Brazil’s Bolsonaro Administration Hijacks Leftist and Homosexualist Causes of Socialists Using Its Minister Damares Alves

Brazil’s Bolsonaro Administration Hijacks Leftist and Homosexualist Causes of Socialists Using Its Minister Damares Alves

By Julio Severo

On her trip to Rome to meet Pope Francis in December 2019, Dr. Damares Alves, who heads the Brazilian Ministry of Human Rights, gave an exclusive interviewto the BBC, with answers that were sometimes conservative and often progressive.

Damares Alves, Michelle Bolsonaro (President Bolsonaro’s wife) and Pope Francis

During the visit to the pope, Damares was accompanying Michelle Bolsonaro, wife of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

Perhaps Damares’ most progressive response was her comment that she loves very much the progressive Pope Francis.

Perhaps Damares’ most feminist response was her comment that women can do whatever they want, meaning that women can occupy all traditionally male posts, spaces and professions, including in the military.

Perhaps it is not even Damares’ fault for praising the leftist pope or feminist ambitions. According to Braulia Ribeiro, using leftist issues was not an initiative of Damares, but of Bolsonaro himself. She said:

“When President Bolsonaro took over the Brazilian presidency, he created the Ministry of Women, Family and Human Rights (MWFHR). He expanded the ministry to contain the entire identity agenda of the former socialist administration.”

The statement by Braulia, which attributes Bolsonaro to the creation of MWFHR, makes it clear that, under Bolsonaro’s guidance, “Damares not only hijacked the causes left-wingers most love, the causes that gave them a monopoly on ‘social well-being,’ but managed to redefine them.” That is, the Marxist causes in the former socialist administration in Brazil (including the gay agenda) remain in the Bolsonaro administration, with one difference: labels have been changed.

In July 2020, the Bolsonaro administration celebrated the International LGBT “Pride” Day — a celebration that proves that the Bolsonaro administration is firm in its decision to hijack the gay agenda.

Although the vast majority of Bolsonaro’s voters voted for him to get rid of these oppressive causes, Braulia not only justified the use of left-wing causes, but excused the millions of dollars that are spent to support these causes in the Bolsonaro administration. She said:

“I personally believe that the ideal government does not patronize its people… But let’s face it, after so many years suffocated by the excessive patronization of a government that castrates independent initiatives, we know that in practice this is an impossible ideal for Brazil now.”

It is a great tragedy that the Bolsonaro administration is hijacking leftist causes. It is an equally great tragedy that Bolsonaro does not use this expensive strategy with money from his own pocket and the pockets of his children and ministers, but with the money from Brazilian taxpayers, who are forced to pay high, oppressive and abusive taxes.

It is not the first time that the Bolsonaro administration has hijacked leftist causes. When Abraham Weintraub was minister of education, he promised to create many more daycare centers than the previous socialist administrations of Lula and Dilma. At the time, I said that this was right-wing socialism or statism.

That is, the very soul of socialism is being promoted, but with a right-wing label. Instead of offering legitimately conservative solutions and goals, all that the Bolsonaro administration is doing, according to Braulia, is to hijack leftist “solutions” and goals, with different packaging, but the same content.

This clarification is very important, as individuals are attacking Damares as if the leftist causes hijacked by the Bolsonaro administration were her sole fault. For example, psychologist Marisa Lobo has flattered Bolsonaro and attacked Damares on this issue. She treats Bolsonaro as an innocent conservative man allegedly being sabotaged by Damares. She seems to ignore or pretend to ignore that the “strategy” of hijacking left-wing causes, including the gay agenda, was Bolsonaro’s initiative, not Damares’.

Braulia Ribeiro, former director of YWAM (Youth With A Mission) in Brazil, is now a columnist for Brasil Sem Medo, the website of astrologer Olavo de Carvalho, a self-exiled Brazilian immigrant in the U.S. Although she is also a columnist for Ultimato, one of the most left-wing Presbyterian magazines in Brazil and she has effectively supported Bolsonaro’s “strategy” of hijacking the gay agenda and other leftist causes, Carvalho’s website, which tries to give a right-wing appearance, published such an article, which excuses in every possible way leftism in the Bolsonaro administration.

By publishing such an article, Carvalho’s website approved and endorsed everything that Braulia said, including that conservative-looking leftism in the Bolsonaro administration is Bolsonaro’s own initiative.

Ultimato’s leftist website doesn’t just fire Braulia because it knows that behind her right-wing appearance she is capable of shrewd defenses of leftism, and her article on Brasil Sem Fear only confirms this shrewdness, which defends leftism and even the gay agenda for the sake of rightism itself.

