principle, to classify it as a disease. It is also a fact that the term “homosexuality” does not correspond to a homogeneous phenomenon but to a variety of impulses, desires, and behaviors, ranging from repulsion to the opposite sex to complete identification with it. If, in the language of propaganda, such disparate behaviors are artificially reduced to the unity of ideological symbols, with opposing values depending on who uses them, that is no reason for mental health professionals to be carried away by identical semantic hysteria and, violating the most basic rule of logical technique, draw univocal conclusions from equivocal terms.

Moreover, there remains an inescapable fact: like any and all other human sexual behavior, homosexuality, in all the diversity of behaviors that the term covers, does not always stem from a genuine sexual desire. It can, in many cases, be a camouflage, an escape valve for emotional conflicts of another order, even unrelated to sexual life. It is possible and obligatory, in this case, to speak of false homosexuality, neurotic homosexuality, or even psychotic homosexuality, to distinguish it from normal homosexuality, born of an authentic and direct erotic impulse.

The prohibition of providing psychological treatment to patients who feel uncomfortable with their homosexual life results in a legal impediment to distinguish between these two specifically different types of behavior, between mere sexual impulse and neurotic symptomatology, thus equating homosexuality with disease.

On the other hand, this difference, in each specific case, cannot be established a priori, but only reveals itself in the course of psychotherapy itself. It is foreseeable that, once the deep conflict is removed, the interest in homosexual practice will decrease or disappear in the bearers of neurotic homosexuality, while normal homosexuals will continue to be so as before.

The prohibition of distinguishing them therefore results in covering up neurosis under a shell of legal protection, making the State the guardian of disease instead of the guardian of health.

The proposal to enshrine that prohibition in law reveals, in its authors, the inability to make elementary clinical distinctions, and this inability, in turn, gives us incontestable proof of a scientific inculture and professional ineptitude sufficient to justify these people being excluded from the corporation of psychologists. Their authority to opine on psychological issues is, strictly, none.

However, there is something even more serious. The proposal of the above-mentioned prohibition comes in the context of a movement created to prohibit and punish as a “crime of homophobia” any adverse opinion on homosexual behavior, regardless of the serene or inflamed, polite or impolite, rational or irrational language with which that opinion is expressed. Scientific opinions, philosophical judgments, and doctrinal teachings of religions are thus equated, as crimes, with the grossest insults and the most ostentatious manifestations of prejudice and discrimination.

Clearly, no word against neurotic or healthy homosexual behavior will be allowed.

Throughout history, no other human behavior has ever enjoyed such vast privilege, such comprehensive protection. None has ever been legally immunized against the possibility of criticism. This is not the case, for example, with any political behavior. This is not the case with any human quality, no matter how exalted and respectable. This is not the case with artistic or scientific genius, unblemished honesty, or even sanctity. This is not the case with the public or private conduct of anyone. This is not even the case with the usual conduct of a heterosexual couple, frequently criticized as a symptom of triviality and lack of imagination. This is not the case, finally, with God Himself, against whom all sorts of barbarities are freely spoken and written without fear of punishment.

The legal protection claimed for homosexuality is so clearly megalomaniac, so disproportionate to the rights of all other people and groups, that it will result in making this behavior a domain — the only domain — separate from and superior to life, untouchable, inaccessible to human opinions.

The proposal is so unequivocally demented that the mere fact that the media and Parliament discuss it seriously is already proof that much of society — precisely the most talkative and active part — has lost the innate sense of distinction not only between normal and pathological but between reality and fantasy. According to the great Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Łobaczewski,⁹ this happens precisely when the leadership positions are filled with psychopathic personalities, who, with their reckless actions and their cold insensitivity to normal human emotions, end up, when triumphant, spreading a state of stunned confusion, lack of discernment, and, ultimately, moral stupidity in the general population.

Can homosexuals be normal and healthy people? Of course, they can. But what leads someone to defend such monstrous juridical-political mutations as those mentioned here is not any sexual impulse, whether homo or hetero. It is pure and simple psychopathy. More than incompetent and unworthy of practicing as psychologists, the apostles of such measures are deformed, dangerous, destructive minds whose presence in high positions promises sure damage and suffering for the entire population.¹⁰

---

1. Editor’s Note: Clodovil Hernandes was a fashion designer, actor, and television presenter, elected federal deputy in 2006, as the fourth most voted in the country. He died in 2009, at the age of 71, due to a stroke.↩

2. Editor’s Note: “None of us would have been born if it weren’t for women. So I don’t know why this struggle [of the gay movement]. To prove what if we are children of heterosexuals? (...) I am not proud of being gay. I am proud of being who I am. I learned to be like this” Clodovil Hernandes, in a speech on March 21, 2007, in Brasília, available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1KnMdJ-Nak.↩

3. Editor’s Note: This refers to the article “A justiça de Nero,” by Olavo de Carvalho, published in O Globo, on July 24, 2004, which can be read at http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/040724globo.htm.↩

4. See http://www.juliosevero.blogspot.com/.↩

5. Editor’s Note: “It’s easy to talk, full-mouthed, about ‘equal constitutional rights,’ but the intended equality should extend exclusively to homosexuals or to all people who have sexual desires different from the average population? In the first case, it is not about equality, but discrimination. In the second, there will be no legal way to prevent a citizen from marrying their mother or daughter, much less their father or son. There will also be no legal basis for prohibiting bigamy or polygamy, not even mixed group marriages. Either the gay activists admit that they are fighting only for a highly discriminatory group privilege, or they have to accept that all these variant behaviors also deserve legal protection. It is absolutely intolerable for a legislator to approve — or disapprove — gay marriage without carefully analyzing this aspect of the issue” [Olavo de Carvalho, in a post on March 28, 2013, on Facebook].↩

6. Editor’s Note: “Do you know any gay activist, feminist, or pro-abortionist willing to agree that their group’s demands have relative value, that their opponents' beliefs have a share of reason and should be as respected as theirs? Have you ever seen any of them at least in theory recognize the right to fight their proposals without fear of reprisals? However, none of them would have even had a chance to be heard with attention and respect if the relativist vanguard had not previously undermined the intransigence of their opponents. They use relativism as a crowbar: when the door is broken, they instantly change the conversation and seek to condemn as a crime any attempt to relativize the authority of their demands” [Olavo de Carvalho, “False Relativists,” Diário do Comércio, March 25, 2013 — http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/130325dc.html].↩

7. If you haven’t noticed, read http://andrebarcinski.blogfolha.uol.com.br/2012/08/15/brasil-e-ouro-em-intolerancia/.↩

8. Editor’s Note: See “Big Sibling Janet Napolitano May Be Looking For You,” by Michael Avramovich, published on July 13, 2012, at http://touchstonemag.com/merecomments/2012/07/big-sibling-janet-napolitano-may-be-looking-for-you/.↩

9. See Political Ponerology, 2007.↩

10. Editor’s Note: “Regarding the difference between gays and gay activists, I repeat: can homosexuals be emotionally stable, honest, and reliable people? Yes. But gay activist ideology instills in them a psychotic pride that induces all imbalances and misdeeds. German patriots were normal people until Nazi ideology turned them into criminals. Any ideology that places a group above the traditional principles of morality eventually turns it into a gang of delinquents.” [Olavo de Carvalho, in a post on March 20, 2013, on Facebook].↩