I do not wonder that Braulia did not condemn the gay agenda under the Bolsonaro administration. As director of YWAM, in 2009 she was shamelessly defending the gay agenda, and she attacked conservative evangelicals who fought against that agenda. Today, with that baggage, she became a confused woman by flattering several occultists. Check out my article: “Was Braulia Ribeiro, Former Director of Brazilian YWAM, Reduced to Mere Propagandist of a Witch and an Astrologer?”

Braulia’s information that Bolsonaro himself is behind Damares’ defense of leftist causes may help us to understand Damares’ interview with the BBC that was marked by leftism.

It is important to pay attention to the interview she gave to the BBC because she is, in the group of evangelicals who occupy posts in the Bolsonaro administration, the most prominent evangelical personality.

If Damares’ answers had been exposed to me in a particular way, I would have contacted her to offer her particular suggestions on where to improve. But as she decided, through the BBC, to make her views public internationally, all readers can read and comment. I just fit in with these readers and commentators, offering my equally public suggestions, which can help not only her, but other Christians who have similar stances or are about to support her stances.

Progressives are unlikely to praise Damares’ progressive responses, as they demand from those praised by them 100 percent of commitment to the progressive agenda. Damares does not have this kind of commitment to the left.

Leftists are so demanding that if a minister is largely progressive, but gives a conservative views, progressives attack him ruthlessly.

In contrast, conservatives are much more tolerant. If a politician gives conservative views, but he is not conservative, he is not rejected by most conservatives.

Left-wingers demand 100 percent commitment to the progressive agenda. Conservatives do not require 100 percent commitment to the conservative agenda.

What I am going to do next is to quote Damares’ responses to the BBC and introduce my comments that may help to improve certain attitudes that I consider incompatible or weak, from a conservative or Christian point of view.

Speaking of human rights, Damares told the BBC:

“We are going to the origin, the source, which is the Declaration (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and talking to Brazil. Is protecting women a human right? It is. Is protecting children a human right? It is. And the elderly? So, we started to tell Brazil what human rights really are… people, food, access to education are human rights.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not defend, promote or mention homosexuality once. Even so, Damares’ ministry, like all previous leftist administrations, treats the homosexual issues as human rights. Perhaps the left-wing virus is already infecting everyone. Leftist neocon Hillary Clinton said, when she was the U.S. Secretary of State, that gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. At the time, the greatest American conservatives denounced this statement. Today, it seems that everyone on the left and many on the right follow Hillary’s philosophy. And Damares’ version, watery or not, softened or not, seems to differ little from Hillary’s version.

When Damares says that food and access to education are human rights, does she mean that the government has an obligation to provide free food and education? This is socialism! If people want food and education, they need to work and fight. Those who are poor must necessarily depend on voluntary charity, not coercive “charity” through taxes, because when the government “gives” food and education, in fact what it is doing is stealing from the work of others to distribute among others. This is socialism. Governmental “charity” is very expensive for workers’ pockets. What the government should do, instead of stealing from workers in the name of “charity,” is to offer generous tax breaks for individual citizens who do voluntary charity.

On homosexuality, Damares said:

“Regarding the LGBT population: we had a discussion about what is the priority of LGBT people… Let’s get a little boat and go to the riverside communities to find out how the gay little boy is doing. We found that public policy did not reach him. Where are the indigenous gays? Where are the indigenous lesbian girls?”

With her answer, Damares recognized a homosexual identity that comes since childhood. What was clear in her response is that homosexuality is not behavior, but identity. The homosexual movement has been preaching for decades that its choices and conduct are identity. The left embraced this strategy and turned it into propaganda. And now do we see right-wingers also embracing it? This embracing becomes shocking when done by Damares, who is a Pentecostal pastor. Pentecostalism, within Christianity, is one of the greatest forces of resistance against the left. But Damares, with her Pentecostalism, is barely resisting on the homosexual issue.

If, along with the left, the right-wing movement embraces homosexuality as an identity, right-wingers will no longer have any basis or justification to prevent school teachers and media propaganda from indoctrinating children and adolescents to question their sexual biology and not to question homosexual dogmas. Whether you like it or not, this embracing strengthens this progressive trend.

About transvestites, Damares said:

“In the urban center, we realize that the group that suffers the most violence is transvestites. We started talking to them: why do they suffer so much violence? I love them and I have been following them for a long time. For a long time in my life I would go to the streets at dawn to embrace transvestites, to take care of them, as a human rights activist, pastor, friend, mother, woman.”

Damares’ concern and affection for transvestites are demonstrations of Christianity. But there are things the State must do and Christians must not do. And there are things that Christians must do and the State must not do. For example, Jesus always forgave sinners. He never, in his earthly ministry, punished sinners. He never arrested anyone. And we Christians must imitate Him. Does this mean that we Christians must occupy government posts to transform the government into an extension of the church to release affection and forgiveness to all criminals? If the church should always show mercy and never punish, should the state imitate the church?

My personal view is that if Damares wishes to continue her Christian concern and affection for homosexuals, going out on the streets to evangelize, the ideal place is not in the government, which has neither the function of being a church nor the role of evangelizing.

Continuing to talk about transvestites, Damares said:

“Their big claim is employability. There is prejudice to employ a transvestite. It is easy for a lesbian, a transsexual, a gay to be well placed in the job market, but transvestites have been left out. So, we are taking care of this population specifically: bringing training programs, employability, talking to businessmen. I find transvestite teachers on the streets, special girls, mathematicians on the street prostituting themselves. They claim that the market does not absorb them.”

What worries me is Damares’ compassion for transvestites (whom she insists on calling with female nouns, as if they were really women) linked to the government strength she has now. If transvestites want jobs, let them be trained and respect the rules of good coexistence, including morality. No businessman or business should be forced to employ people who are easily prostituted. Taking away the freedom of businessmen to choose whom to employ is socialism.

What worried me most about Damares’ response was her comment that there are transvestites who are teachers, but the market does not absorb them. I would not like to have small children of mine in a school with a male teacher deceitfully dressed as a woman setting a very bad example for the students. Will the government impose that schools should accept such transvestite teachers so that they may have a job? Is employment for transvestites above the moral well-being of children? Damares’ comment indicated this progressive direction.

The danger and threat are real. In an interview, Marina Reidel, who heads the Office for the Promotion of the Rights of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals, which operates in the Ministry of Women, Family and Human Rights (MWFHR) of Minister Damares Alves, said that when she revealed her homosexuality at school the students were curious, asking questions for days, while the other teachers, whom he accused of creating a “negative” environment and even bullying, tried to protect students from this bad influence. We have reached the absurd point where teachers are embarrassed to stop the bad influence of homosexual teachers.

Soon after, completing her response on transvestites, Damares said to the BBC:

“President Bolsonaro has the banner of fighting violence in all the population. So, violence against transvestites and gays is part of this package. And it is working.”

Damares talked about the lack of jobs for transvestites and added a comment about violence to them. Would a company not employing a transvestite be treated as violence or discrimination? How does the government treat schools and companies that refuse to employ transvestites? Are public schools, which are now under Bolsonaro’s control, forced to hire transvestites? Are private schools required to hire transvestites?

Damares spoke about the Bolsonaro administration’s efforts to fight violence against homosexuals. But she said nothing about whether the Bolsonaro administration is doing anything to fight violence committed by homosexuals. During the presidency of socialists Lula and Dilma, the Brazilian government only registered homosexuals exclusively as victims. It only computed “sexual orientation” in criminal cases when homosexuals were alleged victims. When homosexuals were murderers and criminals, the socialist administrations in Brazil were silent and registered absolutely nothing about such “sexual orientation.”

Today, under Bolsonaro’s presidency, the Brazilian government has a golden chance of tracking, registering and revealing how many homosexuals commit murders and rapes against boys. So far, Bolsonaro has not commented on this matter.

In fact, the same staff of homosexual activists who worked in the past socialist administrations remains active in the Bolsonaro administration, receiving salaries paid by taxpayers. Nor do I understand the continuity of this harmful agenda in the Bolsonaro administration, where homosexuals are only portrayed as victims in need of state protection, never as criminals. Are left and right governments at the service of the homosexual agenda? Check here the Bolsonaro administration continuing the homosexual policies of previous administrations: http://bit.ly/2ra6Eea

For years I have been asking conservative lawmakers and politicians to collect data on how many homosexual criminals there are, but they couldn’t because the former socialist administrations simply stopped everything. However, with Bolsonaro, shouldn’t this data be easy to obtain?

The U.K. government conducted a study that revealed that homosexuals are more likely to commit murder than to be murdered. Check out the study here on WND.

My book “The Homosexual Movement,” published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers in 1998, has an entire chapter showing that the biggest serial killers in the world were homosexuals.

It is a total injustice to forever highlight homosexuals as victims and spare them when they commit crimes, especially when their biggest victims are boys. Hiding that fact should be a crime. The Bolsonaro administration should correct this serious injustice.

The left’s greatest enemy is reality itself. Show the covered facts and the left is defeated. The biggest enemy of the homosexual movement is reality itself. Show the covered facts and this movement is defeated.

Damares also said:

“Our board dedicated to the LGBT community we inherited from the past and remains intact. The director herself who came from the other administration continues, an extremely sensible woman, Professor Marina, an extremely sensible transsexual, and has helped me to guide the policies for the LGBT population.”

Damares confessed that she inherited, from the previous socialist administration, an entire department with gay socialist activists and everything was left intact. This is not conservatism, much less Christianity. This is socialism and support for the gay agenda. Does this mean that Bolsonaro’s entire speech against socialism was merely a facade and hypocrisy?

The homosexual office, under socialist administrations, was headed and continues today to be headed by a man, called Marina Reidel, whom Damares insists on identifying as a “transsexual,” and treating as a “woman.” The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary thus defines “transsexual”:

“A person who strongly identifies with the opposite sex and may seek to live as a member of this sex especially by undergoing surgery and hormone therapy to obtain the necessary physical appearance (as by changing the external sex organs)”

Treating a man by giving him the fictitious identity of “woman” is a claim from the gay movement, fully embraced by the left. Now, also embraced by the right, which demonstrates that it deserves full distrust of Christians.

Although twice, in a very short comment, Damares stressed that the man disguised as a woman is “sensible,” like all homosexuals he is reckless and talkative, having opened his mouth in an interview. He confessed that the Bolsonaro administration is promoting, without fanfare, the whole gay agenda that the previous socialist administration was promoting with fanfare.

I don’t know if Damares’ progressive stance is the result of her private stances or the influence of friends. She was already very friendly with Marina Silva, who had got Liberation Theology in the Catholic Church, but she never left it after supposedly converting to the Assemblies of God. Damares has also worked at YWAM and is very friendly with Braulia Ribeiro, former director of YWAM. Braulia has been self-exiled in the U.S. for several years, having to leave Brazil because the government and the leftist media persecuted her because of her stance to defend indigenous children threatened with murder in rituals of indigenous witchdoctors. I have always supported 100 percent Christian efforts to rescue these innocent indigenous children. I have several articles on my blog against the sacrifice of indigenous children.

However, the clash that roared in Brazil a decade ago did not only involve the question of the lives of these indigenous children whose sacrifice is defended by the left as an indigenous culture. The clash also involved the homosexual agenda. Although having as main focus to fight the gay agenda, I got involved in the defense of indigenous children. In contrast, Braulia, although having as main focus to fight the sacrifice of indigenous children, became involved in the issue of the gay agenda to attack Christians who denounce this agenda. You can read my full 2009 article here: Director of YWAM in Brazil attacks Christian activism against the anti-‘homophobia’ bills and homosexual “marriage.”

Perhaps in order to appear politically correct in order for the left to accept her fight against child sacrifice, Braulia sacrificed Christians who fight against the gay agenda, throwing them to the lions on the left.

Was Damares paying attention to Braulia or her mindset? So why doesn’t she have against the gay agenda, which seriously threatens children and families, the same commitment that she has against the indigenous “culture” of child sacrifice?

The Damares I knew, and who did not follow the example of Braulia, was Damares who praised my book “The Homosexual Movement” for congressmen. The Damares I don’t know is Damares who praisedToni Reis, one of the greatest gay activists in Brazil and one of the creators of the infamous gay indoctrination program for schools, as “advocate of children.”

However, not everything is discouraging news. In this traumatic context of progressivism advancing within the Bolsonaro administration, Damares has embraced an extremely positive stance by opening a room that no socialist administration opens: She has been giving opportunity to ex-homosexuals. She told the BBC:

“I defend the right to free speech. If someone says that he experienced homosexuality and today he no longer experiences it, he has the right to say so. This group came to me to say that they can’t say that without being persecuted. Our ministry must guarantee the right to free speech.”

She also said:

“And it is possible, yes, that someone no longer wants to experience homosexuality, just as someone no longer wants to experience bisexuality or heterosexuality. This transition is normal, it happens. So why cannot I recognize that there were people who stopped experiencing homosexuality? They exist, they should be respected, and one of the things that people complained a lot was the freedom to write their stories. So this group exists and contacted me.”

The worrying aspect of this response to the BBC was that she suggested that the transition of biological man or woman, whom she calls “heterosexuality,” to abandon homosexuality and vice versa is normal. It is not normal for a man to reject his sexual biology. It is abnormal. It is a profound mental, moral and physical dysfunction.

Perhaps, to look like a person who treats everyone equally, Damares tried to be nice to everyone. But, whether you realize it or not, such an attitude would make us seem more than God, who does not recognize any normality in homosexuality and has not given any authority to any government to make this recognition.

On the controversy of “gay healing” (a term invented by the homosexual movement to sabotage the efforts of Christians to help men and women get out of the homosexual sin), Damares said:

“Now, gay healing is something else. It is even a pejorative term for some people who want to stop experiencing homosexuality. I will deal with this issue very maturely, respecting the condition in which he is living, if he is happy now because he left homosexuality, he will remain happy. If you want to be a homosexual again, you will.”

Again, Damares treated it as if it were normal for a man or woman to reject his sexual biology. And if I no longer recognize myself as poor, will the government guarantee me the right to apply the stroke of my fantasy in the banks, forcing them to accept my fantasy of rich? What confusion will the world become if the government starts to respect and impose that others should respect our fantasies?

If the government requires everyone to respect a man who has the fantasy of being a woman, including by giving him certificates and documents to prove that he is what he is not, I demand that the government do the same thing for me, forcing everyone, including banks, to recognize me as rich and giving me certificates and documents to prove that I am what I am not.

I am not against anyone who has fantasies, however bizarre. But they should live their fantasies in the privacy of their homes, without any government support, without any support from laws protecting them as “victims” of normal “biased” people who do not accept bizarre fantasies.

For the BBC, Damares made it clear that the government’s hotline, in the past always used by homosexuals to denounce their enemies, will now also serve the purpose of denouncing those who do not accept ex-homosexuals:

“What can there be in our ministry: if they are being victims of violence, they will have the right to denounce and we will have the obligation to listen. They are being persecuted because they are stopping experiencing homosexuality. We will protect them too.”

So, as far as you can understand, homosexuals can continue denouncing whoever criticizes them, but whoever criticizes ex-homosexuals may also be denounced. In practice, she lit a candle for God and another for the devil.

Yet, Damares included a worrying comment. She said:

“I’m not going to do any campaign with a poster saying ‘stop being gay, stop being bisexual, stop being straight.’ No, that doesn’t exist, there is no public policy for that.”

The government makes several interventions in favor of the public well-being. The government, for example, does not equate smoking with quitting smoking. On the contrary, the government makes it clear that quitting smoking is much better and healthier than smoking. The government discourages smoking and encourages everyone not to smoke, because smoking causes many health problems.

Considering that the homosexual behavior is proven to be harmful to health, why does the government refuse to intervene by discouraging such behavior and banning homosexual propaganda? In contrast, government interventions, with propagandas basically portraying homosexuals as victims, continue. State intervention only in favor of homosexuality? If state intervention against homosexuality is not possible, why campaign against smoking?

Damares’ dilemma is not a new thing. In the 1980s, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who was Surgeon General in the conservative administration of Ronald Reagan, pioneered the contradictory launch of strong campaigns against smoking and campaigns against AIDS that legitimized the homosexual sin. What made Koop’s case scandalous was that he was:

1. Calvinist and conservative.

2. Close ally of the conservative Calvinist philosopher Francis Schaeffer.

3. He was one of the most important officials in one of the most important conservative administrations in the United States, the Reagan administration.

Would Damares be trying to imitate Calvinist Koop?

President Donald Trump passed a strict anti-smoking law in the U.S. to protect young people from the dangers of smoking. This kind of state intervention is healthy and should be applied to the homosexual problem. But the Trump administration experienced the same contradictory reality as Koop: President Donald Trump was considered the most pro-homosexual president in U.S. history.

Then, in a very feminist tone, Damares told the BBC about her ministry’s central message about the issue of women:

“The message will be: a woman’s place is wherever she wants.”

In essence, her statement reveals the very ambition of feminism, aided by Marxism, to use the government to force people to accept unnatural equality, with women in the army leading men, but with those same women refusing, in other areas, to carry cement bags and other weights as men do.

She mistook Hollywood for reality. In the movies, women, even soldiers, perform equally and often even better than male soldiers do. But does reality support fiction?

No country has more advanced human rights laws than the United States does, which is facing an epidemic of rape and sexual assault with the growing inclusion of women in the military. Feminist and Marxist equality in the U.S. military has resulted in tragedy. This equality is artificial. Forcing the fiction of artificial equality is a Soviet utopia.

Even in Israel, sexual equality has resulted in the military engaging in sexual activity and the Israeli government paying the expenses of more than 1,000 abortions a year for female soldiers. Because of their biology, one of the things that female soldiers do most in the Israeli army is sex and pregnancy, and the unnatural and criminal result is abortion.

Is it not clear, contrary to Damares’ feminist and Marxist declaration, that the place of women is not in the military as female soldiers?

This stance is probably not an initiative of Damares. Bolsonaro’s presidential plane is flown by a female military pilot. It’s a clear feminist message, isn’t it?

Is man’s place wherever he wants to be? Of course not. A man cannot get pregnant or breastfeed. Therefore, to say that men can occupy any place is crazy, although, for the sake of homosexuality, socialist laws impose that men should work with women to care for children in daycare centers.

Little is said about man in the messages from the Ministry of Human Rights and when it is spoken it is in a negative tone, or man as a mere helper of women’s ambitions — a perversion of God’s project, who created women to help men, not vice versa. In God’s plan, woman is a helper to man. Wanting to transform men, as feminism imposes, as mere helpers of the women goes against God and will inevitably end in disaster.

I am also concerned that in general, in the messages of Damares’ ministry, the family seems to be placed as a potential aggressor of the child and men is placed as potential aggressors of women. My perception of Damares’ ministry:

* In the relationship between men and women, men are portrayed as a source of physical and psychological abuse against women.

* In the relationship between family and State, the family is placed as a source of abuse against children and the State is placed as a source of protection.

While men use physical force for violence, women have great psychological power to inflict violence, including inducing other men in their machinations. The scandalous case of Flordelis, a Brazilian gospel singer and congresswoman accused of planning the death of her own younger pastor husband, is an example. She induced her own children to kill her husband.

Potentially, everyone can become aggressors. In fact, the one who tortured, abused and killed most was the State, which slaughtered millions during history. Islamic and communist governments are champions of human rights abuse.

Feminists don’t like it, leftists don’t like it and even Damares may not like it, but a woman’s place is not wherever she wants and the government has no right to force men to accept women or female leadership in male spaces. Such state intervention is harmful and patently socialist.

When the BBC demanded from Damares the reason why Bolsonaro placed very few women in high levels of government posts, Damares replied that Bolsonaro “chose according the technical profile.” I respectfully disagree with that answer, because at the highest levels of government Bolsonaro himself confessed that he had blindly chosen Ricardo Velez as Minister of Education. There was no respect for the technical profile, but merely submission to Rasputin’s crazy recommendations, as Olavo de Carvalho is known for his enormous influence in the government.

One of the biggest consequences of these blind appointments, regardless of the technical profile, was the shame that the Bolsonaro administration suffered internationally when it had to fire the Minister of Culture, Roberto Alvim, a Carvalho adherent, after his nationalist speech plagiarized the speech of a Nazi leader. All the major U.S. media published headlines about Alvim. If the Bolsonaro administration avoided blindly following the influence of Olavo de Carvalho, he would have easily avoided this international humiliation.

BBC News Brazil asked Damares: “I talked to people close to you who told me that you have causes very close to those on the left. That makes sense? Do you have any affinity with the feminist agenda, for example?”

Damares replied:

“It is not that my causes are the same as those on the left. It is that, for some time, the left said that it owned human rights. This cause has no father and mother, it belongs to all of us.”

The BBC has learned from people close to Damares that she leans very much to the left. Her BBC interview only confirmed these inclinations.

The problem is not only that Damares is dealing with areas and issues that the left obsessively addresses, giving too much emphasis. For example, homosexuals are less than 2 percent of the population and homosexual activists are much less than that. But the governmental and media attention given to them makes it appear that they are the majority of the population. The biggest problem is that Damares deals with these issues largely with the same view on the left. For example, if a man identifies himself as a woman, the left treats him as a woman — and Damares does the same thing.

Respecting the fantasy, based on sexual perversion, of mentally ill individuals is not conservatism and is incompatible with the Christianity that Damares professes. It is incompatible with the Pentecostalism that Damares professes. In a milder way, it is only continuing the leftist revolution of homosexual normalization, bringing immense damage to Christian conservatism, whose most naive adherents may think that Damares’ practices are conservative, when in fact they are leftist practices with some conservative embellishments, although I must point out that her stance of making space for ex-homosexuals is a conservative and Christian practice. But I fear that the mixture that she makes of conservative practices with compromise to socialism could adulterate Brazilian conservatism, including Pentecostalism.

In general, in the aspects in which Damares continues the leftist revolution in homosexual issues, it can be said that this continuity is nothing more than efforts to plagiarize leftism.

It can be said that there is an ideological plagiarism, where the progressive ideology received a new packaging, but the content remains the same, although with some conservative touches.

I believe that this is largely a problem due to Damares’ history of involvement with Marina Silva and politicized Protestants in line with the Theology of Integral Mission (TIM), which is a Protestant plagiarism of Liberation Theology. In fact, who can blame Damares? Brazil, which has abundant Protestant references from TIM, has no conservative references on issues such as Children Protective Services and ECA, a Brazilian law that punishes parents for spanking their children and bans any legal punishment to underage rapists and killers. Any criminal under 18 goes unpunished in Brazil. The lack of reference is so great that the right-wing Collor administration approved ECA in 1990 after ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a globalist leftist document to usurp parental rights and, using the issue of children’s rights, expand the rights of local government and, ultimately, global government.

The fact that the right-wing Collor administration continued the leftist globalist revolution in the area of children only shows that conservatives without references end up, understanding or not, continuing the leftist and globalist revolutions.

The only place where there are excellent conservative references on these issues is the U.S. Under pressure from conservative evangelical groups, the United States has not yet ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is why the United States does not have an ECA to stand in the way of when the American justice system needs to arrest and punish underage rapists and murderers. Who can blame Damares for not having these excellent conservative American references?

Although Jair Bolsonaro said in 2018 that ECA’s place is in the latrine, his administration in practice is expanding ECA and its implementers, the Children Protective Services. All with conservative varnish. The left is being shamelessly plagiarized in the Bolsonaro administration.

Hopefully leftists will also start plagiarizing conservatives. I mean American conservatives. If this plagiarism happens, we will see leftist government officials eliminating ECA and the special treatment that gay activists receive in the media and in the government.

BBC News Brazil then asked: “Many people also say that feminism is not an agenda of the left, it is something bigger and of all women. Do you agree?”

Damares replied:

“We have legislation in Brazil that guarantees to women the right to have an abortion in the cases of rape, risk of life for the mother and in case of anencephaly. The legislation is there, this is the cause of the Brazilian Congress, I am not going to do activism against or pro-abortion, I will take care of women, bring food and professional training.”

I need to respectfully disagree. If a baby is a human life in all cases, why should not a baby who was not to blame for being conceived in a violent act of rape be considered a human life? In rape, a woman is a victim. But if a baby is conceived, he is also a victim. Years ago, U.S. attorney Rebecca Kiessling testified at the Brazilian Congress in Brasilia about the value of human life in cases of rape. She can speak from experience, as she was conceived in a violent act of rape. She is a victim. To accept a law that condemns to death a baby who was a victim of rape is to condemn the victim twice.

If the mission of Damares’ ministry is to defend children, why not defend children whose conception occurred in the violence of rape?

If her mission is to “take care of women, bring food and professional training,” who will pay the huge bill for all this? Who will pay for women’s food and professional training? All of this is very expensive. If Bolsonaro and his ministers are using money from their own pockets, it is their problem.

Yet, transferring the expenses of welfare state to taxpayers is an injustice.

When the BBC asked her about her meeting with the pope, she replied:

“I love very much this pope. I like him too much. Brazil is a Catholic country, a country with a Catholic majority, we respect the Catholic community too much, we work in partnership. Being with the Pope is an honor and a pride for any human being, regardless of his religion. I will be with one of the most impactful and impressive figures of our age, who is Pope Francis.”

If Francis were a Protestant, he would be the perfect idol of Protestant followers of TIM. But passion for Pope Francis is a feeling that no Pentecostal has. Passion for Pope Francis is a feeling that no conservative has, unless he also has a passion for progressive globalist causes embraced by the Vatican, including the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

On October 2020, U.N. Secretary-General, socialist Catholic Antonio Guterres, praised Pope Francis’ historic comments in support of same-sex civil unions after the pope saidthat homosexuals are “children of God and have a right to a family.”

As a conservative, I have had great admiration for Ronald Reagan for decades, the most conservative president in recent U.S. history. In fact, he is the president I most admire. I have great admiration for his fight against abortion. I have great admiration for his efforts to honor the Bible in American culture. But passion is a feeling that I reserve only for Jesus Christ.

I have respect for the popes when they make pro-life statements, but passion for progressive Pope Francis is a common feeling only among progressive or socialist Christians. Such passion is a totally inconsistent feeling for conservatives, let alone Pentecostals. How cannot I be astonished by Damares’ response?

Francis, who is known for not condemning socialist politicians, said that Christian politicians who fight against the gay agenda are similar to Hitler and anti-Semites. So it is impossible for a truly conservative Christian to have a passion for this leftist pope.

The biggest anti-Semites today are Muslims, who are greatly pampered by the pope. Christian politicians fighting against the gay agenda are largely American evangelical politicians who love Israel and the Jews.

The pope seems to be unaware that Hitler and the upper echelons of the Nazi government were homosexuals.

Damares said nothing about the pope’s stance on treating Christian politicians fighting against the gay agenda as similar to Hitler and anti-Semites. I hope that, in her confessed passion for the progressive pope, she does not have the same opinion about Christian politicians fighting against the gay agenda, because although I am not a politician, I encourage Christian politicians to fight against this agenda.

In the end, BBC News Brazil asked Damares: “Part of your supporters will not like your comment, as they call this pope a communist. What do you think of that?”

The minister’s response was:

“Some people think this pope is too progressive, others think he is conservative. What do I know of Pope Francis? A man who cares about education, about family. I just have to admire this man. So, it’s my stance. I like the pope. There are people who criticize him. I like him so much.”

Actually, Francis is conservative on some issues, especially in his correct stance on abortion. But on the homosexual issue, his stance tends more to the Catholic left. Perhaps it is exactly this mixture of conservatism and leftism in Francis that makes him the target of the passion of Minister Damares Alves, a Pentecostal pastor who has equally conservative and progressive stances.

I understand when Damares says that Francis is a “man who cares about education, about family.” But is this concern correct? The Vatican, with the leftist Pope Francis or the rightist Pope John Paul 2, has always supported the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. In contrast, because of pressure from U.S. evangelicals, the United States, which under leftist President Bill Clinton signed this leftist convention, has never ratified it.

I align myself with conservative American evangelicals against this convention. Does Damares, who is now the most important ECA implementer in Brazil, align with the Vatican’s traditionally leftist stance in favor of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child?

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is the mother of ECA. Damares’ ministry has advanced ECA like never before, aligning itself with the Vatican’s leftism and falling out of line with American evangelical conservatism.

At the Vatican, John Paul himself signed and ratified the convention, showing that in this matter the Vatican makes a bad mistake, with leftist or right-wing popes.

Having a socialist in government who only lights candles for the devil is horrible. But although a socialist-conservative Pentecostal is far better than a pure socialist atheist, lighting a candle for the devil and another candle for God is not healthy in spiritual and ethical terms. And it is not a good testimony.

The fact is that when the Bolsonaro administration, as a strategy or not, celebrated International LGBT “Pride” Day, the gay agenda was promoted by “conservatives.” When the Bolsonaro administration celebrated the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the celebration was to a U.N. document that is against the family. There is no escape from this reality.

For this reason alone, will I stop supporting Bolsonaro, Damares and Pope Francis? No. I will only support them when they embrace anti-abortion stances. When they celebrate leftist and gay agendas, I will not support them.

Undoubtedly, Damares’ presence in the Human Rights Ministry is much better than the presence of a radical socialist activist. But her long interview with the BBC indicated that her alignment with the Pope Francis model, where abortion is condemned, but where the gay agenda is not fully condemned, leaves her and Francis close and far from Christian conservatism on important issues affecting the family.

However, blaming Damares exclusively for the leftism disguised as conservatism in the Bolsonaro administration is a gross mistake. As Braulia Ribeiro made clear, all leftism, including the gay agenda, in the Bolsonaro administration is Bolsonaro’s own initiatives. And Braulia’s view was approved and endorsed by Brasil Sem Medo, the website of the astrologer Olavo de Carvalho.

Is it a Brazil without fear of embracing conservative-looking leftism? Having confused Carvalho as a Rasputin is to attract countless confusions, which are already visible and evident in the Bolsonaro administration, leaving Bolsonaro voters equally confused, because they do not understand how a conservative government has so much leftism. Rasputin’s fault, who is a real mess factory.

I pray that Damares, as a Pentecostal, may escape these confusions.

Portuguese version of this article: Governo Bolsonaro aparelha causas esquerdistas e homossexualistas do PT usando sua Ministra Damares Alves

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Brazil’s Bolsonaro administration celebrates International LGBT “Pride” Day

The Hijacking of Homosexuality by the Right, a Challenge for Christians

What You Don’t Know about Homosexual Activism in Brazil’s Bolsonaro Administration

Understanding Brazil’s New Right and Its Homosexual Grandfather and Its Occult Father

United Nations praises the Pope for backing same-sex unions: secretary-general of the U.N. welcomes Francis’s remarks that homosexuals “have a right to a family” in move which has enraged conservative Catholics

Was Braulia Ribeiro, Former Director of Brazilian YWAM, Reduced to Mere Propagandist of a Witch and an Astrologer?

Recommended Reading on Damares Alves:

Insane reaction from the left against abstinence message from Brazil’s Bolsonaro administration to teenagers

Bolsonaro administration in Brazil embraces a leftist stance by failing to confront gay adoption and by ordering evangelical minister to confront “violence against homosexuals”

Brazilian minister receives terrorist left-wing threats but she is mocked by the left for claiming Frozen character Elsa is a lesbian who is turning girls into lesbians

Source: http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/2021/01/brazils-bolsonaro-administration.html